Update: December 16, 2025: Today, Senators Booker and Lee reintroduced the EQIP Improvement Act, bipartisan legislation to reform the federal conservation program by lowering payment caps for large operations and directing more funding to small and mid-sized farmers.

Original Post: August 18, 2025: The factory farm gas industry—backed by major meat and dairy corporations—continues to thrive not because of market demand or climate benefits, but because of government-sponsored greenwashing. What was once sold as a climate solution is increasingly exposed as a thinly veiled subsidy to prop up industrial animal agriculture. And the latest boost comes courtesy of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

As we’ve detailed in our recent report, the promise of manure-based methane capture—often branded as “renewable natural gas” or “biogas”—masks an ugly truth: this model props up the worst practices of factory farming, including massive manure lagoons, extreme confinement, and no access to pasture. Far from reducing harm, factory farm gas locks in the very systems that are driving ecological collapse, antibiotic resistance, and the mistreatment of animals.

Big Beautiful Bill, Big Beautiful Boondoggle

Despite its catastrophic costs to the environment and rural communities, the factory farm gas industry has found a reliable ally in Congress. Buried within a sweeping House budget package—nicknamed the Big Beautiful Bill—was an extension of the Clean Fuel Production Credit (Section 45Z), a fuel-based tax credit that now runs through 2031.

Notably, as Ben Lilliston of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy put it, “Within the House budget bill, Republicans wiped out most policies promoting renewable energy that were included in the nation’s biggest climate policy, known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).” But factory farm gas? That got a golden ticket, courtesy of an extension of the Clean Fuel Production tax credit to 2031. The result is a tax policy that further enriches not just global gas corporations, but also big meat and dairy companies, the most polluting actors in agriculture.

How generous are these giveaways? A recent analysis found that 95% of the revenue from factory farm gas operations comes not from selling gas, but from public subsidies. This is not a business model—it’s a public cash transfer to an industry already responsible for rampant pollution, animal suffering, and rural disenfranchisement. In an interview with Sentient Media about the then-proposed legislation, Farm Forward’s Executive Director, Andrew DeCoriolis, stated that the bill is a “grab bag” for meat and dairy interests.

There’s a Better Way: Reforming EQIP

Not all federal agricultural spending is misguided. Some policies—when structured correctly—can support farmers who are improving soil health, protecting animal welfare, and building more resilient food systems. That’s the vision behind the EQIP Improvement Act of 2025, introduced last month by Congresswoman Jahana Hayes (CT-05).

EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) is meant to help farmers adopt conservation practices. But for years, it’s been skewed toward the largest, most industrial operations—including factory farm gas projects that require massive manure lagoons to qualify. The EQIP Improvement Act would rebalance the program: prioritizing small and mid-sized farmers, rewarding truly effective conservation efforts, and giving states more flexibility to meet local needs.

This is exactly the kind of reform we need. Instead of funneling billions to the biggest polluters under the banner of “climate action,” Congress should invest in farmers who are doing the hard work of transition—those building a future of ethical, sustainable food production.

The Bottom Line

The rise of factory farm gas is not an energy revolution. It’s a government-sponsored greenwashing campaign for the meat and dairy industry. As long as Washington continues to give taxpayer dollars to entrench large-scale biodigesters, real reform will remain out of reach.

We need to stop rewarding pollution and start supporting farmers who do it right. The EQIP Improvement Act is a step in that direction—and it deserves your support.

America’s Favorite Rotisserie Chicken Has a Secret

For millions of Americans, a Costco rotisserie chicken signals comfort, convenience, and value. It’s the meal you grab after a long workday, the centerpiece of a busy family’s weeknight dinner, or the secret ingredient in countless soups, salads, and casseroles.

But while the $4.99 chicken has earned near-mythic status among shoppers, most don’t know what’s happening long before that bird reaches grocery shelves Few realize that the chicken they’re placing into their cart may have come from a facility that, according to Farm Forward’s analysis of USDA data, fails federal salmonella safety standards year after year and has been cited repeatedly for animal welfare violations.

Costco has a salmonella problem and a welfare problem, and the company is doing little to fix it, relying instead on consumers’ ignorance about what goes on behind the scenes in its chicken supply chain. Farm Forward’s latest research pulls back the curtain on the company’s dirty secret that poses a significant threat to public health.

The Nebraska Plant That Powers America’s Rotisserie Habit

In 2019, Costco’s Lincoln Premium Poultry (LPP) opened a $450 million poultry complex in Fremont, Nebraska—its first-ever attempt to raise, slaughter, and process chickens entirely in-house. It was hailed as a revolution in retail: a company so determined to keep its chicken at $4.99 that it built an entire supply chain from the ground up. This model of vertical integration means that the company controls every stage of production, from hatcheries and feed mills to grower farms to processing, slaughter, and retail distribution.

Every year, the LPP plant processes more than 100 million chickens for Costco’s rotisserie chickens and Kirkland Signature raw chicken breasts. Every year, 7.2 million of these birds die from disease or mistreatment before they even reach slaughter. Every year, salmonella-contaminated products are shipped to Costco stores around the country to be purchased by unsuspecting shoppers.

Controlling the supply chain was supposed to guarantee quality and safety. But from the moment the plant opened, USDA records tell a very different story.

Just how much salmonella is in Costco chicken?

Farm Forward’s review of USDA inspection records reveal that it’s a lot. The USDA sets standards for salmonella contamination based on a three-category system for poultry plants. Category 3 plants fail the standard. Costco’s LPP plant has received a Category 3 rating 92% of the time since it opened in 2019. This means that from day one, the plant has had a chronic contamination problem and has failed year after year to clean up its act.

USDA’s salmonella standards allow for shockingly high rates of contamination, even in products that pass the standard. A passing grade allows for contamination in 9.8% of whole chicken carcasses (like those used for the rotisserie bird) and 15.4% of chicken parts (like Kirkland Signature’s raw chicken breasts). But LPP fails the standard nearly all of the time, meaning that contamination rates in chicken coming into Costco stores could be much higher than even these shockingly high contamination thresholds.

How does this translate for shoppers? More than roughly 1 in 10 of whole chickens from the LPP plant destined for the rotisserie came into the store contaminated with salmonella and more than roughly 1 in 6 packages of raw chicken breasts from that plant are contaminated. This means that if you routinely pick up a couple of packages of chicken breasts during your weekly Costco shopping trip, the likelihood is high that you’re bringing home chicken with this dangerous foodborne pathogen every month. When you line up at the checkout with that rotisserie chicken in your cart, more than one of every ten chickens unloaded onto the conveyor belt could have entered the store contaminated with salmonella.

Why is Costco allowed to sell contaminated chicken?

You’d think that failing the USDA’s salmonella safety standard would prevent a company like Costco from selling highly contaminated products. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Although the USDA can inspect and assign passing and failing ratings (and these are posted publicly on the agency’s website), USDA does not have the authority to stop the sale of or issue recalls for highly contaminated products, nor does it have the power to shut down plants that repeatedly fail the standard or issue any corrective action for the worst offenders.

In 2024, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service proposed a “Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products” that would have designated salmonella as an adulterant in raw poultry—a move that would have made it illegal to sell products adulterated with the pathogen. In April 2025, this proposed rule was withdrawn. The result? USDA continues to be powerless in regulating salmonella and companies like Costco continue to sell highly contaminated products.

Why is there such rampant contamination in the poultry industry?

The poultry industry claims that salmonella contamination is an unavoidable problem. But this obscures the reality: the way that birds are bred, raised, and slaughtered for meat is an intentional choice by an industry that creates the perfect breeding ground for pathogens and the spread of dangerous diseases.

Salmonella isn’t just a problem during slaughter and processing (although that’s the only place that the USDA tracks contamination)—it starts upstream with the very genetics of the birds and travels through every stage of the supply chain.

Costco’s birds, like most in the poultry industry, are bred to grow so abnormally fast that their legs often buckle beneath them, meaning many can barely walk. Their bodies grow faster than their immune systems can keep up, leaving them more vulnerable to illness—including salmonella.

Hatcheries are where salmonella contamination begins as the pathogen is passed through the eggs to the chicks who then carry the disease through the rest of the supply chain. Contamination is accelerated when chickens are raised in barns that hold tens of thousands of birds in dimly lit spaces thick with ammonia fumes, feces, and dead birds. When animals live in these conditions, disease travels fast.

Transport is yet another site of cross contamination, culminating in slaughter and processing where the birds are bled out and dismembered, spreading salmonella throughout the plants and ending up in packages destined for Costco’s stores.

Costco’s Abuse of Birds Only Makes Salmonella Contamination Worse

Suffering birds make sick birds and sick birds make people sick. USDA acknowledges that stress and poor welfare increase pathogen levels in farmed birds. Stress is endemic in industrial chicken production: intensive confinement, overcrowding, abrupt handling, rough transport, extreme temperatures, and processing birds for slaughter all weaken their defenses, opening the door for bacteria to spread.

Farm Forward’s analysis shows a clear overlap between Costco’s worst salmonella ratings and a series of humane handling violations at the LPP plant. USDA inspection reports show that, in recent years, thousands of Costco birds have died during transport—freezing to death, suffocating in overcrowded trucks, or perishing in a trailer fire. A 2021 Mercy for Animals investigation painted an even starker picture: dim barns thick with ammonia, birds too large to stand, open sores, and animals unable to reach food or water. Costco dismissed much of the footage as “normal and uneventful activity,” a telling reflection of how deeply these conditions are baked into its low-cost model.

Federal welfare protections do not apply to farmed birds, and adherence to what few welfare guidelines there are is entirely voluntary for the industry. Companies are not, then, held accountable for either salmonella contamination or animal welfare, despite the growing body of evidence that links the two.

Following the public outcry around Costco’s cruelty to its chickens, a shareholder lawsuit against the company for mistreatment of birds, and the 7.2 million birds Costco reports die before reaching slaughter each year, the company has shown no progress. Its persistent salmonella failures reveal what happens when poor welfare and weak oversight collide—and the hidden risks that come with that cheap Costco chicken.

The True Price of a $4.99 Chicken

On the surface, Costco’s rotisserie chicken looks like the ultimate win for consumers: filling, affordable, delicious. But the true cost is hidden—from crowded barns to weak regulations to contamination that slips through the cracks of a system not built to protect shoppers.

What began as a strategy to keep prices low has become a long-running public-health concern. And until Costco confronts the conditions under which its chickens are raised, processed, and transported, shoppers may continue paying a price far beyond $4.99.

Want the full story?

For more detail on the true costs of Costco’s chicken, read Farm Forward’s issue brief. To learn more about salmonella contamination and animal welfare issues across the poultry industry—and where Costco’s supply chain fits into the bigger picture—read our full investigative report.

This Thanksgiving, the cost of putting turkey on the table is going up, thanks not just to inflation or supply chain issues, but to the ongoing bird flu epidemic ravaging U.S. factory farms and the failure of both government and industry to control it.

The highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus has been tearing through poultry farms since early 2022. In 2025 so far, bird flu has hit over 100 commercial turkey farms across the United States, leading to the mass killing (“depopulation”) of 3 million turkeys, adding to the catastrophic loss of 14.7 million turkeys between 2022 and 2024. Minnesota has been hit hardest, leading to the killing of nearly 900,000 birds this year. In Ohio, 41 farms have been affected, wiping out more than half a million turkeys. We should brace for more: the outbreaks accelerate each autumn with the seasonal migration of infected wild birds. Already this fall, there have been 36 new outbreaks, including 18 in September and 18 more in October.

The situation is fast evolving, there is no end to new bird flu outbreaks in sight, and consumers are paying the price.

Rising Costs and a System Built to Protect Industry, Not Consumers

USDA projects that the wholesale price of turkey will average $1.19 per pound in 2025, up 26.6% from last year, attributed largely to bird flu shrinking the nation’s turkey supply. USDA reports that turkey meat production in the first half of 2025 fell 9.7% from the same period last year. Reduced supply is naturally going to raise prices for consumers and keep them high. But this is not a case of industry falling victim to an unavoidable disaster; it’s the result of a repeated refusal to responsibly address a critical public health threat.

Many of the largest turkey companies, including Butterball and Jennie-O, have received millions in taxpayer-funded bailouts for losses associated with bird flu, even when their continued irresponsible practices have led to new outbreaks. These bailouts deincentivize producers from taking measures to prevent and control the virus. Instead of using this moment to address how factory farms routinely breed dangerous diseases and reform how turkeys are raised, slaughtered, and processed, both industry and government have chosen business as usual:

• Turkeys with compromised immune systems continue to be raised in filthy, overcrowded sheds where disease spreads like wildfire.
• Poor (or nonexistent) biosecurity measures fail to prevent cross-contamination between farms.
• Slow progress on developing an H5N1 vaccine for farmed birds and resistance to the idea of rolling one out inhibit more effective prevention and control, even though vaccination programs in other countries have proven to dramatically reduce outbreaks.
• Federal bailouts in the form of indemnity payments reimburse producers for lost flocks, removing any financial incentive to make meaningful changes to prevent outbreaks in the first place.

It’s a pattern that now repeats every year: bird flu spreads, millions of animals die and are killed, prices rise, corporations get taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the cycle continues. Consumers are paying twice: in high prices at the grocery store and in their taxpayer dollars going to prop up an industry that is profiting from massive, unchecked outbreaks of its own making.

A Crisis Of Our Own Making

Bird flu isn’t going anywhere. It continues to resurface because the underlying system—industrial-scale poultry farming—remains unchanged. The federal government has not taken the actions needed to prevent the spread of the virus, so it’s now endemic in wild birds, dairy cows, and many other species of mammals. Since April 2024, bird flu has been confirmed in 70 human cases in the U.S., including one death, although this number likely grossly underestimates the true number of infections due to low rates of testing, in part because of mass layoffs and the recent government shutdown. Further, scientists have found that we are only one mutation away from the virus gaining the ability to pass among humans, potentially leading to a deadly human pandemic.

America is lagging behind other countries that have taken decisive action. More than 30 countries have implemented vaccination programs since 2005. France and Mexico alone have administered hundreds of millions of doses in just the past few years. The U.S., however, continues to bow to industry resistance, putting fears of trade disruptions ahead of the ongoing decimation of farmed animals and wildlife, and the public health risks of another catastrophic human pandemic.

Thanksgiving is supposed to be a time of warmth, gratitude, and home-cooked meals shared around the table—not a trip to the emergency room. Yet the turkey at the center of America’s favorite holiday may come with a hidden danger: salmonella.

And the biggest brands—including Butterball, the household name synonymous with Thanksgiving—are among the worst offenders.

Inside the Salmonella Outbreaks Plaguing U.S. Turkey Production

Salmonella is the leading cause of death from foodborne illness in the U.S. Each year, it sickens an estimated 1.28 million Americans, sending tens of thousands to the hospital. Shockingly, 1 in every 20 cases can be traced back to contaminated turkey.

The contamination crisis isn’t just bad luck—it’s baked into the way industrial turkeys are raised. 99.8% of birds come from factory farms, characterized by crowded, filthy sheds packed with tens of thousands of turkeys standing in their own waste. These conditions create perfect breeding grounds for pathogens like salmonella.

But it goes deeper: over decades, the industry has genetically modified turkeys through selective breeding to maximize growth, not for health, welfare, or resilience. The result is that, in addition to causing widespread suffering from chronic health problems, birds with weakened immune systems are more prone to infection and more likely to carry bacteria that can make people sick.

What Big Poultry Hides: USDA Reports Expose Widespread Salmonella Contamination

An investigation by Farm Forward that analyzed USDA inspection reports reveals just how widespread the problem is—and how deeply entrenched it’s become. The findings are grim.

For the last two years, 100% of slaughter and processing plants owned by Foster Farms, Perdue, and Michigan Turkey Producers failed the USDA’s salmonella safety standards. Sixty percent of Butterball’s plants and 67% of Cargill’s plants failed the standard. (Note: Perdue also sells under the Harvestland brand, Michigan Turkey Producers sells under Great Lakes, and Cargill sells under Honeysuckle White and Shady Brook Farms).

For five straight years, Butterball and Cargill have operated individual plants that failed salmonella safety standards every single month. Perdue’s plants failed 90% of the time on average.

And yet, these companies continue to sell their products without interruption.

Butterball and Cargill supply roughly two-thirds of all Thanksgiving turkeys in the U.S. That means millions of families are likely bringing home birds with salmonella contamination—without knowing it.

The Broken System Behind Salmonella-Contaminated Turkey in Grocery Stores

The staggering statistics about salmonella contamination not only signal an irresponsible industry with a flagrant disregard for public health, but also the federal government’s unmitigated failures to keep contaminated meat out of your grocery cart.

Although USDA sets standards for salmonella contamination, even when turkey producers “meet” USDA salmonella standards, they allow for high rates of contamination: 1 in 14 whole turkeys can test positive for salmonella, and 1 in 7 ground turkey samples can be contaminated—and still pass.

And if a plant fails the standard? There’s no penalty. USDA cannot force recalls or stop sales of contaminated products, even from companies that fail continuously. Consumers are left to shoulder the risk.

The Future of Food Safety: Holding Butterball and Big Poultry Accountable

Thanksgiving should celebrate abundance and gratitude—not expose families to unnecessary danger. The “Butterball problem” isn’t just about one company—it’s a symptom of an industry that prioritizes profit over public health and a government that fails at regulating it.

It’s time to hold major producers accountable and call on the federal government to protect American consumers. What you can do:

1. Demand reform by insisting that USDA pass a proposed rule on stricter salmonella safety regulations.
2. Choose plant-based foods this Thanksgiving, avoiding the risk of salmonella-contaminated turkey entirely.
3. Stay informed by reading Farm Forward’s full report on salmonella in the poultry industry.

Consider the chicken you pick up at the grocery store for dinner. It might be one of the billions of packages of chicken contaminated with salmonella, a dangerous fecal bacteria, in the United States each year. Consumer Reports estimates that as many as 1 in 3 packages of some chicken products contain salmonella. Eating contaminated chicken and turkey can cause serious illness—days of fever, painful abdominal cramps, and severe diarrhea. Children, elderly, and family members with weakened immune systems face higher risks of severe illness, hospitalization, and even death. Salmonella alone is the leading cause of death from foodborne illness and sickens 1.28 million Americans each year.

The Salmonella Risk in Factory-Farmed Chicken and Turkey

A vast number of Americans agree: factory farming is inhumane, and the conditions under which we raise animals are unacceptable. However, it’s not just an inhumane system; it’s also a breeding ground for dangerous diseases. Foodborne pathogens that thrive in the unsanitary conditions of industrial agriculture, such as salmonella, represent one of the most constant risks to consumers.

In particular, the way we produce poultry—raising genetically identical birds in overcrowded, stressful conditions that weaken birds’ immune systems, combined with high-speed processing lines that spread contamination among birds—creates perfect environments for the transmission of disease. During transport to slaughterhouses, stressed birds are packed together and defecate on each other, increasing the chances of bacterial transmission.

Farm Forward’s most recent report uncovered that USDA allows highly salmonella-contaminated chicken and turkey to be sold by major poultry companies.  Some companies, including (but not limited to) Perdue and Foster Poultry Farms, had 100 percent of their slaughterhouses receive the worst safety rating for both 2023 and 2024. Despite knowing their meat is highly contaminated, federal regulators have taken no meaningful action to address systemic contamination issues, allowing the companies to continue selling contaminated meat year after year.

Beyond Just Chicken and Turkey

The salmonella problem doesn’t stop at meat. Industrial animal operations generate inconceivably large amounts of waste every year, much of which gets spread on crop fields as fertilizer. When salmonella-tainted manure reaches farmland, it can contaminate fresh produce, particularly leafy greens like lettuce and spinach that are often eaten raw.

Soil contamination with poultry waste compounds the risk. According to a study testing 12 different salmonella strains, the bacteria survived an average of 129 days in soils mixed with poultry litter, with some strains lasting up to 336 days. This is significantly longer than in soil not comingled with poultry litter, indicating that using chicken manure as fertilizer, a common practice, can exacerbate the risk of contaminated soil causing infections from other crops.

Salmonella Contamination Fuels the Antibiotic Resistance Crisis

Lurking behind the industrial animal sector’s reckless practices that cause widespread salmonella contamination is an even bigger danger: the industry’s role in driving the global crisis of antibiotic resistance. Consumer Reports found in the chicken they tested that all samples were contaminated with strains of salmonella that were resistant to at least one antibiotic and, even more alarming, 78% were resistant to multiple antibiotics.

Antibiotics have long been a critical tool in treating both common and severe human illnesses, including salmonella; we rely on these medications to keep us healthy. However, because two-thirds of FDA-approved antibiotics are now used for farmed animals at low doses to keep animals alive in overcrowded conditions that make them sick, bacteria have the chance to adapt and develop resistance to the drugs that are so critical in the treatment of human disease. These resistant bacteria then infect humans, increasingly resulting in “superbugs” that are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to treat.

In no small part because of antibiotic resistance stemming from industrial animal agriculture, the World Health Organization warns we could enter a “post-antibiotic era” where common infections become deadly again. The poultry industry, then, is responsible not just for the hundreds of thousands of Americans it sickens with salmonella each year, but also for contributing to the potential demise of modern medicine.

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service—the federal agency tasked with protecting the public from foodborne illness—is failing in its mandate by allowing high rates of Salmonella contamination to enter the national food supply.

According to the CDC, one in every 25 packages of chicken at a typical local grocery store is contaminated with Salmonella, a bacterial pathogen that leads to over a million infections per year in the United States. One in 25, however, might be a gross underestimate. A 2022 Consumer Reports study tested 351 samples of ground meat and found that “almost a third of the ground chicken packages we tested contained salmonella.”

While some Salmonella contaminations may result from random accidents or isolated incidents, the prevalence of dangerous bacteria in the food system is the predictable result of the current model of mass-confinement animal farming, and a regulatory framework that treats widespread bacterial contamination as an inevitable and acceptable cost of doing business.

