In 2025, the American Biogas Council (ABC), the country’s main lobby for manure factory farm gas (also known as biogas), estimated that there could be FFG operations installed at over 11,000 animal farms in the United States. That is around half of the confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that operate in the United States, according to the EPA.

Those 11,000 farms are not small-scale, pasture-based operations merely trying to offset some energy costs. They are, almost exclusively, industrial farms where animal waste lingers in massive cesspools.

And this is by design: FFG production requires such polluting cesspools, and therefore mass-confinement operations, because those are the sort of animal factories that produce the most manure. In some cases, these farms are farming manure almost as much as they are farming animals.

Much has been written challenging this technology and the associated deluge of federal and state deregulation and financing efforts, including by Farm Forward. The consensus among critics is that factory farm gas functions to entrench (and even expand) some of the most polluting farms in the country—all while not delivering on dubious claims of climate benefit.

What’s more is the perverse incentive it creates: policies that prop up FFG lead to a reality where producing more methane from animal waste is one of the most profitable endeavors a dairy or pig operation could engage in.

Now, as we reveal in a new issue brief, there is much to be said about the fragility of these operations. They are financially unstable and go bankrupt at high rates. Local communities don’t want them near their homes and rightfully fight to stop new proposed operations and expanding CAFOs. They will likely require a slate of government incentive programs forever in order to remain viable. And they aren’t even that effective at reducing methane emissions relative to alternatives. It’s not the case that they are destined to work.

However, we ought to consider: if they did succeed, what would that mean for animals? What would that mean for food systems reform?

Animal Suffering and Food Systems Reform

Returning to the 11,000 number, if we take it at face value, and we consider that, conservatively, the average digester is connected to a population of around 4,000 animals, that would mean over 40 million animals could be functionally locked into the factory farming system. And that number could be low. Currently, most FFG operations are located at dairy farms, which tend to have fewer animals than some pig farms and all chicken farms. If the chicken industry more broadly adopted FFG technology, the numbers of animals housed on farms with digesters could be an order of magnitude or more larger.

As an example, we generated an approximate analysis based on FFG projections for Iowa, a state with about 25 million pigs producing more than 100 billion pounds of manure per year, more than 25 times greater than all of the waste produced by all of the human residents of Iowa. Based on our analysis, we estimate that over 11 million pigs in Iowa could be connected to FFG operations in the coming decades, all depending on where the industry goes.

And remember: these operations aren’t your grandpa’s farm with a few pigs; they are high-confinement ones where animals suffer brutal, painful, and short lives.

Further, if these projections are correct, it could have meaningful implications for the broader project of food systems reform. How much harder would it be to transition to a more humane and sustainable food system when a nexus of powerful industries is doubling down on the factory farm model? In particular, some of the most promising paths forward for the food system—farmer transition, higher-welfare farming, regenerative models, plant-based and cultivated alternatives—all could be challenged by entangling factory farms with energy production.

And when there are so many better ways forward, committing ourselves to a fragile, inefficient technology that exacerbates some of the worst of the food system is no way forward at all.

 

Public financing for factory farming is nothing new. The federal government has spent years pushing hundreds of millions of dollars into manure digesters at industrial livestock operations. These are expensive and often underperforming projects that benefit the biggest factory farms while delivering little for rural communities, animals, or the climate. But that may change.

Last week, USDA announced it will extend its pause on loan guarantees for new anaerobic digester projects (specifically through its Rural Energy for America Program) through December 31, 2026. The decision followed a review that found “continuing and significant risks,” including high loan delinquency and project failures across the digester portfolio.

We welcome this pause. As Farm Forward has written, manure digesters, as they exist today, function to lock in the worst of agricultural practices by funneling money to the most polluting farms. Such farms are also some of the worst for animals, since they consist of overcrowded, high-stress environments where low welfare is part of the business model. What’s more, the climate benefits are, at best, vastly overstated.

This is a promising move from USDA. However, we will wait and see if it continues into 2027 and whether it marks a genuine shift toward funding a food system that works for farmers, animals, and communities, rather than one that simply props up the largest and most destructive operations.

After Farm Forward exposed serious animal welfare concerns at Alexandre Family Farm, the company has now lost two of the certifications it relied on to market itself as a humane and regenerative dairy.

Alexandre can no longer claim the “Certified Humane” and “Regenerative Organic Certified” (ROC) certifications, or use them to enable and perpetuate consumer fraud and the abuse of dairy cows we uncovered.

Alexandre surrendered its ROC certification in November 2025, with Certified Humane and Alexandre breaking ties more recently. By January 2026, Alexandre had stopped displaying the Certified Humane mark on its website and packaging. (Certified Humane focuses on animal welfare practices, while ROC relates to both animal welfare and the environment.)

The splits between Certified Humane, ROC, and Alexandre follow more than a year of scrutiny sparked by Farm Forward’s investigation, Dairy Deception, which documented systemic animal welfare problems at the high-profile California dairy. The loss of these certifications is a victory for consumer transparency. It demonstrates that when independent watchdogs and advocates hold farms accountable for their false assurances, we can successfully disrupt some of their core strategies for misleading customers. Without these labels, Alexandre has lost two of the most recognizable signals it used to reassure shoppers that its products aligned with their values.