USDA’s Salmonella Loophole: No Recalls, No Enforcement

How can it be that so many raw chicken and turkey products are contaminated with foodborne pathogens that put public health at high risk? Consumers might reasonably assume that the federal government has measures to prevent Salmonella from entering the food supply. The unfortunate truth, however, is that despite federal regulators’ awareness of this problem, they lack the authority to address it.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In August 2024, after decades of largely ineffective policies related to Salmonella contamination, USDA finally proposed addressing this problem by classifying Salmonella as an adulterant, which would give regulators the authority to remove contaminated chicken and turkey from shelves and even prevent their entry into the consumer market in the first place. This common-sense approach would treat dangerous bacteria as the public health threat they are. But by April 2025, the agency had reversed course. After poultry industry groups complained about the potential costs, and the head of the poultry industry lobby group that opposed the rules made a $5 million donation to the President’s inauguration committee in 2024, USDA quietly withdrew the proposal in early 2025.

As a result, millions of pounds of contaminated chicken and turkey continue to reach consumers’ kitchens while federal regulators lack the authority to intervene.

In fact, today, the agency allows up to 25 percent of ground chicken samples to test positive for Salmonella (as well as high percentages for other poultry products). But even when plants fail to meet even these lax standards, regulators can’t issue fines, suspend operations, or require recalls. This means that there can be, and often is, widespread contamination in products destined for grocery store shelves.

Fixing America’s Broken Food Safety System

This system won’t fix itself. Decisive action must be taken by the USDA to better protect consumers by immediately:

Extending Zero-Tolerance Standards to All Poultry. The USDA already has zero-tolerance policies for Salmonella in ground beef and egg products. Consumers deserve the same protection for raw chicken and turkey. If the agency can keep Salmonella out of your scrambled eggs, it can keep it out of your chicken breast as well.

Bringing Back the Salmonella Adulterant Rule. First, the federal government should reinstate the August 2024 proposed framework that would classify Salmonella as an adulterant. This change would give USDA the regulatory power to remove contaminated products from shelves and shut down plants, rather than merely recommending that companies do so. The USDA already treats E. coli in this manner in ground beef; there’s no logical reason Salmonella should get special protection.

These aren’t unreasonable proposals; rather, they’re the bare minimum for protecting public health. The regulatory framework already exists for other foods, so why not extend it to chicken and turkey products?

Read our report for more information.

Some of the most recognizable chicken and poultry brands sell products from slaughter and processing plants that fail USDA’s salmonella standards, allowing large volumes of contaminated meat to enter the food supply. Certain companies have especially bad track records. Farm Forward found that, in both 2023 and 2024, the following top companies had 100 percent of their plants fail USDA standards:

• Perdue turkey (sells under the Perdue and Harvestland brands)
• Lincoln Premium Poultry (Costco-owned chicken company)
• Pitman Farms chicken (sells under Mary’s, Fulton Valley, Sweetwater Creek, Shelton’s)
• Foster Poultry Farms (turkey)

Additionally, Butterball turkey, Cargill turkey, and Foster Farms chicken had 50 percent of their plants fail in both 2023 and 2024.

How can such persistent salmonella contamination plague top poultry producers despite government standards, and why isn’t the public aware of it?

Let’s look at how USDA’s salmonella inspections work:

1. USDA sets “performance standards” with “maximum allowable percentages” of salmonella contamination for each slaughter and processing plant (also called establishments). These allowable percentages of salmonella are shockingly high. For instance, an establishment meets the USDA standard if testing finds that up to 25 percent of ground or minced chicken is contaminated with salmonella and over 15 percent of chicken parts (i.e., breasts, drumsticks, thighs, wings) are contaminated.
2. Category ratings are attached to a plant’s level of salmonella contamination. Category 3 is the worst; plants in this category fail the salmonella standard by having levels of contamination that exceed the standard (i.e., maximum allowable percentage). Category 2 plants meet the standard and Category 1 is reserved for plants with the least contamination. Even Category 1, however, allows for significant contamination (e.g., more than 1 in 10 samples of ground and minced chicken are allowed to test positive).
3. Plants are inspected by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and are assigned a category rating for each type of product. These ratings are then posted publicly on the FSIS website.

Despite this process of standards and inspections, if a plant fails the standard, the company faces no punitive or enforcement actions, nor are they required to address salmonella contamination in their slaughter or processing supply chain. USDA has no authority to enforce the standards it sets; it cannot shut down a highly contaminated plant, stop contaminated products from entering the food supply, or order recalls.

In the absence of federal regulation and protection of the public, consumers have limited power to avoid buying contaminated poultry. The safest option, of course, is to forego purchasing poultry altogether. Another option is to investigate which companies and specific plants received the absolute worst rating, and steer clear of purchasing from those brands.

How to check if the poultry products you’re buying came from companies that failed USDA’s salmonella inspections:

1. Identify the number for the establishment (plant) that produced the package of chicken or turkey at your local grocery store. Each package of poultry is required to display the identifier for the source establishment, beginning with the prefix “P-” and followed by a number. This establishment number can appear in several places on the product. Look first at the USDA seal of inspection on the packaging. If the establishment number is not there, the seal should reference where the number can be found (e.g., on a metal clip directly attached to products such as sausage, or on metal trays within the packaging).
2. Locate the establishment number in USDA’s salmonella testing database. Visit USDA FSIS’s website, “Salmonella Verification Testing Program Monthly Posting.” Navigate to the “Most Recent Posting” date range. Open either the Excel or PDF document, “Dataset_EstablishmentCategories_[Unique Number].” Search for the establishment number you found on the product packaging, eliminating the hyphen after “P” (e.g., PXXX, not P-XXX). Note: to see the past salmonella inspection records for a particular company or establishment, navigate to “Previous Postings” and select the relevant date range.
3. Check the inspection information for the particular establishment in question. In the dataset, the establishment number will correspond with the name of the company, location of the plant, and specific types of products tested (e.g., “young chicken carcasses” for whole chicken), followed by the overall category rating for that particular type of product at that specific plant.

This process may seem complicated and time-consuming, and that’s because it is. USDA does not make it easy for the public to find salmonella inspection reports. The likelihood of a consumer checking the establishment number every time they shop for poultry products is exceedingly low.

However, accessing this information is one of the few exercises of power consumers have in reducing their risk of buying contaminated products. If you don’t have the time or ability to check each package in real time at the grocery store, you may take some time at home reviewing the recent inspection reports and identifying which companies consistently rate as Category 3. Some of the companies listed will be recognizable retail brands, like Butterball or Foster Farms. Other company names may be less familiar, but sell poultry under recognizable brand names, like Perdue’s consumer-facing chicken brand, Draper Valley. You may, then, need to do some additional research to find out which brands at the grocery stores are owned by which companies.

At a systemic level, consumers can demand that poultry companies clean up their act and the federal government institute enforceable standards for salmonella contamination to protect the public from this dangerous pathogen. Follow Farm Forward’s continuing work on salmonella regulation to stay informed and get involved in holding USDA and the poultry industry accountable.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times published a story about a new study that confirmed what many in public health and environmental justice have long suspected: California is the industrial cattle capital of the nation. According to researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of California, Santa Barbara, the state has more cattle feeding operations than any other, concentrated heavily in the Central Valley. Tulare County alone has more feedlots than any other county in America, and if it were a state, it would rank eighth nationally.

The new study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, also quantified an unsurprising and troubling link between high concentrations of industrial animal farms and air pollution: counties with large cattle feeding operations experience significantly higher levels of fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅)—28 percent higher on average than similar areas without them. PM₂.₅ is one of the deadliest forms of air pollution, linked to heart disease, lung cancer, and premature death, often affecting communities that already face economic and healthcare barriers.

Building on that data, Farm Forward estimated the potential mortality burden associated with cattle animal feeding operations (AFOs) in California counties, focusing on the heart of the state’s dairy industry. The results are stark. In Tulare County, home to a dairy industry worth roughly $2.67 billion in milk sales each year, AFO-related PM₂.₅ is linked to an estimated 60 excess deaths annually.1 Using EPA’s standard economic valuation of a statistical life (VSL), those premature deaths should be valued at $337 million, and that’s before adding the victims’ costs of lost wages, hospitalizations, and long-term healthcare.

The pattern repeats across the Valley. In Stanislaus County, the mortality cost associated with cattle feedlot PM₂.₅ exposure is nearly $389 million, accounting for over half of the industry’s gross value. In San Joaquin County, the toll is higher: $569 million in mortality costs against $621 million in sales of milk, roughly a one-to-one ratio. According to our analysis, based on this study, about 144 premature deaths each year in California in just five counties with the highest concentration of AFOs are linked to higher PM₂.₅ emissions from industrial dairy farming.

When the value of lives lost (as measured by VSL) nears, or surpasses, the market value of the milk produced, it forces a hard question: are these operations economically viable when their true costs are counted?2 The dairy AFO model in California is profitable in part because much of its real costs—especially the health burden—has been offloaded onto nearby communities. Though California regulators may treat air pollution from AFOs as a cost-of-doing business, those costs are to a large extent borne by working-class, often uninsured residents residing near industrial dairies.

Why Cattle Feedlots Get a Pass on Air Pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States’ primary tool for regulating harmful air emissions from industrial sources. Under the CAA, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and manufacturing facilities are required to monitor and control emissions of dangerous pollutants like PM₂.₅. These industries must install pollution control technologies, undergo regular inspections, and report emissions to federal and state agencies.

But industrial animal operations are treated differently. Despite producing vast amounts of airborne pollution (including PM₂.₅ at concentrations likely to increase mortality), AFOs are exempt from the CAA’s permitting and reporting requirements. This is not because their emissions are benign; rather, it’s a result of decades of political lobbying, industry influence, and the framing of livestock production as “agriculture” rather than “industry.”

This is a clear example of agricultural exceptionalism: the set of special legal carve-outs that shield large-scale animal agriculture from the environmental, labor, and safety regulations that apply to virtually every other sector. As a result, communities living near factory farms bear the health burden of emissions that the EPA does not regulate, while other industries must pay to clean up their pollution. In practical terms, this means that if a factory or power plant emitted the same level of PM₂.₅ as a large dairy feedlot, it could be fined or forced to install costly pollution controls. But the feedlot faces no such repercussions.

Until factory farms are brought under the same legal framework that governs other polluting industries, the cycle will continue: profits for large industrial meat and dairy companies, premature deaths in surrounding communities, and the public footing the bill.

Find out if you live near an industrial animal farm here.

As trade tensions rise and tariffs become central in negotiations, American meat exports are increasingly in the news. But while tariffs may be headline-grabbing, they can distract from a deeper issue: many countries simply don’t want U.S. meat because of how it’s produced.

Nations like those in the European Union and Australia have placed restrictions on imports of American beef, pork, and poultry. This isn’t to hurt U.S. trade, but instead the result of serious (and legitimate) concerns over animal welfare, food safety, and the widespread use of drugs in the food supply.

What Are Tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes on imports that are often used to protect domestic industries or as leverage for trade deals. A 10 percent tariff on imported pork, for example, could raise the price of U.S. pork by (at least) as much.

Often, people think of tariffs as being for building materials like lumber and steel or more advanced hardware like semiconductors. However, food products, including meat and dairy, also have a history of having tariffs placed on them. In fact, farmers have been bailed out by the federal government in the past precisely because of the economic impact of tariffs. While tariffs do affect the global meat trade, they don’t fully explain the resistance to American meat abroad. Many countries object not just to the price of American meat but to how it’s made.

Drugs in the Meat Supply

One of the most contentious issues in U.S. meat exports is the routine use of growth-promoting drugs and antibiotics in factory farming. Consider ractopamine, a feed additive given to pigs and cows to promote muscle growth. This substance is banned in over 160 countries, including those in the EU, China, and Russia, due to concerns over human health and animal welfare. Yet it’s still permitted in the U.S., where it’s widely used in industrial hog and cattle operations.

Similarly, monensin, another common drug used in American beef production, is administered to prevent disease and increase weight gain, especially important in overcrowded, unsanitary factory farm conditions.

The EU has long imposed bans on U.S. beef treated with growth promoters, and it has added restrictions on poultry imports due to unhygienic methods and the overuse of chemical rinses to kill bacteria (practices that are heavily restricted in Europe).

The Meat System Needs Reform

Rather than focusing solely on trade policy, the U.S. should look inward. Citizens around the world are demanding higher animal welfare standards, transparency, and a shift away from routine drug use in meat production. If the U.S. wants to increase meat exports and compete in the global market, the solution isn’t mere trade pressure. It’s reforming the factory farming system itself: less confinement, more genetically healthy animals, and a meaningful commitment to public health.

April 2025 Egg Price Drop: A Brief Respite Amidst Historic Highs

In April 2025, consumers experienced a slight relief in egg prices, sparking widespread discussions. Despite the welcomed decrease, prices remain at historic highs. The question on everyone’s mind is, why? The answer lies in the persistent presence of bird flu.

Bird Flu: The Persistent Culprit Behind Elevated Egg Prices

The primary factor keeping egg prices high is the ongoing outbreak of bird flu, which reemerged in 2022 and since has become endemic, with outbreaks on industrial farms linked to seasonal migratory bird patterns. In the fall of 2024, a new strain of bird flu emerged on US farms, D1.1, which has proven exceptionally virulent, resulting in the culling of millions of birds and severely impacting supply chains. Beyond industrial poultry, the D1.1 strain has also been linked to human illness and death, raising public health concerns and emphasizing the need for vigilant monitoring and containment efforts.

U.S. vs. Canada: A Tale of Two Egg Markets

The U.S. egg market is dominated by massive industrial farms, where millions of birds are packed tightly together in crowded, often unsanitary conditions. This environment creates a breeding ground for disease, making the birds more susceptible to infections like bird flu. In such settings, if a single bird becomes ill, the virus can rapidly spread throughout the entire flock, leading to widespread outbreaks. This contrasts sharply with Canadian practices, where the average farm size is roughly 25,000 birds. The smaller farm sizes and a stringent supply management system help contain the spread of disease and maintain stable egg prices. The structural vulnerability of U.S. farms underscores the need for systemic changes to address these health and economic challenges.

USDA’s Response to Bird Flu: Exacerbating the Crisis

The USDA’s handling of the bird flu situation has come under scrutiny. Mass firings of federal staff dedicated to bird flu response and the shutdown of communication channels about the virus’s status have hindered efforts to contain it effectively. These actions have left many questioning whether federal regulators are inadvertently making the crisis worse. A Farm Forward investigation revealed how USDA policies are exacerbating the outbreak and has left the U.S. egg industry vulnerable to recurring outbreaks, further driving up prices and prolonging economic instability for consumers.

The Future of Egg Prices: What Lies Ahead?

As the U.S. continues to battle ongoing outbreaks, the USDA Economic Research Service predicts further price increases. With no significant containment in sight, consumers should prepare for continued price hikes. While the USDA has tools available to contain the virus, such as vaccinations for poultry, US regulators have been unwilling to take bold action because such steps might hurt poultry industry profits.

Conclusion

While April 2025 offered a brief respite in egg prices, the reality is that bird flu continues to exert significant pressure on the market. Understanding this virus’s cyclical nature and its effect on supply chains is crucial for consumers and industry stakeholders alike. As we move forward, the focus must remain on effective containment strategies to stabilize prices and ensure a reliable egg supply.

Learn More About Bird Flu’s Impact on Egg Prices

Dive deeper into the complexities of bird flu and its impact on the egg market by exploring our comprehensive report, “Cracks in the System: Why U.S. Egg Prices Won’t Drop Until Poultry Farming Changes.” The report provides in-depth analysis and insights into the challenges facing the poultry industry and the necessary steps to achieve long-term stability. Access the full report here.

Whole Foods is knowingly deceiving consumers by selling meat raised with antibiotics under their “no antibiotics, ever” promise. An April 4th filing in a lawsuit against Whole Foods reveals that, based on USDA sample testing of “Raised Without Antibiotics” (RWA) beef, at least 13 of 27 (nearly half) of the establishments that tested positive for antibiotics supplied beef to  Whole Foods.1 As the company has continued to engage in false advertising of its beef products, it has profited significantly on RWA beef sales. For instance, in April 2025, the company was charging 32 percent more per pound for the same cut of conventional beef from a traditional retailer.2

In 2022, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Whole Foods for false marketing of meat claiming to be Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA).3 Whole Foods’ company-wide standard for meat is “no antibiotics, ever,” a slogan that appears in their stores and in online marketing materials. However, testing commissioned by Farm Forward in 2022 found that meat from Whole Foods, marketed under this promise, contained numerous drugs, including an antibiotic.

“Farm Forward’s findings were bolstered by a peer-reviewed study published in Science which presents empirical evidence that a significant percentage—up to 22 percent—of cattle within the Animal Welfare Certified program, which is used by Whole Foods, have come from feedyards where testing suggests antibiotics were administered routinely.”4

When confronted with the results of this testing, which proved the company’s marketing claims were false, and even after the lawsuit was filed, Whole Foods continued to market claims that all of the meat sold in their stores is raised with “no antibiotics, ever.”

The sheer number of Whole Foods suppliers selling RWA beef that is actually raised with antibiotics revealed by the USDA testing shows that this is not an isolated incidence of mislabeled beef, but rather a systematic failing of Whole Foods to ensure that the meat the company sells is truthfully labeled and marketed.

As a premier antibiotic-free meat retailer, Whole Foods has done nothing to substantiate their marketing claims about RWA. They have shown willful ignorance about the systematic problem of antibiotics in RWA meat supply chains. Drugs and antibiotics are commonly used to prop up animals who are raised in crowded cramped conditions that routinely cause illness and the industry is subsequently incentivized to misuse these drugs. Whole Foods is profiting from this misuse and misleading the public about antibiotics use in the products they sell. These profits are substantial. In April 2025, Whole Foods was selling filet mignon beef steak for $36.99 per pound, while a traditional retailer priced the same cut of beef at $27.99 per pound.5  The company’s false marketing has led to the widespread deception of consumers who are paying a premium for meat they’ve been made to believe is antibiotic-free.

FOIA documents expose which companies failed the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2023 antibiotics sampling project and what’s changed since they concluded the project in August.

In an investigation released today, Farm Forward revealed that trusted beef brands like Tyson, Cargill, and JBS have been deceiving consumers by continuing to sell products that are not antibiotic-free under Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA) labels. In an issue brief titled, “Is Antibiotic-Free Meat Really Antibiotic-Free?,” Farm Forward exposes how deceptive use of RWA marketing claims by several major beef companies persisted even after the USDA announced findings from a 2023 antibiotics sampling project, which revealed at least 20 percent of tested cattle samples labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever” contained antibiotics.

Farm Forward’s investigation was prompted by the USDA’s refusal to regulate and provide punitive action against bad actors or even disclose which companies’ products tested positive for antibiotics in their study. The agency’s inaction has prevented consumers from being able to make informed decisions about what they eat, what kinds of labels they support, and how much they spend.

Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis said, “The findings from this investigation underscore a pattern of the USDA leaving everyday people across this country to chance and prioritizing industry’s bottom line at our expense. Beef brands that many know and trust have been knowingly defrauding the public with claims that their products are free of antibiotics, and while they are certainly at fault, the USDA—the government agency responsible for regulating America’s agriculture—is at fault for not enforcing the standards they’ve set.

“The USDA claims to ‘keep America’s farmers and ranchers in business and ensure the nation’s meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.’ The data revealed that these products were not properly labeled, and the USDA did nothing about it, and it further proves that agribusiness is being protected, but the American people are not.”

Bill Niman, well-known California rancher, added, “The deceptive marketing of ‘antibiotic-free’ meat creates an uneven playing field that severely disadvantages truly humane and sustainable farmers and ranchers. While industrial producers make misleading claims with the USDA’s tacit approval, genuine small-scale producers who actually raise animals without antibiotics must compete against these false narratives. These ethical farmers invest significantly more in proper animal care, space, and preventive health measures to legitimately avoid antibiotics, resulting in higher production costs. When large meat companies can simply slap misleading labels on their products without actually changing their practices, they undercut honest producers on price while stealing their market share. This deception not only harms consumers who believe they’re making ethical choices but systematically undermines the economic viability of the very farming systems that could transform our food system for the better.”

###

Certified Humane® label also sued after Farm Forward’s 2024 findings on inhumane conditions at Alexandre.

Furious consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Alexandre Family Farm and the owners of the Certified Humane® label based on findings released last year in Farm Forward investigation of the farm’s routine animal abuse and neglect and selling of diseased animals for human consumption. The class action lawsuit, filed by Richman Law & Policy (RLP), alleges that Alexandre dairy farm and Humane Farm Animal Care—the entity behind the Certified Humane® label—humanewashed the farm’s practices, misleading consumers and falsely representing Alexandre products as “humane,” all while Alexandre engaged in shocking and systemic acts of animal cruelty.

The lawsuit relies on both Farm Forward’s investigation and new, previously unreleased evidence of cruel treatment to calves. The lawsuit describes how, despite the overwhelming evidence of abuse, Certified Humane allowed Alexandre Family Farm to market their products as “humane.” The suit details how the farm: 

• Poured salt into the eyes of hundreds of cows and glued denim patches to cows’ eyes
• Sawed off horns of more than 800 cows through tissue laced with nerves without any pain management
• Severed a cow’s teat with an unsanitized pocketknife
• Dragged a cow across concrete and gravel for 50 yards using a skid loader
• Failed to provide routine veterinary or hoof care management
• Transported of sick, injured, and lame cows to auction rather than euthanizing them

These allegations underscore Farm Forward’s investigation and report, which was originally featured in The Atlantic. Full details on the lawsuit and additional findings can be found here.

“Consumers are tired of paying more for a lie,” said Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis. “This investigation unfortunately reveals that even a dairy that has been touted as one of the most ethical operations in the country cannot be trusted by consumers to treat its animals humanely. It reveals that there is virtually no way for Americans to know if they are consuming higher welfare dairy, no matter how much extra they pay. And it reveals that voluntary labels like Certified Humane are inadequate for protecting consumers or providing any sort of public accountability for these companies. The USDA needs to set and enforce meaningful standards for terms like ‘humanely raised,’ ‘sustainably raised,’ and ‘antibiotic free.’ Without regulation, consumers can just get conned.

“This lawsuit sends a clear message: consumers will hold companies accountable for making false promises about animal welfare. When a dairy widely considered the industry’s gold standard for ethics fails to meet basic welfare standards—and their certifier fails to enforce them—it exposes a broken system. Today, there’s simply no way to guarantee your dairy purchases support better treatment of animals, regardless of price or certification. The most ethical choice is to opt out of dairy from cows.”

###

Farm Forward is a team of strategists, campaigners, and thought leaders guiding the movement to change the way our world eats and farms. Learn more at https://www.farmforward.com/

The work to make agriculture more sustainable, humane, and efficient is complex. It requires considering some of our most profound problems, including climate change and an increasing human population. During the last decade, regenerative agriculture has received a lot of attention as a form of farming that promises environmental benefits compared to industrial farming systems. While regenerative agriculture can improve soil quality and soil microbiome, it is far from being a silver bullet for climate change—and has its own drawbacks.

What is regenerative agriculture?

Regenerative agriculture is best thought of as a system of related agricultural practices, rather than a single method. There is no formal, scientific, or regulated definition of the term.

While the World Economic Forum defines regenerative agriculture as “a way of farming that focuses on soil health,” a review of 25 practitioner websites and 229 journal articles found definitions ranging from “a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services,” to “a long-term, holistic design that attempts to grow as much food using as few resources as possible in a way that revitalizes the soil rather than depleting it, while offering a solution to carbon sequestration,” to “a form of enterprise that incorporates a community of people engaged in civil labor to produce and consume the food (and land, landscape and amenity) that they, collectively, decide to grow.”

In our 2020 report on regenerative agriculture, we pointed out that regenerative agriculture was not a monolith but spanned groups concerned primarily with conservation agriculture and others with a more holistic view incorporating ecological farming, animal welfare, and labor rights.

Many practices of regenerative agriculture are not new. Indigenous communities have employed a number of them for centuries. While the science of regenerative farming was studied during the twentieth century, it exploded in popularity after a 2013 TED talk by Allan Savory went viral. In the talk, Savory specifically pointed to cattle systems as a regenerative boon, arguing in part that humans should eat more meat to improve the environment. The talk’s major claims have been described as “unfounded” by scientists and heavily criticized by the Sierra Club. Nonetheless, regenerative agriculture remains a compelling concept and a buzzword for many, selling books and headlining conferences.

Unfortunately, the massive hype behind the farming practice, along with the absence of clear definitions or meaningful regulation, has led to greenwashing and deceptive marketing from some food companies and farms. Not all regenerative farms are alike, however, because not all regenerative practices are alike.

What are the types of regenerative agriculture?

Regenerative agriculture’s varied forms are not clearly defined. Some types of regenerative agriculture can be entirely arable (crop-based), but in general most regenerative practices involve raising animals—especially ruminant animals like cows—in a semi-pastoral system that integrates grazing and reduced tilling to maintain soil fertility.

What are the five principles of regenerative agriculture?

It’s common to sort the principles of regenerative agriculture into a few main points, and these lists can reflect very different priorities, though they agree on many of the basics.

Integrate animals into the farm as much as possible

Ecosystems require balance, and a key part of that balance is the relationship between plant and animal species (though not necessarily farmed animals). When domesticated farmed animals are allowed to roam within a farm, they can benefit the farm by interacting with plant species, for example by spreading seeds through their manure, which also serves as fertilizer. Animals raised in these conditions may have significantly higher animal welfare than animals raised on factory farms, though this outcome isn’t always a priority for regenerative farming’s advocates.

Minimizing soil disturbance benefits the soil and the climate

Regenerative farmers do not till the soil and tend to avoid synthetic fertilizers that can damage long-term soil health. This ensures that the soil remains undisturbed and can maintain its structure and nutrients, creating better quality crops.

Year-round plant coverage prevents soil erosion and increases carbon inputs

Regenerative agriculture farmers avoid dead spots in the year, when the fields are devoid of any plant life. By ensuring that plants are growing year-round, farmers can capture a bit more carbon from the atmosphere and benefit soil health, as well as providing cover that keeps soil in place during wind and rain.

Diversifying crops in space and time supports resilience, productivity, and diversity

Another key principle of regenerative agriculture is to diversify crops. Monocultures, such as a field that grows corn and only corn every single year, can sap the soil of vital nutrients. The growth of monoculture farming occurred in tandem with the demand for crop feed for animals in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), but regenerative agriculture prioritizes using a diverse variety of plants in a given field.

Reducing synthetic inputs benefits the soil and the biotic community

Regenerative farmers strive to use a smaller volume of chemical inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers compared to conventional farmers. Reducing synthetics helps some regenerative farmers achieve an ongoing financial benefit, as they decrease their dependence on recurring purchases of chemicals.

Soil armor

An alternative fifth principle is the idea of “soil armor.” Regenerative farmers place a layer of litter on the soil to protect it. This reduces required inputs, and gives the ecosystem within the soil time and space to grow. This also allows the soil to hold more water and helps prevent erosion.

What are the practices of regenerative agriculture?

While regenerative agriculture is a trendy new topic for many farmers, and thus does not have meaningful regulations or clear definitions, it does have some basic common practices. The National Resource Defense Council interviewed 100 regenerative farmers to learn about some of them. Here is what they found.

No-till or reduced-till techniques

Tilling, especially overtilling, can be detrimental to the health of the soil. Most regenerative farms do not till at all, but some will till when they consider it necessary.

Growing cover crops, double cropping

Double-cropping refers to an agricultural practice where two crops are harvested in one year, usually in two different seasons. Cover cropping is when a farmer adds a crop to soil when it would normally lie barren, either between seasons or in between rows of crops. Both of these practices can reduce erosion, improve soil health, and increase water retention of the soil.

Crop rotation, interseeding, relay planting, and agroforestry

Each of these methods is a way of avoiding plant monocultures.

• Crop rotation: Planting different crops on a single tract of land over time
• Interseeding: Planting cover crops in between rows of crops
• Relay cropping: Growing two or more crops in the same area by planting the second crop after the first is developed
• Agroforestry: Incorporating trees into agriculture

Precision agriculture

Precision agriculture is the science of improving farm yields with technology, sensors, and analytical tools. For example, a farmer may test the acidity of the soil throughout the growing season and make adjustments based on which crop is growing at that time. By maximizing crop output, more food can be grown using the same amount of land.

Managed grazing

Sometimes called “intensive rotational grazing” or “holistic grazing,” regenerative farms manage the grazing of animals by confining them to a small section of pasture called a paddock for a period of time, then moving them to a second paddock, and allowing the pasture in the first paddock to recover while the animals are grazing in the second paddock. Farms might have anywhere from two to thirty or more paddocks. Rotational grazing may improve the soil and plant life as compared to continuous grazing systems.

What are the benefits of regenerative agriculture?

Animal welfare benefits

Typically, animals on regenerative farms have more access to the outdoors where they can express natural behaviors like grazing and have more space per animal. Animals are less likely to be crowded into small and unhygienic pens or barns and more likely to enjoy a more natural environment. This is undeniably a benefit for farmed animals, but it comes with a very significant caveat.

Unfortunately, regenerative agriculture is not synonymous with high animal welfare. Farmers are permitted, under the principles of regenerative agriculture, to practice branding, dehorning, debeaking, and other cruel practices. Animals in all forms of farming systems are still killed when they reach “slaughter age,” usually taking years or decades off of their natural lifespans. And regenerative agriculture can still use genetically engineered animal species, like broiler chickens, who grow so fast they often experience poor health due to their “optimized” bodies.

To quote from our report on farmed animal welfare in the regenerative agriculture movement:

Regenerative farmers and ranchers in particular see themselves as advocates for farmed animals because they provide individual care for animals and choose farm practices that are significantly more labor intensive than industrial agriculture. However, the regenerative movement’s commitment to animal welfare is not universally held or applied, and farmers may accept some amount of suffering as necessary for their economic viability. Sometimes farmers and ranchers make compromises they attribute to structures outside of their control, including access to high welfare genetics, consumers’ unwillingness to pay higher prices, proximity to slaughterhouses with higher welfare technology, etc. 

Regenerative agriculture often is a step forward for animals, but should not be confused with an adequate solution to the problem of animal welfare in agriculture.

What are the problems with regenerative agriculture?

Greenwashing and misdirection

Some regenerative agriculture farms may engage in greenwashing and mislead the public about how sustainable their practices actually are.

For example, the claims of regenerative agriculture to actually sequester more carbon than naturally produced by ruminant animals are not supported by the scientific literature. In a meta-analysis of over 300 studies conducted by Food Climate Research Network (the largest known scientific review of regenerative agriculture), grazing animal systems were found to only offset between 20 and 60 percent of their own emissions, depending on the type of system. Further, soil sequestration will peak after a few decades, meaning that regenerative agriculture’s ability to offset the emissions from ruminant animals is only temporary. This casts doubt on the future of the carbon sequestration in regenerative agriculture.

In fact, the original TED Talk that kickstarted the modern regenerative cattle movement has been criticized by scientists, so much so that TED posted an official update on the speech, acknowledging that the scientific claims in the speech are “complicated” at best and should be viewed in the wider context of research. Given this larger scientific literature, claims of “carbon-neutral” or “carbon-negative” beef should be met with extreme skepticism.

Regenerative advocates also claim that regenerative agriculture can stop or even reverse desertification across the world through holistic grazing practices. However, many global ecosystems evolved without large-hoofed mammals like cows. For example, in a scientific critical analysis of regenerative agricultural claims in the International Journal of Biodiversity, the authors summarize:

Western US ecosystems outside the prairies in which bison occurred are not adapted to the impact of large herds of livestock. Recent changes to these grassland ecosystems result from herbivory by domestic livestock which has altered fire cycles and promoted invasive species at the expense of native vegetation. 

More environmentally friendly than a switch from industrial animal farming to regenerative animal farming—both in terms of land use and carbon sequestration—would be a switch to entirely plant-based food systems (or those that include cultured meat products).1 If regenerative agriculture has a place in mitigating climate change, it must go hand-in-hand with a global reduction in meat consumption, thanks to the lower density of regenerative animal farming as well as the need to further reduce emissions. So despite regenerative agriculture’s benefits for soil, it cannot solve agriculture’s contributions to climate change as is sometimes claimed.

Humanewashing

Farm Forward’s 2024 investigation of the nation’s premiere regenerative organic dairy, Alexandre Family Farm, demonstrates that the regenerative labels can function not only as forms of greenwashing, but also humanewashing. Despite the positive animal welfare associations under the halo of the “regenerative” label, and despite Alexandre’s awards, accolades, celebrity endorsements, and two official regenerative certifications, for years this regenerative mega-dairy routinely and systemically abused cows, engaged various forms of cruelty to animals, and littered its landscape with decomposing bodies in ways that may have violated state water protection regulations. For more details, see our investigative report on Alexandre, Dairy Deception, or its accompanying article in The Atlantic.

Pandemic risk

All forms of animal agriculture can increase the chances of pandemics, including regenerative agriculture. Because holistic grazing demands high land use, it often encroaches on native species and can raise the risk of disease by increasing human-wildlife interactions. A 2022 study on how different farm practices contribute to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) found that “less ‘intensive’ systems are liable to be low-yielding. This means they require both a larger livestock population and more land and hence greater habitat loss and degradation, increasing the risk of zoonotic EID emergence.”2.

Frequently asked questions

Can regenerative agriculture reverse climate change?

No, regenerative agriculture is not a climate solution on its own. Because regenerative animal-based agriculture requires massive amounts of land and cannot sequester as much carbon as it emits, it would need to be paired with dramatic reductions in meat consumption to significantly lower the emissions from agriculture.

Can regenerative agriculture feed the world?

No. Regenerative agriculture is not efficient, especially with regard to land use. Further, regenerative animal-based farming requires more land than industrial farming systems, at least 2.5 times more land according to a report funded by regenerative farmers. Meat production already takes up about three billion hectares of land globally; if we expand that land 2.5 times as required by a regenerative system, we would use over 60 percent of the Earth’s land—with just the current population.

We will need to increase food system efficiency by 50 percent by 2050 to feed the growing population. There is not enough land in the world to feed enough people if our agricultural systems were switched entirely to regenerative animal-based agriculture.

Can regenerative agriculture restore lost biodiversity?

Regenerative agriculture’s potential for restoring biodiversity depends on the location and type of regenerative agriculture. Farmed animals are now widespread across the world, but most did not naturally co-evolve naturally with any ecosystem. When animals graze on land far removed from their ancestors’ natural habitats, it may not benefit local biodiversity.

One study that examined 29 years of land use in different grazing systems found that grazing cattle improved biodiversity by 30 percent, but native grazers (in this case, bison) improved biodiversity by 86 percent. Another study that analyzed livestock in the United States argued that “cessation of grazing would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil and water resources, and would enhance/sustain native species biodiversity.” So holistic grazing may improve biodiversity in certain areas, but not nearly as much as allowing native fauna to thrive and/or rewilding land from animal agriculture.

What is needed to accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture?

In our report on regenerative agriculture, we outline that large-scale shifts to regenerative agriculture would require financial incentives such as “philanthropic grants, pension funds, real estate investment trusts, and private investment in climate change mitigation strategies.” Further research, increased consumer interest, and improved regulation of the industry would also be needed to accelerate a hypothetical transition.

Are regenerative agriculture and soil health the same thing?

Regenerative agriculture is a system of practices that prioritize, among other things, soil health. But the terms are not interchangeable.

How to support regenerative agriculture

The easiest way to support regenerative agriculture on an individual level is straightforward: patronize local regenerative farms.

How is regenerative agriculture different from sustainable agriculture?

While many aspects of regenerative agriculture are more sustainable than industrial agriculture, such as reduced tilling, reduced pesticide use, and diversifying crops, regenerative agriculture is not inherently sustainable, especially because ruminant animals emit more greenhouse gases than can be stored by the soil. Plant-based agriculture is more sustainable from an emissions standpoint than any animal-based regenerative system.

Further, regenerative agriculture uses massive amounts of land, and thus cannot be scaled up to feed the global population. Regenerative agriculture can play a role in climate harm mitigation, but only if paired with substantial shifts in diets toward plant based foods.

Bird flu will become a “widespread killer of humans” unless the current administration acts; and the next administration makes it an urgent priority.

This press release was originally sent out on January 7th, 2025.

Concern surrounding H5N1 bird flu is higher than ever after news reports of the death of a Louisiana resident following serious complications from contracting the virus. A human death marks a turning point and raises urgent questions around the trajectory of the nearly three-year bird flu outbreak. Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis issued the following statement:

“I am saddened by the news that a person in America has died of complications from bird flu. This virus has ravaged poultry and dairy farms across the country, threatened the health of farm workers, raised prices and impacted our food supply, and now, it has tragically taken a human life.”

“Bird flu will become a widespread killer of human beings and continue to kill animals unless the federal government acts urgently to prevent further spread. While factory farms have greatly contributed to the emergence and wildfire spread of H5N1, the problem has far exceeded the control of big ag. We need rightsized government regulation for both agriculture and public health to end this years-long bird flu outbreak—in the waning days of the current administration and as an urgent priority of the next one.”

Photo credit: Abigail Messier / We Animals

Last week, health officials in British Columbia, Canada, announced that a teenager who contracted bird flu is currently in critical condition. Concerningly, the patient has had no known contact with farmed animals and has no underlying conditions. Less than a week later, a child in California who had no known contact with farmed poultry tested positive for bird flu. These cases mark a stark shift in the spread of bird flu because of the severity of the illness and because neither had direct contact with farmed animals.

“The news of a deeply serious human case of bird flu is a massive wake-up call that should immediately mobilize efforts to prevent another human pandemic,” Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “We could have prevented the spread of bird flu on poultry farms across America, and we didn’t. We could have prevented the spread of bird flu on dairy farms, and we didn’t. Now, the system is blinking red: as bird flu has seen multiple crossover events and there is presumed human-to-human spread that has taken a serious turn, the regulatory agencies responsible must do something.”

The developments should be no surprise. Industrial animal agriculture—especially large-scale poultry farming—is among the largest contributors to zoonotic disease. “Factory farms notorious for raising billions of sickly animals in filthy, cramped conditions provide a recipe for viruses like bird flu to emerge and spread. For almost 20 years Farm Forward has been calling on government agencies, including the USDA and CDC, to address the public health risks of industrial animal farming. We are now on the cusp of another pandemic and the agencies responsible for regulating farms and protecting public health are moving slower than the virus is spreading.”

Regulatory agencies, including USDA and CDC, have been slow to act. In April, Newsweek published an article written by Farm Forward’s executive director and Gail Hansen, DVM, raising serious concerns about the USDA’s slow and piecemeal response. Meaningful action is possible, as countries like France have taken proactive steps to squash bird flu using vaccines and other preventative measures.

The US can still take steps to protect the public. The USDA recently expanded testing requirements for farmed animals, and the CDC released research findings underscoring the need for testing farm workers, moves we and other advocates have long demanded. These steps are in the right direction, but more needs to be done.

Even if we can put the lid back on this immediate bird flu outbreak, this should be a clarion call for a systemic change in the food system.

While we applaud recent investments from the federal government that have finally begun to tackle the climate crisis, the Biden Administration’s hallmark climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), massively missed the mark when it comes to bad incentives for agriculture. Instead of prioritizing truly low-carbon regenerative and plant-based agriculture, the IRA includes hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives that giant meat and dairy companies are using to entrench animal factories across rural America.

Today in Washington DC, legislators introduced a new bill that would help address the harms of massive confinement factory farms and invest in sustainable food systems. The Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act (IACA), introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) offers a positive vision for a future of American farming without massive CAFOs. Farm Forward strongly endorses the IACA and we join more than 100 environmental, public health, family farmer, consumer, and animal protection organizations in doing so.

At a high level, the bill directs the United States Department of Agriculture to provide grants to carry out genuinely climate-smart conservation projects. Specifically, the IACA will create a slate of new tools to enable farmers to build a more sustainable and humane agriculture system. This is a common sense bill that is supported by a significant majority of Americans—according to a survey commissioned by the ASPCA, 82 percent of Americans support the government offering CAFO farmers money to help cover the costs of transitions to more humane systems of agriculture. In that same survey, there was little support for the government’s current policy of reimbursing profitable corporations for mass culling their flocks after bird flu outbreaks (38 percent).

And according to recent polling conducted by Data for Progress on Farm Forward’s behalf, large numbers of Michigan voters reject the idea that state climate policy should be influenced by factory farms and fossil fuel interests.

And that’s what the IACA is about—moving away from financing that helps the factory farming industry.

Among other provisions, the bill:

• Supports converting CAFOs to specialty crop production;
• Supports improvements related to farm animal welfare like access to the outdoors and access to pasture;
• Prevents conservation grants from going to methane digesters and other entrenching technologies.

The Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act is the latest in a series of proposed legislation aimed at building a saner, more sustainable, and humane food system. Bills like the Farm Systems Reform Act and the Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act both, in different ways, would take important steps toward regulating factory farming and reducing its harm. Together these bills offer a bold vision for the future of American agriculture that puts factory farms where they belong—in the rearview mirror.

This press release was originally sent out on September 18th, 2024.

So-Called “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” Bill Will Make Michigan’s Environment Worse

Coalition of environmental and animal-protection groups gather to urge legislature to kill proposal

LANSING — A coalition of environmental and animal protection organizations from around the state are meeting legislators in the capitol today to urge them to reject Michigan Senate Bill 275 (SB 275), the so-called “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” bill.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) bill is ostensibly part of efforts to encourage the use of cleaner fuels for cars and trucks that will do less damage to air quality and the climate in Michigan. However, the bill was created by and for massive oil and gas companies, huge agricultural producers, and large utilities (such as DTE and Consumers Energy). The bill will essentially create a pollution trading scheme through the buying and selling of carbon “offset” credits.

By incentivizing Big Oil and Big Ag to collaborate on massive biogas facilities, the bill will encourage these corporations to increase the number of massive dairy farms in the state (CAFOs) and their use of “anaerobic digesters” — huge lakes of cow manure that will pollute Michigan’s air and water.

“The impact of this bill is likely to be devastating for communities, the environment and animal welfare.” said Valerie Schey, spokesperson with Michiganders for a Just Farming System (MJFS). “It represents a huge corporate giveaway, masquerading as a piece of climate legislation.”

Michiganders for a Just Farming System has learned that the primary influence on the text of the bill was a group called “Clean Fuels Michigan” whose members are big biogas companies, oil companies like British Petroleum, utilities like DTE and Consumers Energy, and other big companies like Amazon and Delta Airlines.

The coalition opposing the bill includes:

• The Anishinaabek Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party
• Attorneys for Animals
• Barn Sanctuary
• Clean Water Action
• Farm Forward
• Food and Water Watch
• Humane Society of Huron Valley
• Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action
• Michiganders for A Just Farming System
• Student Animal Legal Defense Fund Chapter of Michigan State University College of Law
• Washtenaw 350

SB 275 would establish Michigan’s first LCFS. Used in other states, a LCFS creates a market for buying and selling carbon credits (a.k.a. carbon offsets) for transportation fuels. Carbon offset programs have received an abundance of criticism from environmental policy experts for enabling companies to use shoddy and opaque accounting of their “offset credits” to greenwash their appearance to the public while doing little to nothing to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As written, the bill instead incentivizes the production of energy sources that are not really clean, such as biogas derived from animal manure produced on factory farms. The amount of greenhouse gasses emitted from industrial animal agriculture will likely be more than the greenhouse gas emissions reduced by replacing fossil fuels with biogas. In the end, Michigan will end up with more animal waste, which pollutes the air, land, and groundwater.

“The pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is a real problem, and there are feasible solutions already out there,” Schey said. “But the carbon credit system that SB 275 would establish is a false solution for reducing these greenhouse gas emissions.”

Earlier this year, a survey exploring the policies proposed by SB 275 was conducted of 832 likely Michigan voters. The survey found that while there is strong support for climate legislation, the support is conditional. Voters across party lines said they would not trust climate legislation that was influenced by fossil fuel companies or utilities.

The coalition assembled today plans to communicate broadly with legislators throughout the session.

By Andrew deCoriolis and Gail Hansen

 This article was originally published in Newsweek earlier this year.

The government is freaking us out on bird flu. It’s not what they’re saying—it’s what they are not saying.

For more than two years the bird flu outbreak has caused devastating die offs among wild birds, wild mammals, and farmed birds. It’s overwhelming, and much of the public has understandably tuned it out.

But we should expect a lot more vigilance from the federal government, which seems complacent in the face of the outbreak’s newest and most frightening development to date. Last week, H5N1 made the first known jump into U.S. dairy cows and appeared to start spreading fast. Now this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the first case of the virus apparently spreading from cow to human. The USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in matching statements, were quick to assure the public that everything is fine.

But the potential risks of this spillover event are much bigger than either the government or industry leaders seem ready to publicly admit. The American food system relies on factory farming of animals, pushing hundreds of millions of them together into inhumane, unsanitary, dangerously overcrowded conditions. It’s the perfect breeding ground for viruses, increasing the risk of mutations, the risk of rapid spread, and the risk of farm workers getting infected through direct exposure.

Yet the USDA’s official statements to date lack any reassurance that the agency is moving aggressively to combat these risks. Let’s break down all of the things missing in the USDA’s March 29 statement.

Early on the USDA said, “Initial testing has not found changes to the virus that would make it more transmissible to humans … the current risk to the public remains low.”

This fails to acknowledge the long history of zoonotic viruses becoming dangerous to humans. The 2009 swine flu pandemic followed that exact route, from avian flu to livestock to people. The two worst pandemics in our nation’s history—the 1918 Spanish Flu and COVID-19—were both zoonotic diseases that migrated to humans after starting in animal populations. The testing may show this strain is not highly contagious to humans yet, but spreading to livestock is a very dangerous milestone and more mutation is certain. We can’t be certain that it will ever mutate dangerously—but trusting to luck with so many unknowns is a dangerous gamble.

Likely the virus has mutated already, according to the USDA’s next claim: “Spread of symptoms among the Michigan herd also indicates that [bird flu] transmission between cattle cannot be ruled out. “This means that the virus has likely already changed enough to spread from cow to cow, as The New York Times reported. And yet the USDA said that it has only “advised” dairy farmers to change their practices to reduce spread. There is no mention here, or in media interviews, of the USDA or FDA even considering stronger steps, like emergency regulation or mandatory testing to find infected animals. Changes so far appear to be voluntary, despite the fact that a widespread cattle epidemic could be a major blow to the industry, disrupt our food chain, disrupt trade, and create much higher food prices for Americans.

Now that the virus has reached dairy cows, there are also more pathways for it to get into the human food chain. Active H5N1 virus was already found in milk that came from sick cows. But even if dairy cows are sick, the USDA said, “There continues to be no concern about the safety of the commercial milk supply because products are pasteurized before entering the market.” This is true sometimes—but not all the time. Standard industry practice is to pasteurize milk by heating it to 161 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 15 seconds. But those standards were designed to kill known bacteria, and it can take much longer to kill viruses. Research into coronaviruses found that it took 3 minutes at temperatures above 160 degrees Fahrenheit to kill the virus on surfaces. It’s not safe to assume pasteurized milk is safe from H5N1and again, there is no mention by either the USDA or FDA that they are testing it to find out.

Furthermore, the USDA said, “Dairies are required to send only milk from healthy animals into processing for human consumption; milk from impacted animals is being diverted or destroyed.” Again, it appears that the USDA is expecting farms to comply with this voluntarily, with no additional inspections or oversight. Dairy farmers have every economic incentive to ignore this advice as long as the milk appears normal. According to reports, farmers only tested milk for virus because they noticed the milk looked “thick and syrupy.” The USDA makes no mention of any plan to screen milk from infected herds to see if milk that looks normal may also carry the virus. There is no mention of USDA requiring infected herds to quarantine. There could be viruses in the milk on grocery shelves right now.

The USDA ends by saying farmers are “urged” to make changes to reduce the spread of disease. But as a longtime watchdog of the industry and a veterinary epidemiologist, we’ve seen time and again how large agricultural corporations sacrifice health, safety, and the humane treatment of animals in the pursuit of profit. There is no reason they’ll change now. But this time, the stakes are too high to ignore. The USDA needs to make it clear that they have a handle on this problem before it’s too late.

Andrew deCoriolis is the executive director of Farm Forward.

Gail Hansen is a public health veterinary expert and independent consultant. She is the former state epidemiologist and state public health veterinarian for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

 The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.

This was originally a press release sent out on May 23, 2024

UPDATE: Farm Forward’s Investigation into Alexandre Farm Triggers Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department Investigation, Loss of Certified Humane Status, Changes from Organic Retailers; New Videos, Photos Released as Investigation Continues.

Pressure is building on Alexandre Farm a month after the release of Farm Forward’s investigation into their harmful and inhumane dairy farming practices as new alarming photos and videos emerge.

Since the release of an extensive investigation last month revealing Alexandre Family Farm’s animal abuse, selling of diseased animals for human consumption, and polluting farm practices, pressure has been building on the once widely endorsed “organic” dairy farm, with many businesses and organizations moving to withdraw their support:

• Whole Foods Market took down a major marketing campaign (archived here, current link is dead) featuring Alexandre Family Farm as a beacon for “restarting dairy” and referring to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards;”
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, apparently took down and removed the Our Impact page from its website, which claimed that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change;”
• The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department opened an animal abuse investigation into Alexandre Farm, and Farm Forward has offered to provide eyewitness testimony;
• Certified Humane, one of the most widely available humane certifications, has pulled their certification of Alexandre Family Farm;
• Regenerative Organic Alliance suspended Alexandre’s certification after their own investigation found standards violations; and
• Providore Fine Foods in Portland, Oregon, ended their relationship with Alexandre Family Farm as a result of the investigation.

Portions of the report were included in a major story released by The Atlantic that corroborated many of Farm Forward’s findings. The article was one of the top shared stories on The Atlantic’s website for several days.

Today, Farm Forward has also released several new videos and photos that prove abuse and neglect of Alexandre Family Farm continued as recently as March 2024, the same month that Alexandre learned that Farm Forward planned to release a report alleging the farm’s widespread abuse. We hoped that Alexandre might acknowledge the harms it’s caused and make immediate structural changes to address their ongoing animal welfare issues. Instead, Alexandre continues to deflect, deceive, and mistreat cows. If Alexandre insists on moving ahead with no changes, the question becomes, how will other companies, certifiers, and advocates respond to their commitment to abuse and corruption?

Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis stated, “Alexandre Farm responding to our investigation by doubling down on their lies to consumers flies in the face of the values Alexandre claims to stand for. Despite its denials, we’ve received new evidence that Alexandre has continued the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse our report described. And at the same time, Alexandre has knowingly deceived consumers, continuing to market their products with logos claiming Certified Humane and Regenerative Organic Certified — certifications that pulled or suspended Alexandre. Unfortunately, this kind of ongoing humanewashing is both common and tolerated within the industry. While retailers’ quiet changes to marketing may mean fewer consumers purchase Alexandre’s products, we need retailers and food companies to take bolder action to hold companies accountable for abusing animals and misleading consumers. At this point, companies that continue to do business with Alexandre are supporting the mistreatment of animals and knowingly deceiving their own customers.”

Concerned consumers can continue to support Farm Forward’s push for change by signing up to join its campaign. Animal welfare certifications did not prevent these abuses, and most appear to be broken, so Farm Forward also asks conscientious consumers to consider rejecting dairy products altogether.

###

On April 11th, Farm Forward released the results of a comprehensive investigation into Alexandre Family Farms, a leading certified organic, humane, and “regenerative” dairy company.

The investigation uncovered systematic animal abuse and likely violations of several certification standards. Farm Forward reviewed more than a thousand videos and photos, conducted extensive interviews with whistleblowers, and witnessed conditions on Alexandre farms firsthand. What emerged was a pattern of systematic welfare and environmental issues, driven from the top.

Our report was covered in detail in The Atlantic by political and economic reporter Annie Lowrey.

In the week following our posting the report, much happened, including:

• Annie Lowrey’s tweet about The Atlantic’s article received over 1 million views.
• The Atlantic’s editors selected and publicized the story as the “One Story to Read Today.”
• All Alexandre products had been removed from the ASPCA’s Shop With Your Heart.
• All Alexandre products had been removed from FindHumane.com
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, appeared to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that your eating Alec’s Ice Cream is “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Whole Foods Market appeared to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page, which referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade,” and included a video showing hundreds of calf hutches in which Alexandre admits isolating baby cows for months—with no relief and no ability to set one foot outside—as its standard practice.

Farm Forward is heartened to know that so many in the public, in other advocacy groups, and even among major companies, are already taking our investigation’s extensive, detailed, and highly concerning findings seriously.

Stay tuned in and sign our petition to tell retailers that purchase Alexandre dairy to stop humanewashing.

December 2025: 

• A local rancher files a civil rights complaint in federal court against the Humboldt County DA and Sheriff. The rancher’s suit alleges that following Farm Forward’s cruelty complaint to the sheriff, the sheriff’s office did not investigate any of the hundreds of videos and photographs of Alexandre cattle that we provided it. The suit notes that the conclusion of the sheriff’s “perfunctory” investigation—that our allegations were “unfounded”—flies in the face of a USDA document Farm Forward subsequently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which revealed that Alexandre admitted to federal investigators it indeed committed many of the animal abuses and organic standards violations we reported.

October 2025: 

• Organic industry watchdog The Cornucopia Institute downgrades Alexandre Family Farm EcoDairy’s rating from 5 out of 5, or “Top-Rated,” to 1 out of 5, “Poor.” Cornucopia had suspended Alexandre in June, 2024, after their analysis of Farm Forward’s investigation. Concluding its own independent investigation this month, Cornucopia revised its “Organic Dairy Scorecard”—which provides the numbers behind its ratings— to show that Alexandre currently scores an atrocious 150 out of a possible 1,100. Cornucopia now has Alexandre Dairy “under increased scrutiny … due to confirmed events on their supplier farms that Cornucopia considers animal abuse and neglect ….” Cornucopia’s website now also reports Farm Forward’s investigation, the resulting NOP investigation of Alexandre (which substantiated animal abuse and neglect), Alexandre’s certifier CCOF issuing Alexandre a Combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension, and the two lawsuits currently in motion against Alexandre.

September 2025: 

• USDA’s National Organic Program and its Office of the Inspector General receive complaints against Alexandre and its certifier, CCOF, from Organic industry watchdog OrganicEye. The complaints detail allegations that “through numerous actions and inactions,” Alexandre and CCOF “failed to enforce the intent and letter of the [Organic Foods Production Act of 1990] regarding the management, health, and welfare of dairy cattle.” Grounded in Farm Forward’s April 2024 and August 2025 case studies of Alexandre, OrganicEye’s complaints also contain new allegations, including multiple violations of Organic standards, and certifier visits concluding in a private home with “a social environment” and “inappropriate camaraderie between those doing the inspections … and those under scrutiny.”

August 2025:

• Farm Forward publishes its second case study of Alexandre, a follow-up report to Dairy Deception. After noting some impacts of our previous report (lawsuits, law enforcement investigations, Alexandre’s loss of retail partnerships), it exposes deeper systemic failures. Regulators, certifiers, and retailers routinely prioritize industry interests over transparency and animal protection, perpetuating consumer humanewashing. Specific, urgent reforms in government oversight, independent certification, and retail accountability would ensure meaningful protection for animals and to restore public trust in higher welfare food labeling. The report is available here.

May 2025:

• USDA provides Farm Forward with Alexandre’s explicit admissions of wrongdoing, and the agency’s confirmation of many of our allegations, including Alexandre’s egregious violations of organic and animal welfare standards. Farm Forward’s federal complaint more than a year earlier led to these findings, which USDA seemingly kept hidden from everyone except Alexandre and its certifiers until the agency was forced to respond to our Freedom of Information Act request.
• One of the two current lawsuits against Alexandre clears its first legal hurdle when a Humboldt County Superior Court judge rules to allow a suit alleging criminal cruelty to proceed. This marks a historic development: the first time a California animal cruelty statute typically used to protect companion animals has been used successfully to litigate the treatment of farmed animals.

March 2025:

• A consumer protection law firm files a class action lawsuit against Alexandre Family Farm and Certified Humane (Case #25CV554, US District Court, Southern District of California), seeking damages exceeding $5 million for fraudulent “humane” claims on Alexandre products. Among those submitting the complaint: a law firm known for securing multi-million dollar settlements in consumer protection cases, including a $39.55 million settlement against Monsanto.

September 2024:

• A nonprofit law firm files a suit against Alexandre in Humboldt County, enforcing California criminal statutes that prohibit animal cruelty. The complaint alleges that Alexandre violated California penal code 597, which covers a range of acts considered to be animal abuse, including failing to provide animals with proper food, drink, or shelter, or failing to give animals proper care and attention.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on the Search Engine podcast to talk about her coverage of Alexandre. Search Engine was named “a best podcast of 2023 by Vulture, Time, The Economist, and Vogue.”
• Farm Forward receives notification from National Organic Program (NOP) that NOP has substantiated some of the investigation’s allegations. Farm Forward takes steps to find out more.

August 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that Gus’s Community Market, a California grocery with five locations, has now pulled its Alexandre promos and reduced Alexandre’s product lines and shelf space as a result of the investigation’s findings.
• Farm Forward learns that Walt’s Wholesale Meats, which specializes in slaughtering dairy cows for meat for human consumption, has now stopped accepting all cows from Alexandre Family Farm.
• Farm Forward’s op-ed about Alexandre, greenwashing, the halo effect, and large-scale dairy fraud is published in Modern Farmer and becomes the top article on its homepage.

July 2024:

• Farm Forward informs Andronico’s Community Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Walt’s Wholesale Meats of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on Mark Bittman’s podcast to discuss her coverage of Alexandre. Mark Bittman, a food journalist and author of books including Food Matters, has written for the New York Times.

Week of June 24, 2024:

• Farm Forward files a complaint with Organic Tilth—an organic certifier—regarding the mistreatment of cows observed at a Humboldt Auction Yard property.

Week of June 10, 2024:

• Luke’s Local, a premium grocery retailer in San Francisco with three locations, cancels its orders of all Alexandre Family Farm products.

June, 2024 (unknown week):

• Organic industry watchdog The Cornucopia Institute suspends Alexandre from its Organic Dairy Scorecard so that Cornucopia can open its own investigation into Alexandre. 

Week of May 20, 2024:

• Farm Forward releases a follow-up blog revealing that Alexandre’s abuse has continued well into 2024.

Week of May 13, 2024:

• Natural food retailer Providore drops Alexandre as a supplier.

Week of May 6, 2024:

• Farm Forward informs Bi-Rite Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Luke’s Local of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Rainbow Grocery of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Mollie Stone’s Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.

Week of April 29, 2024:

• The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Livestock Division supervisor notifies Farm Forward that the Sheriff’s Office received our report on Alexandre Dairy, takes such reports very seriously, and has opened an investigation.
• Certified Humane appears to have delisted Alexandre Family Farms from its list of “Producers who are Certified Humane.”
• Farm Forward encourages Rabobank—a bank with a commitment to animal welfare—to sever ties with Alexandre Family Farm.
• Farm Forward informs Erewhon of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• A California outlet that covers Del Norte County reports on the investigation, including the opening of a Sheriff’s Office inquiry and the suspension of the Regenerative Organic Certified label.

Week of April 22, 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that Regenerative Organic Certified suspended Alexandre’s regenerative certification in February due to an audit report that indicated violations.
• Farm Forward informs Whole Foods Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre Family Farm products.
• Farm Forward informs Alec’s Ice Cream of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
  • Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, has taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Farm Forward informs Serenity Kids of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
  • Serenity Kids responds the next day to say that after receiving our report they launched their own investigation into Alexandre and would take appropriate action based on what they uncover.
• Farm Forward informs Cheddies Crackers of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• Farm Forward informs Rumiano Cheese of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• Farm Forward informs Once Upon a Farm of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on the What’s Next: TBD podcast from Slate to talk about her coverage of Alexandre.

April 19, 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that all Alexandre products have been removed from the ASPCA’s Shop With Your Heart list following the publication of our investigation.
• Farm Forward is notified that all Alexandre products have been dropped from FindHumane.com.
• Although Farm Forward submitted a complaint to Humboldt County Farm Bureau on Monday April 15, requesting a timely response, by 5pm PDT Friday April 19 Farm Forward had still received no reply from the Humboldt County Farm Bureau.
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, appears to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Whole Foods Market appears to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page, which referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade,” and included a video showing hundreds of calf hutches in which Alexandre admits isolating baby cows for months—with no relief and no ability to set one foot outside—as its standard practice.

April 15, 2024:

• Farm Forward files a standards complaint about Alexandre Family Farm with California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF).
• Farm Forward submits a complaint about Alexandre to the Humboldt County Farm Bureau.
• Farm Forward reaches out to Certified Humane to discuss abuse and neglect of cows managed by Alexandre.
• Farm Forward submits a complaint to California Veterinary Medical Association about animal mistreatment and allegations that Alexandre staff routinely practiced veterinary medicine without a license, including sawing fully grown horns off cows without pain management.
• Farm Forward asks the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) to revoke Blake Alexandre’s membership in CDFA’s Regenerative Organic Work Group.
• Farm Forward requests that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) investigate Alexandre’s violations of organic standards, and whether CDFA investigated Alexandre adequately after NOP received a whistleblower complaint about organic dairy cows who were “sick, could barely walk, were extremely thin, mistreated, and full of lungworm.”

April 12, 2024:

• The Atlantic publishes a comprehensive investigative piece of Alexandre’s operations, citing Farm Forward’s report throughout
• Farm Forward asks Alexandre Dairy to acknowledge problems in the dairy industry and work for change.
• Farm Forward files a cruelty complaint with the Humboldt County Sheriff.
• Farm Forward files a water quality complaint with the California Coastal Commission.

April 11, 2024:

• Farm Forward releases report, “Dairy Deception: Corruption and Consumer Fraud at Alexandre Family Farm.”

March 12, 2024:

• Farm Forward receives an email from Alexandre Dairy, likely attempting to delay the publishing of the report.

March 8, 2024:

• Late morning: Farm Forward receives an intimidating “lawyer letter” from Alexandre’s legal counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine, a law firm that regularly represents big dairy.
• Early morning: Farm Forward is informed that information was accidentally leaked to Alexandre, tipping them off to the pending report.

January–March, 2024:

• Multiple whistleblowers continually provide Farm Forward evidence of ongoing systematic nontreatment of sick and injured animals at Alexandre Dairy.

December, 2023:

• Farm Forward staff verify at a California cattle auction that sick, emaciated cattle with egregious untreated or inadequately treated conditions are being sold at auction by Alexandre Dairy.

June–Dec 2023:

• Multiple whistleblowers provide hundreds of videos, hundreds of photos, and more than a dozen affidavits.

January–May 2023:

• Multiple whistleblowers come forth verifying and expanding original allegations.

December 2022:

• First whistleblower approaches Farm Forward with uncorroborated complaints about Alexandre Family Farm (Alexandre Dairy). At first Farm Forward doubts the credibility of the complaint.

A new investigation by Farm Forward and Our Honor finds that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is rewarding big meat and egg companies with bailouts to compensate for losses from bird flu outbreaks—even as those companies’ very own factory farming practices are a main cause of the outbreaks to begin with. The New York Times, working off our research, reported that giant meat and egg companies like Tyson, Hormel, and Rembrandt Foods are getting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to compensate them for losses from highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu). However, the government is doing nothing to demand that they reform the conditions that lead to bird flu outbreaks. More on the implications of these findings can be found in our published op-ed in Newsweek.

Through Freedom of Information Act requests, Our Honor uncovered the recipients of the USDA’s Indemnity and Compensation program. The results are damning. The top 60 companies that benefited from the bailout funds took over half a billion dollars of federal money. Notably, Jennie-O, a subsidiary of Hormel, was granted the highest disbursement: a stunning $88 million to one company. In the same year as the USDA’s bailout, Hormel reported a revenue of $3.2 billion. In other words, The federal government is giving taxpayer dollars to hugely profitable, large-scale factory farms.

Collectively, the USDA has allocated a total of $715 million towards bird flu compensation in just the past couple of years. Stunningly, these payments are not contingent on industrial operations making changes that reduce pandemic risk (e.g., by lessening extreme confinement). In other words, industrial operations that mass kill millions of birds as a result of bird flu—a zoonotic disease that devastates precisely because of the conditions of their operation—are given millions of dollars to be compensated for their systemic failure. On top of that, the policy does nothing proactive to rectify the conditions that, more broadly, lead to avian influenza. This would be like US taxpayers paying BP to clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and doing so without requiring any changes to reduce the risk of future spills. It’s no wonder then that the poultry industry isn’t taking meaningful action to reduce the risk of future bird flu outbreaks.

Importantly, the mass depopulation method that many of these companies use is inconceivably cruel. The most common method used to mass kill chickens or turkeys is ventilation shutdown plus (VSD+), which involves shutting down the ventilation systems in poultry houses and pumping in heat, leading to a rise in temperature and humidity to lethal levels over many hours. Tens of millions of birds have been killed this way.  

Unsurprisingly, many of the companies receiving bailouts have had other flu outbreaks. In 2015, Rembrandt had a massive outbreak at an Iowa complex that resulted in the mass killing of 5.5 million hens. In 2022, Rembrandt had another outbreak, killed 5.3 million birds, and then laid off 250 employees.

And more recently, cows at several dairy farms across the country have tested positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza. In other words, there are now cases of the virus jumping from poultry to cattle. While the federal government assured that the risk to the public remains low, it’s still concerning that multiple operations are reporting cross-species infection. And early this April, the Washington Post reported a case in Texas, where a person contracted bird flu after contact with infected dairy cattle.

“Fixing” a problem that industrial poultry created

Policymakers continue to ignore the scientific consensus that industrial poultry farming poses a clear and present danger to public health from increased pandemic risk.

As the UN Report, Preventing the Next Pandemic, states:

“The intensification of agriculture, and in particular of domestic livestock farming (animal husbandry), results in large numbers of genetically similar animals. These are often bred for higher production levels; more recently, they have also been bred for disease resistance. As a result, domestic animals are being kept in close proximity to each other and often in less than ideal conditions. Such genetically homogenous host populations are more vulnerable to infection than genetically diverse populations, because the latter are more likely to include some individuals that better resist disease.” (pg. 15)

If the horrors of the COVID-19 pandemic should have taught us one thing, it’s that we have to take pandemic prevention just as seriously as preparedness. A serious commitment to preventing the next pandemic must tackle the sources of greatest risk—which includes factory poultry farming. To truly protect ourselves from future pandemic risk, we have to end Big Poultry.

Farm Forward plans to push the USDA and Congress to take action to address the root causes of pandemic risk. Sign up below for more updates about our work.

In the Vatican Gardens after a private audience with the Pope, author and Farm Forward founding board member Jonathan Safran Foer gave a keynote address in response to Pope Francis’s new Apostolic Exhortation, Laudaute Deum. Foer argued that food systems reform and eating fewer animal products are important and necessary modes of addressing climate change. He also discussed the necessity for policy change and individual action in meeting the moment. Below is the text from Foer’s speech.

It is a tremendous honor to participate today. Before having the opportunity to read the text of Pope Francis’s “Laudate Deum,” I had no intention of bringing my one-year-old daughter to this event. But I was so profoundly moved by the wisdom, courage and moral urgency of the Pope’s words, that I wanted her—a representative of my, and our, future—to be present.

In 1942, a twenty-eight-year-old Catholic in the Polish underground, Jan Karski, embarked on a mission to travel from Nazi-occupied Poland to London, and ultimately America, to inform world leaders of what the Germans were perpetrating. In preparation for his journey, he met with several resistance groups, accumulating information and testimonies to bring to the West. In his memoir, he recounts a meeting with the head of the Jewish Socialist Alliance:

The leader gripped my arm with such violence that it ached. I looked into his wild, staring eyes with awe, moved by the deep, unbearable pain in them. “Tell the leaders that this is no case for politics or tactics. Tell them that the Earth must be shaken to its foundation, the world must be aroused. Perhaps then it will wake up, understand, perceive…”

After surviving as perilous a journey as could be imagined, Karski arrived in Washington, D.C., in June 1943. There, he met with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of the great legal minds in American history, and himself a Jew. After hearing Karski’s accounts of the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto and of exterminations in the concentration camps, after asking him a series of increasingly specific questions (“What is the height of the wall that separates the ghetto from the rest of the city?”), Frankfurter paced the room in silence, then took his seat and said, “Mr. Karski, a man like me talking to a man like you must be totally frank. So I must say I am unable to believe what you told me.” When Karski’s colleague pleaded with Frankfurter to accept Karski’s account, Frankfurter responded, “I didn’t say that this young man is lying. I said I am unable to believe him. My mind, my heart, they are made in such a way that I cannot accept it.”

Frankfurter didn’t question the truthfulness of Karski’s story. He didn’t dispute that the Germans were systematically murdering the Jews of Europe—his own relatives. And he didn’t respond that while he was persuaded and horrified, there was nothing he could do. Rather, he admitted not only his inability to believe the truth, but his awareness of that inability. Frankfurter was unable to wake up, understand, perceive.

Our minds and hearts are well built to perform certain tasks, and poorly designed for others. We are good at things like calculating the path of a hurricane, and bad at things like deciding to get out of its way. We excel at taking care of ourselves, and struggle to make the leaps of empathy required to take care of others. The further those “others” are—geographically, in time, and between species—the greater we struggle.

Although many of climate change’s accompanying calamities—extreme weather events, floods and wildfires, displacement and resource scarcity—are vivid, personal, and suggestive of a worsening situation, they often don’t feel that way in aggregate. They often feel abstract, distant, and isolated, rather than like beams of an ever-strengthening narrative. The earth is telling us a story that we seem unable to believe.

So-called climate change deniers reject the conclusion that science has reached: the planet is warming because of human activities. But what about those of us who say we accept the reality of human-caused climate change? We may not think the scientists are lying, but do we have the will to believe what they tell us? Such a belief would surely awaken us to the urgent ethical imperative attached to it, shake our collective conscience, and render us willing to make small sacrifices in the present to avoid cataclysmic ones in the future.

Intellectually accepting the truth isn’t virtuous in and of itself. And it won’t save us. As a child, I was often told “you know better” when I did something I shouldn’t have done. Knowing was the difference between a mistake and an offense.

If we accept the factual reality that we are destroying the planet and dooming future generations, but are unable to believe it and change our behaviors in meaningful ways, we reveal ourselves to be just another variety of denier. When the future distinguishes between these two kinds of denial, which will appear to be a grave error and which a sin?

Perhaps the most courageous feature of Pope Francis’s paper is that he pointedly calls us “to move beyond the mentality of appearing to be concerned but not having the courage needed to produce substantial changes.” It is more comfortable to speak about these changes in abstract terms—the kind that make us feel good when advertised on t-shirts or cheered in rallies—than the practical ones that require us to alter our lives. Yes, there are constraints on how quickly and how much we can change, there are conventions and economic realities that limit the parameters of the possible. Yet we remain free to choose among possible options—and there are many within reach that could alter the trajectory of existence.

The most influential decisions will be at the policy level, shaping the practices of nations, but we also can make decisions in our own lives and local institutions that matter more than crude math might suggest. As Pope Francis emphasizes, “Efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste, and to consume with prudence, are creating a new culture”—a culture that is already playing, and will play, a decisive role in rallying larger collective actions. Choosing a form of transportation with lower carbon emissions, or reducing the consumption of animal products, especially meat, are actions that can matter at the individual and the policy level. The power of food system change to alter the climate is particularly noteworthy and only just beginning to be realized.

We need structural change, yes. We need a global shift away from fossil fuels. We need to enforce something akin to a carbon tax, build walkable cities, and rapidly electrify homes and communities from increasingly renewable energy sources. We need to acknowledge the disproportionate obligations of countries, like my own, that have been disproportionately responsible for climate change. We will likely need a political revolution. These changes will require shifts that individuals alone cannot realize. But putting aside the fact that collective revolutions are made up of individuals, led by individuals, and reinforced by individual revolutions, we would have no chance of achieving our goal of limiting environmental destruction if individuals don’t make the very individual decision to live differently: to drive and fly less, to eat less meat, and to do the hard work of believing in both the catastrophe we are creating and our capacity to avert it. Of course it’s true that one person’s decisions will not change the world, but of course it’s true that the sum of hundreds of millions of such decisions will.

This is not to understate the challenge of changing one’s life. I have written two books about ethical eating and still regularly struggle to make choices that reflect my beliefs. It is now clear that this will be a lifelong struggle for me. I began these remarks by mentioning that my daughter is joining me today. We flew here. I made the decision that the carbon expense of this particular trip was worth it. These are the kinds of choices each of us must face, and we won’t arrive at the same answers. What’s needed is not complete agreement, much less purity, but our belief, expressed through our best and most thoughtful efforts.

Also needed is hope. There is an understandable tendency among those who care to catastrophize. I often wrestle with despair in my own thinking about climate change. We need not despair, and we cannot despair. If we can acknowledge in our hearts what our heads have already concluded about the struggle before us, the courage to change will follow.

Pope Francis addresses his Laudate Deum to “all people of good will,” and this sentiment presides over the document. What does it mean to be a person of good will if not to make ethical choices? What is ecological grace if not the sum of daily, hourly decisions to take a bit less than our hands can hold, to eat other than what we might crave in any given moment, to create limits for ourselves so that we all might be able to share in the bounty? Surely we can now see that the sum of these changes will not be the deprivation some have told us to fear, but the overcoming of a global catastrophe and our most valuable gift to the future.

The Talmud tells of a sage who encountered a man planting a carob tree by the side of the road. He asked the man how long it would take to bear fruit. “Seventy years,” the man replied. “And do you think you will live another seventy years to eat the fruit of this tree?” “Perhaps not,” the man answered. “However, when I was born into this world, I found many carob trees planted by my father and grandfather. Just as they planted trees for me, I am planting trees for my children and grandchildren so they will be able to eat their fruit.”

We often think of our legacy as passing along the things we amass in life, but this must change. The most profound inheritance we bestow is not what we acquire, but the beliefs with which we struggle, the efforts we make to live by them, and perhaps above all, what we are ready to let go of. As St. Francis reminds us: “when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received–only what you have given.”

The Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) recently released Version 3.0 of its standards for food service institutions. Used by more than 70 institutions throughout the country, the Good Food Purchasing standards are transforming our food system, including by reducing meat consumption and shifting purchasing toward more humane methods of raising farmed animals.

Animal welfare represents one of five key categories in GFPP’s values-based purchasing standards. “For years we’ve worked with the GFPP to shift food consumption patterns by leveraging the purchasing power of public institutions like schools, jails, and hospitals,” Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis said. He added, “The improvements made in Version 3.0 will increase that shift, representing a ‘much less and better’ approach to buying meat and other animal products — one we’re proud to support.”

Included in the updated standards are two important changes for animal welfare and meat reduction, championed by Farm Forward.

The updated food purchasing standards will:

1. Ensure that institutions’ efforts to reduce meat consumption have the effect of decreasing the total number of animals raised for food. The new standards aim to prevent a situation wherein the decreased purchase of, say, beef, leads to an increase in the purchase of chicken.
2. Increase the available opportunities to meet animal welfare standards by reducing meat, for example by offering plant-based dishes as the default option. The standards incentivize organizations to reduce over time the amount of meat they serve per meal.

Other changes reflected in Version 3.0 include animal welfare certification standards that represent higher welfare animal products. Read about other updates included in this newest version.

By advocating for values-based food purchasing, Farm Forward is able to make an impact on a large scale. Since 2016 we have helped lead the creation of GFPP’s animal welfare standards and provided free consulting and technical support to help institutions meet them.

Beyond our work with GFPP, we have long championed institutional policy work to change how the country eats and farms, including through programs like the Leadership Circle and DefaultVeg.

We are proud to have played an integral role in developing the latest version of the Good Food Purchasing Standards, and we will continue to fight to shape food policy that moves us away from factory farming and toward more humane and plant-forward food.

Why has Costco kept its price for rotisserie chickens at $4.99 since they were first sold in 2009, despite inflation? Costco knows that cheap chicken helps to bring customers through the door, who then spend money on other products with greater profit margins. Costco capitalizes on this trend by selling rotisserie chickens in the back of the store. However, the low price point comes at a high cost for the welfare of the chickens, the environment, and public health.

Is Costco chicken good for you?

Costco chickens are raised on factory farms by the tens of thousands. These industrial farms have a profound impact on the environment and public health at large, and have severe implications for the communities directly surrounding the farms.

Some of these effects are far-reaching. Intensive farming operations result in the production of large amounts of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane. These emissions drive climate change, degrade soil, and pollute air and waterways. The sheer number of chickens raised on factory farms also requires that feed be brought in from other locations, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Antibiotics are likely to be emitted in the waste that is produced by the farms, driving the antibiotic resistance crisis.

On a more local scale, the dust produced by factory farms is likely to contain various harmful chemicals, feces, and even bits of feathers and flesh. Exposure to this dust has been linked to the development of respiratory diseases. The ammonia-laden odors produced by factory farms also impact on the health and well-being of the workers at the farms and can even affect health in settlements in the near vicinity.1

Why are Costco chickens so cheap?

Costco has consistently sought ways to reduce the cost of producing their rotisserie chickens, and has succeeded primarily by doubling down on factory farming chickens, which externalize costs on the environment, workers, and farmed animals. Costco has also by vertically integrated its supply chain to gain more control and keep costs low, all while resisting calls for higher animal welfare that could increase production costs. In 2018, Costco broke ground on a new poultry processing facility in Nebraska designed to process more than two million chickens per week. Many local farmers, land owners, and advocates united to oppose the multinational company’s “cradle-to-grave” vertical integration, but Costco proceeded over their objections.

The poultry processing facility is part of a larger complex that allows Costco to control the chicken supply chain from the factory all the way to store. The complex cost the company $450 million to construct and is expected to save it up to $0.35 a bird. Though this may seem like a small amount, the chain sells more than a hundred million rotisserie chickens every year, so that adds up to more than 35 million per year in increased profits or potential savings.

Though Costco stands to save money by vertically integrating its chicken supply chain, the cost to local farmers is likely to be high. Before the chickens are slaughtered and processed, most live in warehouses operated by farmers with nearby land. However, the specifications of how the birds are raised remain under Costco’s control. Though Costco markets their business to farmers by suggesting they can expect to pocket upwards of $90,000 a year through these contracts, experts argue that their true income is closer to $60,000.

When it comes to chickens raised for meat, the birds have been bred over generations to grow very quickly. Motivated by reducing costs and increasing profits, this genetic abuse has resulted in severe health conditions and poor welfare. Costco has shown no inclination to use birds with higher welfare genetics. In 2021, Costco announced an updated animal welfare policy following pressure from farmed animal advocates, yet critics have continued to pressure the company to do better, citing environmental and welfare concerns related to their farms.

What’s in a Costco rotisserie chicken?

You might expect the only ingredients in a rotisserie chicken to be chicken and spices, but this isn’t the case. Costco rotisserie chicken lists 11 ingredients on its labels. They are: chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates, hydrolyzed casein, modified corn starch, sugar, dextrose, chicken broth, isolated soy protein, monoglycerides, and diglycerides.

What are Costco rotisserie chickens injected with?

Many of the ingredients found on the label of a Costco rotisserie chicken are injected into the flesh of the bird. This is typically done to add flavor.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain antibiotics?

As part of its animal welfare policy, Costco has signaled that it intends to reduce antibiotic use. A survey it sent to its chicken suppliers found that 97 percent of its Kirkland Signature products (including rotisserie chickens) were raised without the “routine use” of antibiotics that are also used to treat people. However, “routine use” is undefined. If no routine use means that antibiotics are only administered once per flock, that would still mean all birds in the flock received antibiotics. Costco has resisted requests from their shareholders to publish quantitative data showing progress away from the overall use of antibiotics in their chickens. Costco has not released an analysis of their chicken products to support the survey’s results.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain hormones?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits the use of hormones in raising any poultry in the United States. Therefore, the chickens that are slaughtered to become Costco’s rotisserie chickens do not contain any added hormones.

Why are Costco chickens so big?

The average Costco rotisserie chicken weighs three pounds fully cooked. The birds raised for Costco are broiler chickens who have been genetically modified through breeding to grow very large, very quickly. About 100 years ago in 1925, chickens lived for 112 days before being slaughtered at 2.5 pounds. Modern chickens, such as those raised by Costco, are slaughtered at only 47 days but at 5 pounds weigh more than double what their ancestors weighed at slaughter.

Costco rotisserie chickens are what the industry calls “small birds.” Hybrid breeding techniques have also produced “heavy birds,” who are 8-9 pounds when alive and are usually sold cut up as chicken products. All of these birds, large and small, are raised by the tens of thousands on modern chicken farms better known as “factory farms.”

Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Media

Avian flu has spread swiftly across farms globally since late 2020, leaving bird populations devastated in its wake and consumers facing higher egg prices. In the United States, the outbreak has resulted in the culling of more than 58.7 million birds across 47 states in a series of more than 830 outbreaks.

The high price of eggs is just one outcome of bird flu. Far more worrying is the possibility that the disease could adapt to human bodies and lead to the next global pandemic. Though eating chicken or eggs is unlikely to lead to illness, experts agree that the pandemic risk of avian flu is real, stemming largely from the way birds are raised on factory farms and the particular breeds of birds that have come to dominate the supply chain.

What is bird flu?

Bird flu, also known as avian influenza or by the names of its various subtypes such as H5N1, refers to a group of viral infections that exist naturally in aquatic birds in the wild. These viruses also have the potential to spread among other types of wild birds and mammals, domestic fowl, humans, and a variety of other animals.

There are four different categories of influenza: types A, B, C, and D. Avian influenza is categorized as a type A virus. The viruses in this category are different from the other three types in part because they spread more easily between species. Type A influenzas can more readily proliferate and have a higher risk of resulting in a pandemic. Categorization is further defined by the animal species from which the virus originated, for example swine flu or, in this case, avian flu.

How is bird flu transmitted to humans?

Most human cases of avian influenza start with close contact between a human and an infected bird, their carcass, their droppings, or their environment. Infections of people with H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b, the strain causing the current illness among birds around the world, are rare. Transmission between people has not yet been observed. In February 2023, two human infections of H5N1 occurred in Cambodia, the first in the country since 2014, prompting fears about the widespread bird flu’s potentially rising infectiousness between humans, but these were later attributed to a different form of the virus (clade 2.3.2.1c). However, experts are concerned about future pandemic risk caused by a strain’s capacity to evolve to infect people more easily.

The virus could accomplish this in one of two ways: mutation—in which the virus changes to evade the human immune system’s response, as occurred in the pandemic of 1918—or reassortment—which entails avian flu and a human flu infecting a person at the same time and swapping genes, creating a new and more infectious or virulent strain, as occurred in the pandemics of 1957 and 1968.1

Currently there is no vaccine to protect against contracting bird flu. The seasonal flu vaccine that people are advised to take every year does not prevent the contraction of avian flu.

What are the symptoms of bird flu in humans?

In humans, the virus can cause no symptoms at all, cause a mild illness, or come with a range of indicators ranging from moderate to severe, among them: headaches, fever, sore throat, fatigue, body aches, and even seizures in particularly acute cases. The infection fatality rate of avian flu is much higher than that of COVID-19.

According to the CDC, since 1997 there have been 890 people diagnosed with H5N1, and of these, about half have died from the illness. A different strain of H5 bird flu, H5N6, was identified in people in China in 2014. Since then 81 people across China and Laos have been diagnosed with it. Among those who were hospitalized for the disease, 30 percent died.

What are the symptoms of avian flu in birds?

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, there are several indicators that a flock of birds may be experiencing an outbreak of avian influenza. Symptoms include nasal discharge and sneezing, diarrhea, purpling or swelling of the body, and even sudden and inexplicable death.

On an industrial farm, if avian flu exposure takes place, the entire flock of birds is killed, not just the sick individuals. This is done in an attempt to prevent the spread of disease to other flocks, wild birds, and the people working at the facility. The destruction of entire flocks has contributed to the extremely high number of birds that have been slaughtered as a result of the current avian flu outbreak. Many of these birds are killed in inhumane ways, such as having water-based foam sprayed over them causing them to suffocate, or sealing off their sheds and pumping carbon dioxide into the air. In some instances, birds have also been killed by simply cutting the airflow into their shed and causing temperatures to rise to lethal levels.

How is bird flu diagnosed in humans?

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hundreds of millions of people have become familiar with swabbing noses or throats for PCR tests. A similar process, in which a sample is collected from a sick person’s nose or throat, is performed when testing for avian influenza. An alternative way of diagnosing bird flu is by testing phlegm that is coughed up by the sick person.

How is bird flu treated in humans?

A person who is suspected of having avian influenza will likely be asked by their doctor to quarantine at home and be given medications to manage the symptoms of the illness. These antiviral medications can help by reducing the severity of the illness while also increasing the chances of survival. Once a diagnosis has been made, there are few options for the ailing, aside from quarantine, prescription antiviral medications, and hoping for the best.

Can you get bird flu from eating chicken?

According to the World Health Organization, there have been rare infections of people who consume dishes with raw, infected poultry blood. However, no evidence suggests that avian flu can be contracted from consuming properly prepared chicken products.

Can you eat eggs from a chicken with bird flu?

No evidence suggests that you can contract avian flu from consuming the eggs of an infected chicken.

Should we stop eating chicken due to bird flu?

While the consumption of chickens and eggs may not place individuals at risk of contracting bird flu, factory farming poultry is a major risk factor in producing the next pandemic. Experts agree that bird flu emerged on industrial poultry farms, and that some bird flu strains have already spread from birds to people. There is consensus among experts that the ongoing industrial farming of poultry makes the emergence of new, more dangerous strains of bird flu—which could more easily spread from bird to humans—far more likely.2 Much of the risk posed by factory-farmed chickens results from their genetic uniformity and the conditions in which they live. The industrial farming status quo gambles with public health. Only with a radical restructuring might raising chickens on farms with a reduced pandemic risk be possible.

Why do factory farms increase risk?

While all factory farms present some risk of causing zoonotic disease, the risk produced by chicken farms is the most severe due to the genetic similarity of the birds, the scale and density of production, the close human-animal contact, and the undermining of the birds’ health and immune systems through selective breeding and poor conditions.

At any given time a single barn on one chicken factory farm is likely to contain over 30,000 birds. These birds live in tight quarters that are ideal for disease transmission, and because they have been bred for efficiency from similar stock they have very similar genetics. The people who work directly with the chickens provide the perfect opportunity for a strain of bird flu to make the jump from chickens to humans.3

How can risk be reduced?

To reduce the risk of pandemics associated with animal agriculture, particularly chickens, we must change the way we eat and farm. Given that many of our recent pandemics originated from animals, including COVID-19, changing animal agriculture will save not only animal but likely also save human lives.4

The changes start with what we eat. Instead of consuming large amounts of chicken and other poultry products, we must shift diets toward plant-based foods. We recommend that people eat conscientiously, as few animals as possible, ideally none. Since some people will continue to eat animals, though, we need to completely reshape how animals are farmed. The chickens currently raised on commercial farms should be replaced with hardier, slower-growing, heritage birds. Another shift that farms need to make is to take a cue from the “social distancing” required by the COVID-19 pandemic and dramatically reduce the density at which the chickens are housed. These measures would make it more difficult for diseases to spread from bird to bird, reducing the chances of human exposure or a mutation that leads to the next pandemic.

Conclusion

Continuing to raise genetically similar birds by the tens of thousands, tightly packed together in sheds, is a recipe for disaster. Though one individual consuming the eggs and meat of these birds is very unlikely to lead to the spread of disease, the aggregate demand of individuals shapes agricultural production. Failing to shift our dietary habits and farming techniques puts all of us at risk.

Forests play an important role in maintaining a healthy global environment. They influence the weather and even the acidity of the oceans, affecting ecosystems thousands of miles beyond their borders. Unfortunately, forests are being destroyed by human activity as they are cleared to make way for grazing animals and their feed, as well as for other agricultural and industrial purposes.

What is deforestation?

The destruction of forests can be broken down into two parts: deforestation and forest degradation.

Deforestation takes place when forested areas are converted to nonforest uses, such as urban sprawl, agriculture, or roads.

Degradation consists of the partial destruction of forests through reducing the number of trees and other flora, which prevents these plants from contributing to ecosystems, societies, and economies as they would when allowed to thrive.

Forests are important to water supplies, climate change mitigation, and sustainable food production, and forests support many of the poorest people globally. The FAO estimates that forests supply 86 million green jobs and that 90 percent of people in extreme poverty rely at least in part on forests for their livelihoods—which are put at risk by deforestation and forest degradation.

On top of deforestation’s economic impact, it also severely impacts the climate—annually, deforestation contributes 1.5 gigatons of carbon, roughly the same amount as Russia.

What are the causes of deforestation?

Deforestation and forest degradation have a wide array of causes, most of which can be directly linked to human activities.

Animal agriculture

Animal agriculture is one of the primary drivers of deforestation. Two of the major contributors within animal agriculture are deforestation to clear land for use as pasture and to grow feed for the billions of animals kept on factory farms around the world.

Livestock ranching

Livestock ranching is a major contributor to deforestation, especially in Latin America. Of deforested land in the Amazon, 70 percent is now occupied by pasture for farmed animals. Not only do farmers clear trees to create open land for this grazing activity, this clearance then damages the soil quality and leads to severe degradation of the land via erosion, compaction, and overgrazing, creating the need to clear even more land for agriculture.

Growing feed

An increased global demand for animal feed has led to countries such as Brazil to clear large swathes of forest to grow crops used to feed farmed animals. Soy is a particularly common crop. Between 1994 and 2004, the land area used to grow soy in Latin America more than doubled, and the amount of land dedicated to soy production remains high today. More than three-quarters (77 percent) of the world’s soy is fed to farmed animals.

Degradation

The degradation or partial destruction of forests can often be a precursor to the eventual complete clearing of forests. This is especially true for those forested areas where humans are engaged in extractive industry, such as timber logging.

Forest fires

Already fragmented forests and forest edges are the areas most prone to forest fires, especially those fires that originate from human activities such as camping. Many fires in areas such as the Amazon are set deliberately by those aiming to clear the forest, while in the U.S. 89 percent of forest fires also originate from human activity.

Illegal logging

Illegal logging is big business, with an estimated total value of between $51 and $152 billion yearly. On top of the ecological destruction caused by unsustainable and unchecked logging activity, those taking part in these activities are stealing the ecosystems and value that the harvested forests supply to local communities and the nonhuman species that depend on forests.

Mining

Mining activity in forested areas is driven by an increasing demand for precious metals and stones. One recent analysis found that four countries—Indonesia, Brazil, Ghana, and Suriname—are disproportionately impacted by deforestation directly related to mining activities. In addition to the loss of forests caused directly by mining, forests are also being lost indirectly in two-thirds of the countries included in the analysis.1

Palm oil

In just under 50 years, global palm oil production has increased from two million tons in 1970 to 71 million tons in 2018. This massive increase in production has been felt most in the small band of land along the equator with the best climate for palm plantation growth. In Indonesia, for example, palm oil production accounted for 23 percent of deforestation from 2001 to 2016, a trend that peaked in 2009.

Paper

Demand for toilet paper has been slowly rising over the last several decades. The increased demand for toilet paper has led to an increased pressure on forests. Producing just one ton of toilet paper requires 1.75 tons of raw fiber.

Urbanization

The process of urbanization, wherein people move into new areas and development takes place, directly impacts forested areas through destruction and fragmentation. Urbanization further changes nutrient cycling, introduces nonnative species, and significantly impacts the health of forested areas.

How does deforestation affect animals?

Climate change

The Amazon rainforest is frequently regarded as the lungs of the planet for the role it plays in managing greenhouse gases and releasing oxygen.

As it continues to be destroyed by deforestation, however, these contributions are not the only thing that is being lost. The rainforest also plays a major role in managing precipitation and temperatures locally and across South America. Deforestation could see the Amazon reach a tipping point at which the forest begins to recede without human intervention due to the impact on local climate. This might cause more fires and erosion in the Amazon, and the further loss of forest would accelerate climate change and be detrimental to the whole planet. Humans are not the only animals that will suffer should temperatures in the Amazon and around the world continue to rise and rain patterns shift.

Natural disasters

Deforestation has been noted as responsible for a number of natural disasters, not least the flash floods and landslides that took place in Indonesia in 2019. These disasters left almost 90 people dead and 150 injured. Though the human death toll from these disasters is known, the animals and habitats that were lost as part of these floods and landslides are unknown.

Human interactions

The destruction of forests means that wild animals’ homes and habitats are being displaced and destroyed, bringing wild animals into closer contact with people. These conflicts between humans and animals can take place anywhere. They could be as simple as a bear digging through a trashcan or as dramatic as an elephant ransacking a village.

Starvation

When wild animals lose their habitats due to deforestation, they are often unable to adapt to the new physical environment and as a result can starve to death.

Acidic oceans

Increased ocean acidity is caused when the water absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Because deforestation contributes 10 percent of that carbon dioxide, the continued destruction of forests drives the increasing acidity of the water. As the water absorbs more carbon dioxide it becomes more difficult for a variety of marine creatures.

Loss of habitat

When forests are destroyed the trees are not the only living things killed—the habitats of thousands of different species are also extinguished, causing animals to die. Between 1998 and 2015, an estimated 87 million animals were killed in New South Wales due to the clearing of trees.

How does deforestation affect the environment?

We depend upon forests to store greenhouse gases and help maintain a healthy ecosystem and atmosphere. The destruction of forests has lasting impacts that are often difficult—or even impossible—to reverse.

Climate change

Forests around the world absorb and store a massive 15.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. Through deforestation some of this carbon dioxide, over 8 billion tons, is released into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.

Destruction of homelands

The rate of deforestation on land that is controlled by indigenous communities is markedly lower than on land that is not. When deforestation occurs, indigenous communities can lose their homes or culturally significant natural resources. For these reasons—as well as ongoing cultural commitments to living in balance with nature—many indigenous communities tend to have strong motivations to seek to protect the forests instead of felling them, or allowing others to fell them.

Increased greenhouse gases

Forests store a massive amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere when they are destroyed. In 2021, the Amazon rainforest released more CO2 than it absorbed for the first time.

Soil erosion and flooding

Forests help to anchor soil and keep it in place during heavy rainfall. When forests are cut down, their root systems are also removed, making once-forested areas more vulnerable to flooding and erosion.

Water in the atmosphere

The trees that make up forests play a vital role in the water cycle, acting as a mechanism for evaporation. The water that is pulled from trees forms clouds that release rain hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the source forest. The destruction of forests disrupts this cycle and can have deadly impacts on environments around the world.

How does deforestation affect humans?

Food insecurity

Deforestation has a profound negative impact on the amount of precipitation experienced around the world. This reduction in rainfall in turn reduces our ability to grow food that relies on a healthy and operational water system.

Health

The continued destruction of forests also increases the likelihood of pandemics in humans, as interactions between people and animals increase. Research also suggests that the animals that thrive in areas converted from forest to urban uses are in many cases those most likely to carry disease which can mutate and make the jump into humans.

Local people and their livelihoods

Local communities, especially of indigenous people, are the most at risk when it comes to deforestation, as they often rely on forests for much of their livelihood.

Conclusion

Forests play a vital role in maintaining the health of humans, other animals, and the environment. Unfortunately, they are being destroyed by human activity on a vast scale. Some of the best steps we can take as individuals to manage the destruction caused by our consumption are to reduce or eliminate meat eating, reduce consumption of goods such as paper, and to limit consuming products containing palm oil.

Photo: Andrew Skowron / We Animals Media

People who consume dairy may believe they are not encouraging the slaughter of any animals by doing so. But industrial dairy production requires that cows must repeatedly be made pregnant to produce milk, bringing many calves into the world who the industry must either use productively or dispose of. One of the ways to use the male calves born as a “byproduct” of dairy production is to turn them into meat known as veal.

What is veal?

Veal is the meat from young cows, who are usually the unwanted male calves of the dairy industry. The calves tend to be around four months old when they are slaughtered. Around 390,000 calves were commercially slaughtered in the U.S. in 2021.

Veal has mainly been produced and consumed in a handful of European countries, but its consumption in Europe has declined over the past 20 years. Animal advocates and veterinarians consider veal production to be particularly cruel and have successfully campaigned to have its worst aspects—notably keeping the calves in tiny crates—banned in some countries.

What animal is veal?

Veal comes from young cows, but is given different names depending on how young they were at slaughter and the conditions they were raised in.

Bob veal

“Bob veal” is meat from newborn calves, often sold directly from dairy farms. The calves haven’t had time to use their muscles, which makes the meat more tender. About 15 percent of veal sold in the U.S. is classified as bob veal, being from calves up to three weeks old or 150 pounds in weight.

Slink veal

“Slink veal” is made from stillborn calves or unborn calves removed from slaughtered pregnant cows. It is illegal to produce veal this way in the U.S. and Canada, and slink veal has not been widely eaten since the Victorian era.

Rose veal

“Rose veal” (or “rosé veal”) comes from cows who are over six months old at slaughter. The name comes from the color of the meat, which is darker than other veal meat because the calves are older when they are killed and they are fed a diet that includes fiber, as opposed to only milk. Rose veal is largely a product of the U.K., developed in response to changing laws around veal production. It may also be marketed under other names or referred to as “humanely raised.”  

Is veal just baby cow?

Veal comes from baby cows and very young cows. Cows have a natural lifespan of 15 to 20 years, so being slaughtered at a year or younger means they have lived for less than 5 percent of their natural life. The age equivalent for a human would be about four years old or under.

Why is veal cruel?

Not only are the calves used for veal very young, but they have historically been housed in a way that animal welfare groups consider particularly cruel, in order to ensure the veal meat is as tender as possible.     

How are veal calves housed?

Veal crates

Calves are kept in individual veal crates so small that they stop calves from moving around. This prevents their muscles from developing and makes the meat more tender. Sometimes the calves are also chained inside the crates to further restrict movement. Public pressure and campaigning resulted in the U.K. banning the use of veal crates in 1990, with the European Union following suit in 2006.1 In the U.S., some states have banned veal crates, and some veal producers have also been voluntarily phasing them out under pressure from campaigning groups.

Restricted space

Calves raised for veal are now more commonly kept in group pens, though in the U.S. they still spend the first two months of their lives housed individually, purportedly to make it easier to monitor their health. Images from the American Veal Association show that though group pens are an improvement on veal crates they are nonetheless still small, with slatted floors inside barren sheds.

Abnormal behaviors

Calves can exhibit abnormal, repetitive behaviors, known as stereotypies, when their natural instincts are frustrated. Being fed on liquid diets in particular can lead to such frustration, since it provides little opportunity for the calves to chew. As a result, many will engage in rolling and unrolling their tongues inside and outside of their mouths, as well as licking and nibbling other objects. Not having their mothers’ teat to suckle on may also contribute to these behaviors.2

Increased disease susceptibility

Calves are born without much natural immunity. To develop healthy immune systems, they need to ingest enough good colostrum (the milk produced by mother mammals, including humans, right after they give birth) in their first 24 hours to receive maternal antibodies. Due to changes in their feeding systems and exposure to a large number of infectious agents soon after birth, calves are at very high risk of becoming ill, particularly with digestive disorders due to infection or through compromised digestive development.

How are veal calves raised?

Separated at birth

Calves used for veal come from the dairy industry, so they are not allowed to stay with their mothers for longer than a day or two, to maximize the amount of the mother’s milk that can be sold. There is debate over whether it is better for the cows’ welfare to remove the calves immediately, before they’ve had a chance to bond with their mothers, or to let them stay with them for a few days, but it is clear that separating them at all goes against the cows’ natural behavior. Calves will naturally wean at around eight months but may maintain a bond with their mothers for years. Disrupting their bond is distressing for both.3

If the calves were allowed to grow to adulthood, long-term effects of early maternal separation would become more apparent, as research has found that calves who are allowed to stay with their mothers for longer are more sociable and able to cope better with changes in circumstances later in life.4

Abnormal gut development

Veal calves are traditionally raised on milk substitutes, and are still often raised this way in Europe and the U.S. In the U.K., calves raised for veal are required to be fed a diet that includes a daily minimum of roughage and fiber from the age of two weeks to help their digestive systems develop normally. Milk substitute diets intentionally omit iron, which makes the meat lighter in color so that it can be marketed as white veal. This practice both causes anemia and can be damaging to the intestinal health of calves. Underdeveloped digestive systems make it harder for them to obtain nutrients, and leave them susceptible to infectious diseases and gut problems.5 Diarrhea is the most common illness among calves under three months old because they are born without much of an immune system, and it is even more of a problem for calves on an artificial diet.

Cruel transportation

While meat from very young “bob” calves might be sold directly from dairy farms, most calves are transported to veal farms or auction houses, sometimes traveling long distances. The experience is highly stressful and bad for their health. One study found that in the Netherlands, one of the major veal producers in Europe, calves are collected from different dairy farms, including some in other countries, and transported together to veal farms. Transporting them when they are only a few weeks old leaves them susceptible to illness, while the restriction on feed and water before and during transportation leaves many with diarrhea, dehydration, serious weight loss, and lameness. Respiratory illnesses are also associated with transportation.6 Conditions are so harsh that some calves die during transport, but not so many that it makes economic sense for farmers to improve transport conditions.

Some countries mainly export male dairy calves, such as Ireland, which has a huge surplus of unwanted calves due to a government-driven expansion of the dairy industry in the last decade. Around 200,000 of the 750,000 male calves born there are exported to the European veal market, enduring grueling journeys by ship for as long as 27 hours without food or water. In response to criticisms from the European Parliament, the Irish government has been trying to export the calves by plane to cut journey times—a plan called “horrific” by Ethical Farming Ireland.

Cruelty to calves

There have been a number of documented instances of calves born into the dairy industry in the U.S. and elsewhere being treated brutally by farm staff, who have been recorded kicking, throwing, and dragging calves.

Drug use

As calves are highly susceptible to illness, it is often necessary for them to be treated with a number of medications, particularly in the first weeks after they arrive at veal farms when they are most likely to be suffering from respiratory and gastrointestinal disorders.7

Calves are “stunned” before slaughter

In the U.S., U.K., and other countries, with some exceptions, cattle must be stunned before slaughter so that they do not feel pain when they are killed, often by having their throats cut. Calves and other cattle are usually stunned with a captive bolt gun, which shoots a bolt through their skulls. But stunning is not always effective; one study of 998 cattle stunned and killed in a Swedish slaughterhouse found that 14 percent of calves, or about one out of seven calves, were not accurately shot.8 This means that a large number of calves are still conscious when they are shackled and hoisted into the air by their back legs, before and during the cutting of their throats.

How is veal legal?

Veal exists because

• the dairy industry requires that cows must be regularly impregnated and give birth in order to produce milk,
• the dairy industry has no use for male calves, and
• as long as farmed animals are treated as commodities, slaughtering them for food will be legal.

Veal facts and statistics

Are hormones and antibiotics used in veal raising?

Antibiotics are permitted for calves to prevent or treat disease, and are frequently required in the first weeks that a calf spends on a veal farm. While growth hormones can be used in beef cattle in the U.S., they are not approved for use in veal calves.

How much veal do people consume?

Americans consume relatively little veal, at one- to two-tenths of a pound per person each year. By contrast, French per capita consumption of veal is around 9 pounds, and Italian consumption around 8 pounds. While the Netherlands is a major veal producer, only a small portion is served in hotels and restaurants domestically; most Dutch veal is consumed in Germany, Italy, and France.

Is veal healthy?

Veal is considered a nutrient-dense source of protein, but eating too much red meat is not recommended by health experts. Consumption of red meat has been linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, colon polyps, and pneumonia.

Is there such a thing as humane veal?

Proponents of veal have tried to make the case that where veal crates have been banned and phased out, the meat is humane. Changes to the calves’ housing represent a welfare improvement, but the issue remains that the veal industry exists as a way to use otherwise “useless” calves who are born into an industry that depends on the repeated pregnancies of female cows, usually in industrial systems. For some, higher welfare veal is preferable to the calves being killed just after birth, but for many others neither option can be considered humane.

What happens to bull calves of dairy cows that aren’t reared for veal?

Many male calves born on dairy farms are shot, since they do not tend to be economically valuable. In the U.K., new rules against this practice and the rise in the use of sexed semen to avoid dairy cows giving birth to males have reduced the number of calves killed on farms significantly, with about 60,000 (15 percent) killed per year in the last few years.

Conclusion

The lives of calves in the veal industry in the United States are generally better than they used to be, now that veal crates have largely become a thing of the past. But veal, like all forms of industrial animal agriculture, remains problematic in many of its practices. Knowing the cruelties that permeate the veal industry, conventional dairies, and other forms of industrial animal agriculture, you can see why Farm Forward’s advice is to eat conscientiously, as few animals as possible, ideally none.

Over the last several years controversy surrounding lab-grown, or cultured, meat has exploded. Ranchers have argued over whether or not it should be considered meat, while vegans have argued about whether or not it should be considered vegan. One thing is clear: lab-grown meat has the capacity to dramatically change the way we eat, and the impacts that our diets have on the world around us.

What is lab-grown meat?

Lab-grown meat, also called cultured or cultivated meat, is grown from the cells of an animal, without any need to slaughter an animal to obtain the meat. The animal’s cells are cultivated in stainless steel drums called bioreactors, which are engineered to encourage replication of cells or growth of biological mass. The products that result from this process have been met with excitement due to their potential to replace the millions of animals being raised on factory farms around the world. Because cultured meat is produced in laboratory environments, it does not suffer from some of the contamination and health issues that plague traditional meat producers, such as antibiotic resistance and foodborne and zoonotic illnesses.

What is lab-grown meat made of?

Lab-grown meat is made of the same cells that make up meat from slaughtered animals. The only difference is that cultured meat is produced in labs, whereas traditional meat requires the slaughter of animals.1

Lab-grown meat production process

The process of growing meat in a lab starts with animal cells. If the cells are collected directly from an animal, the animals do not need to be slaughtered. Once the cells have been gathered, they are placed into cultivators where they are provided with a growth medium to encourage them to multiply. Alterations to the medium and the use of a scaffolding structure trigger cells to differentiate into fat, sinew, and other elements that help to recreate the textures that occur in farm-raised meat.

Why are people growing meat in labs?

The appeal of lab-grown meat stems from the impact that it could have on the environment, public health, and animal welfare. If it can be brought to scale, cell-cultured meat could be a key step toward more sustainable diets, fewer animals being raised for slaughter, the eventual phasing out of factory farms, and improved public health.

Is meat grown in a lab healthy?

Cultured meat is cellularly indistinguishable from the flesh of animals raised on a factory farm. However, there are several aspects of health in which cultured meat surpasses traditionally farmed meat. For example, animal agriculture is already one of the major contributors to antibiotic resistance worldwide, and the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in animal farming is set to increase further in the coming years. Cellular meat does not require the heavy use of antibiotics, so its production does not contribute to this ongoing public health crisis.

Another aspect of cultured meat that makes it healthier than its farm-raised equivalent is its lower likelihood of causing zoonotic diseases. While animal agriculture is likely to be a source of future pandemics caused by illnesses that jump from animals to people, this risk is minimized in cell-cultured agriculture, because there are no animals involved once the cells have been collected.

Is lab-grown meat bad?

One potential issue with lab-grown meat over the long term is that its production on a large scale may encourage people to continue to overconsume meat products. Consuming red meat, particularly, has been linked to a variety of health issues including heart disease. Given that cellular methods are able to produce red meat without the massive environmental and animal welfare tolls of raising cattle, it is possible that individual consumption could go up, helping to perpetuate poor health outcomes in the United States.

Other issues with lab-grown meat have to do with people’s uncertainty about its relation to meat from slaughtered animals. Cell-cultured meat has been the subject of some discussion in religious communities, for example, concerning whether it meets religious dietary restrictions.

Lab-grown meat pros and cons

Any consideration of lab-grown meat must include discussion of its pros and cons.

Pros:

• Animal welfare. Lab-grown meat does not require that animals suffer like they do on a tremendous scale in industrial farming, which produces more than 99 percent of our current meat supply.
• Environment. Lab-grown meat requires less land and water than traditional meat, and produces fewer greenhouse gasses.
• Worker welfare. Industrial animal agriculture contributes to many health problems for its workers. Slaughterhouses are one of the most dangerous industries for workers in America today.
• Public health. The pandemic and antibiotic resistance risks of lab-grown meat are minimal compared to those of factory farms.

Cons:

• Cultural acceptance. Farm Forward’s most recent consumer survey shows that two-thirds (67 percent) of Americans say that they would eat lab-grown meat. That leaves about one-third (33 percent) who currently would not.
• Regulatory challenges. At the moment, lab-grown meat is prohibited from commercial availability in all countries except for Singapore.
• Economics. Conventional meat benefits from government subsidies. Whether or not lab grown meat could ever receive comparable subsidies, it would have to achieve a much larger scale of production to compete with conventional meat on price.
• Technical challenges. Some skeptics believe that the technical and biological challenges that would be involved in producing mammalian cells at a large scale are impossible to overcome.

Lab-grown meat versus real meat

Lab-grown meat and “real” meat from farm-raised animals are indistinguishable on a cellular level. The major differences between them stem from their methods of production. For example, farm-raised meat is a major contributor to climate change. If adopted on a large scale, lab-grown meat would contribute less to global warming and air pollution while using less water and land, particularly in conjunction with the use of renewable energy.

Is lab-grown meat vegetarian?

Vegetarians have traditionally excluded meat from their diets, usually for ethical, environmental, health, or religious reasons. Because lab-grown meat is the same substance as meat that has been produced conventionally, some might not consider lab-grown meat vegetarian. However, because lab-grown meat has a much lower environmental footprint than traditional meat, and can be produced without harming an animal, some might consider lab-grown meat vegetarian.

The nutritional profile of lab-grown meat appears to be identical to traditional meat, so people who eat a vegetarian diet for individual health reasons would likely not eat lab-grown meat.

Some religious communities with doctrines related to eating meat are debating whether lab-grown meat should be treated the same as traditional meat, since, for example, there is no animal slaughtered to produce lab-grown meat, so religious rules pertaining to slaughter cannot be observed.

Is lab-grown meat vegan?

Vegans have traditionally excluded all animal products, including meat, from their diets, usually for ethical, environmental, health, or religious reasons. There is potential for cultured meat to be considered vegan. Some people who follow a vegan lifestyle seek to minimize suffering or environmental devastation, while others view veganism as not eating, wearing, or otherwise using any animal products. From the former perspective, cultured meat could be considered vegan, because no animals are necessarily raised and killed in order to produce it. However, those who adhere to the latter perspective may not consider lab-grown meat vegan, as on the cellular level it is the same product as traditionally-produced meat.

Did the FDA approve lab-grown meat?

The Food and Drug Association (FDA) recently issued “no questions” letters to UPSIDE Foods and to GOOD Meat (the cultured meat division of Eat Just, Inc.) for their cultivated chicken products. These letters do not constitute approvals of these companies’ lab-grown meat products, but rather signal that at this point in the development process the FDA is accepting the companies’ conclusion that their products are safe. There is still a process that their products, and those made by other cell-based meat companies, will need to undergo before hitting supermarket shelves in the U.S. Part of this process includes getting approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Is lab-grown meat available in the U.S.?

Lab-grown meat is not yet available in the United States, as it is still pending approval by the USDA.

When can people buy lab-grown meat?

Though lab-grown meat recently took a big step toward hitting grocery store shelves when the FDA chose not to contest one company’s safety statement, there are still lengthy approval processes to move through. Products must be inspected and approved by the USDA before they can be sold in grocery stores. With dozens of different companies, each specializing in a specific cell-based product such as lamb, seafood, pork, or beef, the process of getting a cell-based option to consumers will still take some time.

Lab-grown meat companies

The global lab-grown meat industry was worth $246.9 million in 2022. The industry is expected to expand exponentially through 2030. The growth and promise of the industry have attracted a plethora of different companies, each working to create a specific cell-based product.

• Believer Meats. Previously Future Meat Technologies, this company focuses on increasing the efficiency of cell-based meat production.
• UPSIDE Foods. UPSIDE Foods focuses on creating cultivated chicken.
• Mosa Meat. Mosa Meat is a Dutch company focused on creating cell-cultivated beef.
• SuperMeat. This company focuses on lab-grown chicken, which they then use to create recipes within their test kitchen.
• Aleph Farms. This company cultivates steak in their labs.
• Bond Pet Food. Bond cultivates chicken protein, dries it, and grinds it into a fine powder, for use in dry and wet dog and cat foods.

What challenges in lab-grown meat need to be overcome?

Lab-grown meat still faces a large number of daunting challenges in its production process before it can reach a large enough scale to effectively compete against industrial raised meat.

A vegan growth medium

When first conceived, cell-cultured meat used fetal bovine serum as the medium for growing the meat. However, in recent years several companies have announced that they have created new animal-free growth mediums that are just as effective at cultivating and encouraging cell growth as their predecessors.

Mass production

Lab-grown meat companies have struggled with cultivating meat quickly enough to mass produce it. There are some signs of progress, such as facilities already launched internationally that can produce as much as 1,000 pounds of lab-grown meat a day.

Texture

Detractors of cultivated meat may doubt whether it’s possible to create meat in a lab that shares the texture of farm-raised meat. Conventional meat consists of about 90 percent muscle fibers and smaller amounts of fat, connective, nervous, and vascular tissues. This combination gives meat certain chewing characteristics such as cohesiveness, springiness, and resilience to which meat eaters have grown accustomed. Texture has long been a sticking point for cell-cultured meat companies working to create more complex meats (as opposed to highly processed meats like chicken nuggets).  A recent analysis of lab-grown meat used in frankfurters, turkey breast cold cuts, and chicken breasts found that the texture was very similar to the farm-raised products being imitated.

In addition, lab-grown meat faces a number of regulatory, cultural, and economic challenges that it must overcome for production to reach the scale necessary to compete with traditional meat on price.

Will lab-grown meat replace factory farming?

Lab-grown meat will likely play an important role in the elimination of factory farming—assuming that the products can be brought to market at a cost similar to industrially raised animal products—but it won’t be the only factor. Lab-grown meat faces an uphill battle in several areas. It will take some time for lab-grown meat to become culturally accepted as an alternative to traditional meat. Another potential hurdle comes from farmers, who may attempt to further increase production efficiency and decrease costs as they seek to compete with lab-grown meat. If industrial farms’ stocking densities increase, scales expands, and animals are treated increasingly as cogs in a machine, this would likely result in even worse consequences for animals, people, and the environment.

However, even if lab-grown meat could take over a small percentage of the meat market this would likely result in tens of millions of fewer animals raised in industrial farms, this would be a huge step forward.

What would happen to farmers and their animals if cultivated meat took off?

Cultured meat has been in the works for decades and still has many regulatory and production hurdles to clear before it hits grocery store shelves. In even the most optimistic scenarios, lab-grown meat would initially be available only in a limited number of outlets. The public’s uptake of lab-grown meat as a staple protein source would be gradual. Therefore, factory farms would not be eliminated overnight. Rather, cell-based meat could be one of the driving forces behind reducing the sizes of factory farms over a longer period of time. This phase-out provides ample time for farmers to retire or adapt to the changing market.

As we have written elsewhere,

[Lab-grown] meats will play a key role in replacing the need for factory farming by providing nutritious, desirable, low-cost products, but even assuming wide adoption of these technologies a sizable group of people will remain committed to eating farmed animals. Bearing those consumers in mind, defeating factory farming will require a second strategy: providing an adequate supply of animal products from higher (and the highest) welfare conditions. Farm Forward’s strongly supports plant based/cellular meat, but we would be unwise to put all of our eggs in one basket. Plant based/cellular meat and higher welfare meat must work synergistically if we are to create a world free of factory farming. We must not lose sight of either.

Conclusion

Cell-based meat has come a long way since the first burger from a lab was produced in 2013. Since then, intense research has resulted in a vast array of products. While many challenges remain in the decades ahead, lab-grown meat may become a significant force reducing society’s dependence on the factory farms that have proven so devastating to animal welfare and the climate and environment.

To call foie gras controversial would be an understatement. To produce foie gras, male ducks and geese are force-fed by poorly paid farm workers several times a day until their livers become fatty and diseased. The resulting pale white meat of the liver is then sold to high-end restaurants for a few wealthy people to enjoy. Few food items are so widely viewed as cruel, or so succinctly capture the dynamics of an inequitable food industry. Even King Charles III of England has taken a stand, banning its consumption in all his residences.

What is foie gras?

The term “foie gras” is the French for “fatty liver,” and foie gras is literally the deliberately fattened liver of a duck or goose. The fattiness is accomplished via force-feeding, leading the product to be banned in many places. In 2021, almost 118 million tons of foie gras were produced in the European Union alone. European Union countries account for about 90 percent of foie gras production, with the remaining 10 percent produced primarily in China, Canada, and the United States. In Europe, France produces almost 70 percent of the foie gras while Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, and Belgium produce the rest. In the United States, domestic foie gras comes primarily from just two farms.

What is foie gras made of?

Though traditionally foie gras is the fattened liver of a goose, more than 90 percent of the foie gras now produced comes from ducks. This shift is due to the fact that force-feeding ducks is easier than force-feeding geese.

Geese

Fattened goose livers account for only 5 percent of foie gras currently being produced. Despite this, or perhaps due in part to its rarity, goose foie gras is perceived as a superior foie gras to some fans and can be more prized than duck foie gras. The breed of goose most commonly raised and force-fed to produce foie gras is the grey Landes goose. Different species of geese gain weight and store fat differently. While Polish geese tend to gain weight around their muscles and body, grey Landes geese gain weight in their livers.

Ducks

Most foie gras comes from ducks. The two breeds of duck most frequently raised for foie gras are Muscovy (or Barbary) ducks and mulard ducks. Ducks are favored for foie gras production over geese because they are behaviorally easier to handle. All the foie gras produced in the United States comes from ducks.

What is the origin of foie gras?

Despite France being where most foie gras is produced and consumed, French farmers have little to do with the food’s origin story. Geese were first force-fed by Egyptians who were likely interested in the process as a means of creating oil rather than to fatten the birds’ livers for eating. The force-feeding can be seen in paintings dating back to 2500 BCE. Romans were the first to force-feed geese for foie gras. They would feed the geese dried figs to give a sweet taste to the fattened, diseased livers. Recipes on how to prepare foie gras started appearing in books during the eighteenth century.

What is the difference between pâté and foie gras?

Pâté and foie gras are not necessarily the same thing, though they are easily confused. Pâté is a concoction made by blending meat and fat with other ingredients, whereas foie gras is the fattened liver of a goose or duck. Foie gras can be made into a pâté but it is not always eaten as such.

How is foie gras made?

In order to produce foie gras, ducks and geese are subjected to two phases: pre-feeding and feeding.

Pre-feeding phase

During the pre-feeding phase the birds are allowed to consume food freely. Generally this phase of their lives lasts until they have developed their feathers at around 12 weeks of age.

Feeding phase

Once birds are 12 weeks old, they are moved to either small individual cages or group pens where they are housed during the force-feeding phase.1 During the force-feeding phase, birds have an increasing amount of food administered to them through a tube placed down the throat in a process called gavage. The birds are force-fed several times a day. This period usually lasts two to three weeks before the birds are slaughtered and their livers harvested.

Why is foie gras cruel?

Suitability of breeds and species

The breeds of duck and goose raised for foie gras are chosen primarily because of their temperament and their physiology. In order to be force-fed birds must be easily handled. This is a big reason why ducks have become more commonly raised for foie gras than geese. The duck most commonly used for foie gras is the mulard duck, a cross between a Peking duck and a Muscovy duck. These ducks are favored by the foie gras industry because their livers tend to get fattier as the birds gain weight, instead of the fat being added to other places on their bodies.

Force-feeding procedure

The process of forcing a tube down a bird’s esophagus and then shoving up to 450 grams of food down it two or three times a day for weeks exposes the birds to the possibility of injury due to rough handling. The force-feeding is also in excess of what the bird would normally consume. If the force-feeding process were to be paused, birds would then be likely to fast for up to three days, suggesting that the force-feeding goes beyond the limits of the birds’ satiety and comfort.

Fear

The breed of duck that is most often raised for foie gras is more fearful of people than most other breeds. This means that they are likely to experience a greater amount of fear during feedings.

Injury

Injury can result from a variety of different factors. During feedings, a bird’s esophagus and throat could be injured due to poor handling. They are also more susceptible to heat stress than birds that are not fattened.

Stress

In order to be force-fed, ducks and geese must be captured by handlers. Being captured and held leads to stress for the ducks.

Housing and husbandry

To provide opportunities for ducks to socialize, they tend to be housed in small pens. This means that catching the birds for force-feeding can be more effort and lead to greater stress for the ducks. The force-feeding also increases their susceptibility to heat stress and bone breakages during transport.

Enlarged liver

During the fattening process, a bird’s liver can increase in size by up to 10 times, and will end up being more than 50 percent fat. Due to its condition, the organ is no longer able to function at full capacity and blood flow is reduced.

Mortality rates

Mortality rates for birds that are being force-fed are significantly higher than birds of the same age that are not undergoing the process. Studies in Belgium, France, and Spain have seen mortality rates between 2 and 4 percent for birds being force-fed, that is, one bird in 25 or 50 dying during the period of being force-fed. The mortality rate for birds not experiencing gavage sits at around 0.2 percent, or one bird in 500. So the mortality rate for birds being force fed is 10 to 20 times higher than that of birds not being force-fed.

Is foie gras healthy?

Whether foie gras is healthy has been a topic of debate. One recent study based on results in mice notably showed that consumption of foie gras may be linked to amyloidosis, the build up of a particular protein that can impact the functioning of organs.2

Is foie gras banned in the U.S.?

Efforts have been made to ban the sale of foie gras in the United States. However, these efforts have failed and most of the country still allows the sale of these diseased livers.

What states and countries have banned foie gras?

Several jurisdictions around the world, including in the U.S., have banned the sale of foie gras. Some of these include:

New York City

The ban was approved by voters in 2019 and was supposed to go into effect in 2022. However, the ban was challenged in court and the legal battle is ongoing.

California

California originally banned foie gras in 2004 though legal challenges pushed the effective date of the ban out to 2012.

Turkey

Turkey banned the production of foie gras in their animal protection law which prevents the force-feeding of animals for any purpose other than the health of the animal.

India

India banned the import of foie gras in 2014 making it the first country to ban the import and not just the production of the product.

Australia

Australia has banned the production of foie gras within its borders but not its consumption, sale, or import.

Argentina

Argentina has banned the production of foie gras since 2003.

Israel

Force-feeding geese has been illegal in Israel since 2003.

United Kingdom

In the U.K. the production of foie gras is banned but there is nothing stopping the import of the product.

Why is foie gras banned?

Foie gras has been banned primarily on grounds of animal welfare. The Humane Society of the United States and other entities asked the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the sale of foie gras for human food on the basis of health in 2007. However, the petition was unsuccessful.

What is so controversial about foie gras?

The reasons why foie gras should be banned are many: birds are overfed, mortality rates are higher, and the handling is stressful for the birds, among other animal welfare issues. Those who support foie gras may argue that the farms in the United States support hundreds of jobs and are helping to maintain their local communities. However, the farms in the U.S. are only able to make a profit by taking advantage of and underpaying their workers, most of whom are immigrants from Mexico and Central America, many of them undocumented. Often workers are only paid a few hundred dollars a week despite living, and working, in upstate New York. Despite the fact that she is processing birds with livers that will likely sell for $150 or more, one worker at a foie gras farm makes only $380 a week, which comes to less than $20,000 annually.

Why is foie gras unethical?

Question around the ethics of foie gras stem from the treatment of the ducks and geese who are raised and overfed to produce the fatty, diseased livers considered a delicacy.

Why is foie gras so expensive?

Foie gras is labor intensive to produce. Birds are force-fed by hand several times a day. This, combined with the small number of producers of foie gras and the small amount obtained from each bird, plus the tradition of the food being a delicacy, result in an expensive item.

Are there vegan alternatives to foie gras?

Vegan foie gras can be made at home using a combination of cashews, cocoa butter, nutritional yeast, cognac and other ingredients, resulting in a savory and rich final product with a texture very similar to its animal-derived inspiration. Depending on where you live, you may also be able to purchase vegan foie gras at the grocery store.

Conclusion

Foie gras is considered to be a delicacy by many. It’s a delicacy that most of us will never try, however, whether due to its astronomical price point or our moral compass. In order to produce the food, ducks and geese are repeatedly force-fed past the point of satiety. There are alternative products that do not require the suffering of animals.

Today, Senator Blumenthal (D-CT), along with Senators Booker (D-NJ), Warren (D-MA), and Whitehouse (D-RI), sent a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) asking them to review the integrity of animal welfare claims like “humanely raised” and “sustainably raised” on meat products. The letter cites a recently published Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) report documenting the USDA’s failure to regulate animal-raising claims on meat found in grocery stores. Over 80 percent of the animal-raising claims on meat and poultry products that AWI requested information about from the USDA had no, or inadequate, information submitted to the USDA for the approval of the claim. Farm Forward and AWI consulted with Senator Blumenthal’s office to make them aware of the findings of the study and to encourage them to take action with the USDA to protect consumers from humanewashing.

The USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for regulating all labels on meat and poultry products. FSIS is charged with ensuring label accuracy taking action when systemic mislabeling is uncovered. AWI’s report, along with Farm Forward’s own investigation into “raised without antibiotics” last year, highlight major failures by the USDA to protect the public.

AWI also uncovered documentation that producers submitted—purportedly to substantiate claims of “humanely raised” or “sustainably raised”—indicating that producers may not have gone beyond (dismal) industry standards. Many consumers would find this troubling, given the high expectations they have for meat and poultry products with animal welfare labels.

Farm Forward has long been critical of the USDA’s regulation of terms like “humanely raised” and “free range.” Since many animal-raising claims have no legal definition, producers create their own definitions. The new findings by AWI deepen our concern that the USDA’s failure to define animal-raising claims, and their apparent failures to regulate even the minimal standards that do exist, contribute to consumer confusion, harm higher welfare farmers, and ultimately harm farmed animals.

Accordingly, we’re calling on the USDA to define terms like “humanely raised,” “sustainably raised,” and “raised without antibiotics,” to ensure that, at minimum, those terms require companies to meet standards meaningfully higher than conventional industry practices. Labeling reform must also require that standards be verified through on-farm auditing and residue testing. Standardizing label terms and evaluating common animal-raising claims would make it more difficult for meat companies to use humanewashing tactics to sell their products.

Sign up today to help us continue the fight for better regulation of factory farms.

Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Media

Chicken meat is a dietary staple for many millions of people worldwide, and eggs are a standard breakfast for many of us. However, the true cost of these proteins includes the suffering of billions of living beings. This suffering is largely due to intensive breeding programs that prioritize profit over the welfare of chickens, leading to genetic predispositions that plague birds with ill health and short lives.

How long do chickens live on farms?

Chickens raised for meat, known within the industry as broilers, have been bred to grow extremely quickly. They the result of intensive hybrid breeding programs that use industrial-scale operations to isolate specific genetic markers to emphasize characteristics that are desirable for factory farming.  Chickens raised to produce eggs, known within the industry as laying hens, have been bred to lay an excessive number of eggs.

Chickens raised for meat

The lifespan of a chicken raised for meat can vary depending on his or her intended purpose. Yet the vast majority of chickens are slaughtered at less than 10 weeks, and sometimes as little as 5 weeks of age, weighing between 4.5 and 7 pounds. These fast-growing chickens are genetically engineered to prevent them from feeling sated, and many develop severe health problems by the time they are slaughtered as a result of overeating.

Laying hens

The lifespan of a laying hen is tied directly to their rate of egg production. Laying hens are most productive in the first two to three years of life. On commercial farms, hens are slaughtered when their productivity begins to decline, and often only after just one year.

How long do chickens live in the wild?

Chickens raised to produce food on factory farms are very different from wild fowl who are genetic predecessors or feral chickens that live in some countries.

Undomesticated chickens

Undomesticated chickens live from four to seven years on average. Undomesticated chickens enjoy other advantages over their domesticated cousins: wild individuals get to express their natural behaviors throughout their lifespan, roam free outdoors among family and friends, and raise their own young.

Junglefowl

Junglefowl, native to Southeast Asia, are a group of four species of wild birds in the same family as chickens. They tend to be much smaller than chickens and are naturally shy of human interaction. The red jungle fowl, the best-known species, tends to live for around 10 to 14 years.

How long do backyard chickens live?

The lifespan of backyard chickens varies according to a variety of factors, such as whether their keeper plans to slaughter them once their egg production drops, whether they are receiving proper medical care and nutrition, whether they have access to safe and sufficient housing, and above all the breed of the chicken. Different breeds can have wildly differing lifespans—with breeds that have been more modified for factory farming dying earlier—but backyard chickens kept to lay eggs who receive adequate care and are allowed to live out their full life can mostly be expected to live six to eight years or more.

How long do chickens live as pets?

Choosing to keep a chicken as a beloved household companion can provide over a decade of love and affection. Some chickens have been recorded as living into their teens or even twenties with appropriate care and attention. Chickens are intelligent creatures who are able to grasp the concept of time, for example, and are also extremely social with unique and complicated communication patterns. Each chicken has their own personality and when cared for as pets they tend to be very affectionate.

What do chickens usually die from?

The vast majority of chickens—those raised on factory farms as food—are killed when they are still extremely young, usually only a few weeks old. If an industrial hybrid bird were raised outside of a factory farm most would fall victim to their own genetics, as they are the result of decades of intensive breeding geared toward increasing their productivity with little regard for their welfare. In the case of chickens raised for meat, they have been bred to grow so quickly that their bodies are putting on up to 100 grams of weight every single day—that would be like a human baby gaining weight so quickly that they’d weigh as much as an adult male before their first birthday.

This exceptional growth means that while chickens are slaughtered younger than in the past, they grow to larger sizes. The speed at which they grow places the birds at greater risk of developing health problems, as their skeletal systems and organs are not adapted for them to grow so quickly. In fact, 57 percent of such chickens have severe walking problems due to their growth,1 causing them to live in excruciating pain in the days leading up to their slaughter.

Laying hens also experience suffering due to their genetics, as they have been bred to produce a greater number of larger eggs than their bodies are capable of handling. A modern laying hen can produce 300 eggs during an extended laying cycle, generally between 20 and 72 weeks of age. The eggs require calcium for the formation of the shell. Due to the sheer number of eggs being produced, calcium is taken from the bones of the mother hen resulting in bone loss and weakening. This increases the likelihood that a hen experiences fractures, specifically to her keel, the flexible wedge of cartilage connecting her breast muscles.

In addition to the suffering experienced by mother hens, male chicks also fall victim to the egg industry. Considered a byproduct by commercial hatcheries, male chicks are slaughtered soon after hatching. Because they have not been selectively bred to grow as quickly or to become as fat as chickens raised for meat, it is simply not economical for the farmers to feed them to slaughter later for food. Every year in the United States roughly 300 million chicks are killed by the commercial egg industry.

How long do chickens live before slaughter?

Chickens raised for meat, or broiler chickens, are generally slaughtered by the time they reach 5 weeks of age, and almost all by 10 weeks of age. In the United States alone, over nine billion chickens fall victim to the industry, accounting for 9 out of every 10 land animals killed for food in the country. The average young chicken slaughtered in 2019 had grown to be 6.39 pounds prior to their slaughter, due to the intensive breeding that prioritizes profit over the birds’ welfare.

What is a heritage chicken?

The genetics of chickens on factory farms have been selected for fast growth, leading to terrible animal suffering. Healthier genetics are found in heritage chicken breeds, which existed before the hybrid birds found on factory farms. To be classed as heritage, a bird must come from a breed recognized by the American Poultry Association, mate naturally instead of relying on artificially insemination, have the genetic ability to live a long life outdoors, and not reach slaughter weight before 16 weeks, allowing birds the time to develop strong skeletal systems capable of supporting their mass.

What factors affect a chicken’s lifespan?

Chickens’ lifespans are impacted by a number of factors relating to both them as individuals and the environment in which they are housed. Below we discuss the lifespan for modern hybrid chickens raised to industry standards for meat and eggs.

Sex

The sex of a chicken plays a role in determining their lifespan. A hen being raised to produce eggs is likely to be kept alive for one lay cycle, then killed when her productivity declines at around one year of age. Male chicks of the same breed are likely to be killed shortly after hatching due to their inability to lay eggs.

Disease

Diseases often cut down the life expectancy of a chicken dramatically. The ongoing 2022 highly pathogenic avian flu outbreak has affected more than 40 million chickens in the U.S. The USDA guidance for handling infected chickens is to “eradicate the disease,” a goal that is frequently accomplished through mass slaughter. Other diseases, such as coccidiosis, are endemic in industrial poultry production and often shorten the lives of birds.

Housing

Housing is likely to play a role in the life expectancy of birds. Birds that have ample space to move around, are protected from predators, and have a clean environment are likely to live longer than chickens that do not.

Breed

Chickens in commercial production systems today are hybrids that are only able to survive for a very short amount of time due to the strain their genetics place on their bodies. There are specific breeds known as heritage chickens that are able to live longer, healthier lives due to their slower growth rate and better genetics, but these birds are not used in industrial animal agriculture.

Environment

The environment a bird grows up in has an impact on his or her life expectancy. Though the mortality rate for chickens on factory farms is always high, it can be affected by the season, for example, with deaths more common in periods of heat stress or cold weather.

Diet and nutrition

Diet and nutrition play an important role in the health and life expectancy of chickens. If chickens are offered a well-balanced diet rich in nutrients they are likely to live longer than birds offered diets high in calories intended to help them grow larger.

Veterinary care

Providing proper veterinary care for chickens is an essential part of helping them live a full and happy life.

Genetics

The vast majority of chickens being raised in the United States today would fall victim to their own genetics if they were not slaughtered at a very young age. Chickens raised specifically for meat grow so quickly that their bodies are not able to support them. Their genetic predisposition for rapid growth leads to conditions such as ascites, an inability of their heart and lungs to supply enough oxygen for their body. This condition leads to heart attacks as the chickens’ hearts attempt to work overtime to pump oxygenated blood through the overgrown body of the birds.

Slaughter

Slaughter is the definitive end to life for billions of birds in the U.S. alone every year. For chickens raised for meat, slaughter takes place at around 7 weeks of age. For hens raised to lay eggs, slaughter usually happens after the first laying cycle, around the time the birds turn one year old..

How old is the oldest chicken?

The first chicken to receive the designation of World’s Oldest Living Chicken by Guinness World Records was Matilda, who lived to be 16 years old. It was speculated that she lived so long because she was kept indoors and never laid eggs. She was dethroned by Muffy from Maryland who died in 2011 after reaching 22 years old.

Conclusion

Chicken breeding, not only in the United States but around the world, is primarily controlled by just two companies: Aviagen and Cobb. These companies breed chickens to maximize their profit with little regard to the welfare of the birds themselves. As a result, the chickens often endure horrendous suffering during their short lives. By choosing to raise heritage breeds instead of hybrids, these companies could improve the welfare and lifespan of billions of chickens every year.

Choosing to reduce our consumption of meat as far as possible is essential if we are to reduce the massive suffering that farmed chickens experience and the negative effects that large-scale animal agriculture has on society and the environment. If we do choose to consume chicken, it’s best to purchase from farms that raise heritage chickens with meaningful welfare certifications, and to be aware of the humanewashing that risks giving unsustainable industrial chicken farming a new lease of life.

Photo: Lukas Vincour / Zvířata Nejíme / We Animals Media

Modern-day chickens raised for meat, called “broilers,” are a far cry from chickens just a few decades ago. They consume less food, grow more quickly, and reach a much larger size. The way that chickens are farmed  for their meat today is the result of intense breeding programs that were kickstarted with a contest run by a grocery store in the mid-20th century. As a result of all the ingenuity and invention that has gone into their genetics, chickens suffer immensely during their short lives, and today’s massive scale of chicken production wreaks havoc on the environment.

Broiler chicken history

Up to the early 20th century, chickens were “dual purpose” and raised primarily in backyards to supply both eggs and meat to their caretakers and communities. Unlike today, there were not two separate types of chickens, one for laying eggs and one for meat. This differentiation started in the 1920s but really took off in 1945 due to the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest organized by the USDA and sponsored by the grocer A&P, which awarded prizes to the flocks that were judged as having the best meat, most efficient feed conversion ratio, and highest growth rate. In order to win, farmers started breeding the largest male and female chickens together, to increase the size of their offspring. The contest enabled the broiler breeder companies that we know today, such as Cobb, Vantress (now collectively Cobb-Vantress), and Hubbard to establish themselves.

By the 1980s and early 1990s, producers were using ever more sophisticated techniques to breed the fast-growing chickens found on farms today—chickens that consume less food but grow larger and faster than birds just 40 years ago. Within less than two generations, chickens raised for meat went from birds pecking around in a neighbor’s backyard to being packed into warehouses by the thousands, unable to naturally breed without being starved.

What birds are considered broiler chickens?

Broiler chickens are those which are raised for their meat. Today there are two companies that control the genetics of most broiler chickens: Aviagen and Cobb-Vantress. Aviagen has bred the Ross line of chickens, which they boast “is the world’s number one broiler breeder brand.” Meanwhile, Cobb-Vantress boasts that their premier line of broiler chickens, the Cobb, is “the world’s most efficient broiler.” Regardless of which line an individual chicken is born from, they experience great suffering that is directly caused by the intense breeding that has taken place in the very recent history of their family tree.

Broiler chicken characteristics

Broiler chickens share a variety of common characteristics. Visually they sport almost universally white feathers. Looking past their physical appearance, however, you can also find a number of similarities in their health and even genetics. When it comes to the actual genetic makeup of broiler chickens, they are all very similar, placing them at a greater risk of disease transmission. On the health front, because of their swift growth rate, broiler chickens are likely to develop a range of issues such as ascites and sudden death syndrome.

What’s the difference between broiler and layer chickens?

Though just a few decades ago chickens were raised for both their meat and the eggs they would lay, today there are specific breeds intended for each purpose. Broiler chickens, those raised to be slaughtered for their meat, grow very large, very quickly. These chickens are usually slaughtered at about seven weeks old in the United States, by which time they have already grown to be about 6.5 pounds. Laying hens, on the other hand, typically live for about 72 weeks before their production drops and they are slaughtered. During peak production they may lay 300 eggs or more a year.

Why are they called broiler chickens?

Broiler chickens, also called “broiler-fryers,” originally got their name from a preparation method common for their meat due to their young age and their more tender flesh. When chickens are slaughtered at an older age, they may be called a “roaster.”

Broiler chicken farming

The reality for Modern broiler chicken farmers are often locked into predatory contracts with large corporations, competing against other farmers to produce the heaviest chickens with the least amount of feed. The farmers that don’t come out on top often struggle to get by, as the corporations require increasingly expensive upgrades to the farm facilities. Much of the poultry industry is run as a “tournament system,” where producers compete against their neighbors and pay is based in part on how much you produce compared to others in your area. This system has left many chicken farmers deeply in debt and has been widely criticized by farmers as predatory.

Will broiler chickens lay eggs?

Historically, chickens eaten for their meat were often from the same dual-purpose breed as laying hens. Even breeds raised primarily for meat, like the Barred Rock, produced edible eggs. Yet if left to their own devices, modern broiler chickens would quickly cease to exist because they are not able to breed without human intervention. Broiler chickens have been bred to rapidly grow to sizes far beyond the range of the chickens raised for food even a generation ago. Birds bred for fast growth lead to medical complications that make breeding, laying eggs, and even living long enough to reach maturity difficult. The birds used to breed broiler chickens need to have their feed restricted to avoid growing to a size that would stop them mating and laying, which means that they live in a state of constant hunger induced by their genetics.1

How long does it take to raise a broiler chicken?

According to the National Chicken Council, modern broiler chickens are slaughtered at an average of 47 days old, having already reached a weight of about 6.5 pounds. They consume about 1.8 pounds of feed for each pound of weight they gain. The modern rate of growth is much faster than it was in 1940, prior to the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest that launched the genetic modification of chickens via breeding into full swing. In 1940, chickens were slaughtered at an average age of 85 days, having reached about 2.9 pounds, and after consuming approximately 4 pounds of feed for every pound of weight gained.

How long does it take for a broiler chicken to mature?

Broiler chickens are not mature when they are slaughtered at an average age of just 47 days, or less than 7 weeks old. In fact, for Cobb chickens puberty doesn’t even start until they are 12 weeks old. Between 16 and 20 weeks they are in their “grower phase” in which hens increase their weight by a third and reach maturity.

How long do broiler chickens live?

The average broiler chicken is slaughtered at 47 days old. Without very particular care and feed withholding, the likelihood of mortality due to health problems related to their growth or genetics increases from that point onward.

Broiler chicken side effects

Modern broiler chickens are touted by the industry as being extremely efficient “products” within the food system. This level of efficiency comes at great cost, for the birds themselves and the environment as well.

Welfare issues

Crowding

Overcrowding is a huge difficulty for many broiler chicken barns. Such a living situation leads to an increase in inflammation and a decrease in macrophage activity, making the birds more susceptible to disease.2

Transport

For transport to the slaughterhouse, birds are routinely stuffed into crates alongside other birds before the crate is loaded onto a truck. This practice leads to painful bruising, dehydration, and even death.

Slaughter

Once chickens have reached the slaughterhouse, they are killed. Often this process is rushed and rough due to workers being required to move through the process quickly. As a result, birds endure immense suffering, such as not being stunned before slaughter, or even not being slaughtered before they are drowned in scalding hot water.

Bird health issues

Cardiovascular dysfunction

Due to their fast growth, broiler birds often experience heart problems, because their hearts are unable to meet the demands of their bodies.

Integument lesions

Overcrowding is one of the main causes of skin lesions in broiler chickens. This is due to a greater incidence of trampling when seeking food and water. Another source of skin lesions is aggression between chickens.

Ocular dysfunction

Chickens have very sensitive eyes and rely heavily on their sight. The high levels of ammonia in chicken barns can lead to painful conditions such as conjunctivitis, damage to the cornea, and swelling of their eyelids.3

Skeletal dysfunction

A number of different skeletal disorders can be found in broiler chickens, including leg deformities and deformities of the spinal column. Many of these conditions are caused by the swift growth of the birds.

Environmental issues

Ammonia

Ammonia, which contains nitrogen, is released in the droppings of the thousands of chickens housed in broiler factory farms. This nitrogen can ultimately enter waterways and have serious effects on the health of aquatic ecosystems, causing algal blooms and creating dead zones with depleted oxygen levels.

Greenhouse gas emissions

The chicken production sector, including both eggs and meat, releases 0.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases every year. This accounts for 8 percent of emissions from the entire animal agriculture sector.

Manure

Estimates suggest that the poultry farms in North Carolina alone produce five million tons of waste every year, threatening the air and water quality of the surrounding area due to the high levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus the manure contains.

Updated February 23, 2023: A federal court ruled that undercover investigations and whistleblowing activities are protected under the First Amendment—effectively rejecting North Carolina’s “Anti-Sunshine” ag-gag law. This ruling marks a turning point in the nationwide movement to overturn unconstitutional ag-gag laws. Read more here.

Updated June 16, 2020: MAJOR VICTORY! On Friday, in a stunning decision, a federal judge struck down North Carolina’s “Ag-gag” law, ruling that several of its provisions are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. See the full decision here.

Donate now to help us strike down another unconstitutional ag-gag law!

Updated September 3, 2019: Today Public Justice on behalf of Farm Forward and a coalition of other plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement asking the Court to enjoin North Carolina from enforcing the “Anti-Sunshine Law” and declare it unconstitutional. This “Ag-gag” law is meant to punishes anyone—employees, journalists, and even individual community members—who investigate the practices of a property owner or employer to bring illegal or dangerous behavior to light. This Ag-gag law is especially egregious because of the all encompassing nature of the language used preventing any kind of whistleblowing about federal, state or private industry.

Updated June 5, 2018: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on June 5, 2018 that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina anti-sunshine law can move forward, reversing the decision of the federal district court.

Updated July 20, 2016: Earlier this month in an attempt to fight an ag-gag lawsuit, North Carolina’s Attorney General and the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina opposed the filing of an Amicus Brief by a coalition of plaintiffs including Farm Forward. They are attempting to prevent the court from considering the expert opinion of two scholars in constitutional law and federal procedure.

Around the nation law professors seeking to provide an academic perspective on a legal question before the court routinely make such contributions. In the Idaho ag-gag case, the state recently accepted an Amicus Brief submitted with expert opinion. This news highlights the dangerous and unparalleled nature of North Carolina’s opposition.

Farm Forward reached out to Professor Jack Preis, one of the constitutional law experts to provide an opinion in the North Carolina Amicus Brief, to ask him about the opposition. He stated, “UNC seems to believe that I am an apologist for the animal rights movement. But the reality is that I have no dog in this fight. My job is to tell the truth about matters of federal jurisdiction, and whether I write an amicus brief depends chiefly on what the truth is, not on who it will help.”

Our fight in North Carolina is just beginning.

For immediate release: February 25, 2016

Greensboro, NC  — Today Farm Forward joined a federal lawsuit to strike down North Carolina’s ag-gag law, which went into effect January 1 despite Governor McCrory’s veto. The law punishes whistleblowers for exposing animal abuse, human rights violations, and anything else that employers wish to hide from the public.

After defeating a similar law in Idaho, which violated both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, Farm Forward’s General Counsel Michael McFadden says the group is ready to take on another challenge.

“This is the kind of law you’d expect in North Korea, not North Carolina,” says McFadden. “Ag-gag protects abusers and punishes citizens for exercising their right to free speech. These laws have no place in America.”

Farm Forward has long been a watchdog of the American food system, from its new project BuyingPoultry, which lets consumers find higher-welfare poultry products and plant-based alternatives, to its in-depth assistance on the book and upcoming documentary film Eating Animals, which is being produced by Academy Award Winner Natalie Portman. Farm Forward also hosts a petition at ag-gag.org that has been signed by tens of thousands of people nationwide and remains a cornerstone of the movement to overturn ag-gag laws.

Farm Forward is part of a coalition of plaintiffs in this lawsuit that includes the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Food Safety, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, Government Accountability Project, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The plaintiffs’ joint statement is as follows:

North Carolina’s Anti-Sunshine Law seriously hinders North Carolinians’ ability to know the truth about misconduct, mistreatment and corruption happening in virtually every industry, including nursing homes, factory farms, financial institutions, daycare centers and more. It’s an extreme law forced on citizens over a governor’s veto by lawmakers who bowed to pressure from corporate lobbyists. This law blatantly violates citizens’ rights to free speech, a free press, and to petition their government, and violates the Equal Protection Clause. It places the safety of our families, our food supply, and animals at risk, and it attempts to bully and threaten those working for transparency, free speech and the public good. Our lawsuit is being brought for the sake of the health and safety of all citizens of North Carolina. We are confident the law will be found unconstitutional and that a victory in North Carolina will deter other state legislatures from repeating North Carolina’s mistake.

Donate now and help us strike down another unconstitutional ag-gag law!

Full Press Release PDF available here

In the children’s story Charlotte’s Web, the main character is a pig named Wilbur who enjoys a large pen surrounded by his animal friends on a quaint farm outside a small town in Maine. When we picture pigs on a farm, many of us likely imagine an idyllic scene similar to those fed to us when we were young. Yet this image of how pigs are housed and raised on farms couldn’t be further from the truth today.

Although pigs are recognized as one of the most intelligent species, most pigs are housed by the thousands in crowded conditions with very little to stimulate them mentally. Mother pigs are often locked in crates that prevent them from caring for their young in line with their natural inclinations, forcing them to act as little more than a milk-producing machine until the piglets are old enough to be removed.

What are pigs used for on a farm?

Despite their emotional and intellectual intelligence, pigs on farms have been bred for a single purpose: to serve people and, most commonly, to be served to people as a side of bacon or ham.

Pigs for meat

The primary reason that pigs are raised on farms is to be slaughtered and have their bodies processed into meat. In 2020, over 1.5 billion pigs were slaughtered around the world. This number has been consistently trending upwards as populations around the world grow in size and wealth.1 Most pigs raised for their meat spend their lives within the confines of an indoor intensive agriculture system in a series of large warehouses. The pigs living in these systems often become inactive and unresponsive, as a result of a lack of mental stimulation.

Pigs for breeding

Pigs that are used for breeding on factory farms often find themselves locked in small cages called gestation crates. These crates are so small that mother pigs are unable to turn around and must spend their lives facing in the same direction. They are also prone to developing sores and abscesses. These conditions lead to frustration, with pigs biting at the doors of their cages looking for a release from their suffering.

Are pigs easy to farm?

Farming pigs is not easy and can take a huge toll on the physical and mental health of those that work with them directly. Exposure to particulate matter, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide can cause respiratory issues, with an elevated risk of disease from bacterial infections, and a near-constant risk of injury, whether from machinery, waste lagoons, or the maltreated pigs themselves.

This physical danger is one reason why farming animals correlates with worse mental health than farming crops. Pigs are also highly intelligent creatures with unique personalities and the ability to empathize with one another. People who have to work in close proximity to their suffering, notably in slaughterhouses, also frequently experience poor mental health.

What do pigs eat on a farm?

The food given to pigs on factory farms is made up primarily of a combination of soy and corn. Corn accounts for about 62 percent of the average pig’s diet on a factory farm in the United States while soy makes up over 13 percent of their diet.2 A common additive in pig feed is fish meal which provides protein to young pigs. Researchers suggest that 90 percent of the fish ground into meal are fit for human consumption. Because it is more profitable to sell these fish to be turned into meal, the communities that once depended upon them as a staple, as is the case in Peru, have less access to them.3

In an alarming turn of events following the 2013 porcine epidemic diarrhea virus outbreak that killed about one-tenth of pigs being raised for pork, the deceased bodies of piglets and the feces of infected pigs were fed to pigs as a means of combating the virus and preventing its return.

Why is pig farming a problem?

A number of issues are associated with farming pigs including environmental, public health, and welfare concerns involving both the animals and surrounding communities.

Environmental and health impacts

Industrial-scale pig farming causes water and air pollution, and like all intensive animal farming it contributes to climate change thanks to direct emissions from waste and its inefficient use of land, water, and other resources when compared with arable farming.

The expansion and continued operation of industrial pig farms contributes to the degradation of natural resources and habitats in some of the most biologically diverse places on earth, including in the Yucatán Peninsula. Here the expansion of pig farming is driving biodiversity loss. The area is home to over 250 registered pig farms, Mexico’s largest carbon sink, and its most important reserve of groundwater. The pig farms in the area are causing pollution and degradation of valuable natural resources. The people in the Yucatán and throughout Mexico depend upon the health and well-being of the natural resources within the peninsula to continue to thrive.

Genetic manipulation

Genetically manipulating the animals we raise for food is nothing new. Chickens raised for meat have been engineered to grow at astonishing speeds, laying hens have been bred to produce an overwhelming number of eggs, cows have been manipulated to make vast quantities of milk, and pigs too have been genetically modified to maximize their profitability. Often the genetic modifications taking place, whether through breeding or gene-editing, are solving problems that exist due to poor animal welfare. For example, efforts to create “super muscly” pigs would not be as necessary were pigs provided with better enrichment and nutrition.

Animal cruelty

Perhaps the most glaring reason that pig farming is problematic is that the industry causes vast animal suffering. This suffering includes mother pigs being confined in crates, unable to care for their young, and lives spent in barren concrete pens. The lack of mental stimulation leads to boredom and destructive behaviors such as tail biting.4

Geopolitical issues

The corporations behind factory farms are massive and have no qualms about getting involved in politics to benefit themselves. Through their efforts, numerous initiatives seeking to improve the welfare of pigs on factory farms have been challenged and shot down. The ongoing debate concerning California’s Prop 12 is just one example.

Drugs

The use of drugs in pigs is detrimental to public health for several reasons.

Growth promoters

The primary growth promoter given to pigs is ractopamine. This drug causes pigs to develop more muscle than they otherwise would, given their diet and lack of exercise. Though research on human impacts is slim, some suggests that in humans the drug can cause an increased heart rate. There are also reports of people being poisoned following their consumption of pork from pigs fed the substance.5

Antibiotics

Tetracycline is one of the most widely used antibiotics in pigs around the world. Analyses have shown that genes resistant to the drug are some of the most abundant antibiotic-resistant genes in bacteria found in pigs.

Parasites

Pigs host parasites that are capable of being passed on to people. One example of this is ascariasis, a parasite that causes difficulty breathing and weight loss in infected individuals. The parasite can be contracted by eating vegetables and fruits that have been fertilized with pig manure or by not washing one’s hands thoroughly following handling pigs.

Hygiene

Because pigs carry some parasites and diseases that can be easily transmitted to other pigs or even people, hygiene is of the utmost importance to facilities raising thousands of pigs. In an effort to increase hygiene, these facilities often choose to reduce animal welfare by keeping pigs in barren concrete pens instead of offering bedding such as straw that would provide the opportunity for pigs to engage in natural behaviors like rooting and nesting.6

Labor issues

The issues faced by the employees and staff of pig farms are numerous. Farmworkers tend to be responsible for carrying out procedures such as clipping teeth, neutering, and docking the tails of screaming piglets. Working on a pig farm leads to workers being exposed to large amounts of noise and ammonia from the thousands of pigs being housed in the sheds, both of which can cause long-term health problems.

Pig intelligence

Pigs are recognized as one of the most intelligent species. They are skilled at simple video games, and form tight-knit groups with complex social relationships. When not being factory farmed, they take pride in their surroundings and maintain a clean environment. Some pigs have even been documented decorating their enclosures.7 This is in direct contradiction to the widely held belief that pigs are dirty and unintelligent creatures.

Is it profitable to farm pigs?

The question of whether pig farming is profitable is irrelevant given the detrimental impacts of pig farming on the environment, public health, and worker and animal welfare. The only reason that pig farming is profitable as we know it is because it is propped up by subsidies funded by taxpayers, by a lack of effective oversight to ensure workers’ rights are respected, and by the crowding and suffering of millions of pigs.

How much does a pig cost?

The relatively low cost of buying the products produced from farmed pigs is due to the many corners the industry is allowed to cut. To stay inexpensive, the industry depends upon government subsidies, poor working conditions, and horrendous animal welfare.

Conclusion

Raising pigs for food causes harm to the environment, public health, and animal welfare. Yet many new and innovative replacement products are being brought to the market every year that provide the taste of our favorite animal-derived foods without requiring that the animals die for our enjoyment. There has never been a better time to cut back on, or eliminate, pig products in our diets.