Accountability in the U.S. food system is rarely obtained through legislation or a single, dramatic, sector-wide reform. More often, change happens incrementally. Investigations expose problems. Public scrutiny grows. And eventually, as producers’ illusory claims of high welfare and net benefits for the climate and environment are dispelled, they are forced to retreat from claims they can no longer defend.

Alexandre losing its capacity to display ROC and Certified Humane packaging is a notable win for the public. But for the animals, it’s not that simple.

Sadly, the immediate benefits for animals are few or none

In the short term, animals may have gained very little. After so many of its wrongdoings were exposed, ideally the dairy would have chosen to improve its practices. Alexandre could have opted to actually comply with the standards associated with the certifications that it had boasted for years. But we have seen no indication that Alexandre has reformed its protocols in response to the revelations of its animal abuse.

Instead, the company chose to stop using its most meaningful certifications. (Certified Humane standards are minimally better than standard industry practices, and ROC’s standards are meaningfully different from industry norms.) Perhaps breaking these ties reconfirms Alexandre’s true colors: from our perspective, the company has long appeared less interested in animal welfare and environmental stewardship than in pushing product for profit.

Alexandre carries on with deceptions old and new

Despite losing access to its more meaningful certifications, Alexandre continues to humanewash and greenwash in earnest. The charm of the “Alexandre Family Farm” name conceals its true structure: an industrial dairy spread over multiple locations (including a bucolic “show farm”) with the attendant harms of industrial production.

The company continues to broadcast its care for animals and the land, despite losing third-party certifications backing up those claims. A visitor to its website may not even grasp that the company can no longer claim those stamps of approval; having surrendered Regenerative Organic Certified, the dairy’s site even still claims, “Alexandre Family Farm is the first dairy farm in the United States to be certified Regenerative Organic.” 

Certified Humane’s and ROC’s halos likely continue to cast a glow over Alexandre’s dairy products, despite the dairy’s official split with both. Shoppers who originally chose Alexandre because it boasted those certifications are unlikely to notice that they have quietly vanished from Alexandre’s website and packaging.

Disappointingly, despite Certified Humane’s website having a blog, announcements page, and a news center, the certifier appears not to have used any of these to provide the smallest hint of the break. Instead, Certified Humane quietly removed Alexandre’s name from its multipage list of 350+ Certified Humane producers—an excision that few, if any, consumers would have spotted. Even among the most conscientious shoppers, who continually monitor those pages to notice if a brand quietly disappears?

Recently, Alexandre has entered into new partnerships that burnish its image. Several months ago, Alexandre added “American Humane Certified” to its certification list.  American Humane Certified wins trust from uninformed consumers through a name that most shoppers can’t distinguish from more meaningful certifications, but is a far weaker, industry-run certification indicating little if any benefit for farmed animals over standard industry practices. The largest companies certified by American Humane Certified are two conventional factory farm companies, Butterball and Foster Farms; Alexandre has chosen to join their ranks.

In addition to this new ally in humanewashing, Alexandre has found a benefactor for its greenwashing: the current federal administration, most directly in the forms of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehment Oz. In December 2025, the month after Alexandre surrendered its ROC certification, Kennedy, Rollins, and Oz stood alongside and showcased Alexandre’s co-owner, Blake Alexandre. They provided Mr. Alexandre the platform to claim that Alexandre is

“the first certified regenerative farm in the United States … making our planet a better place … literally doing the right thing,”

as they announced a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to shift U.S. farms to regenerative agricultural practices like those Alexandre purports to embody.

The certification paradox

Alexandre has proven adept at exploiting certifications and other endorsements, and has plenty to choose from. Despite their flaws, the growing abundance of certifications, even misleading ones, reflects something positive. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the harms of industrial animal agriculture. They want assurances that farms are reducing their impact on animals and the environment. In that sense, the proliferation of certifications today can be seen as a hopeful development.

But in addition to reflecting consumer concern, the proliferation of certifications creates fertile ground for humanewashing and greenwashing. Unbeknownst to consumers, few certified animal products come anywhere close to meeting the ethical or environmental values shoppers believe they represent. Even some certifiers that appear strong on paper fail to monitor farms adequately to ensure that producers meet their standards.

The truth is that most animal welfare certifications serve as powerful marketing tools for conventional factory farms. Meaningful labels like Certified Animal Welfare Approved get lost in the sea of weaker schemes like Certified Humane and industry-owned certifications that mostly rubber-stamp standard industry practices. Examples of the latter category include One Health Certified, American Humane Certified (now claimed by Alexandre), and the trademarked design Alexandre created to apply to itself: its own “Eco Dairy” stamp of approval.

For many consumers, the distinctions between meaningful and meaningless certifications are nearly impossible to parse. Labels blur together, and companies benefit from the appearance of oversight even when the standards behind those labels are weak.

While the popularity of certifications could eventually benefit farmed animals (if they are coupled with accountability), for now, individual consumers can’t rely on these labels to make ethical judgements about products.

Why transparency matters

Food system reform rarely happens all at once. More often, it unfolds through incremental changes: increased scrutiny, better information for consumers, and gradual shifts in what companies can credibly claim about their products. Moments when companies like Alexandre quietly retreat from claims they can no longer defend are critical components of that process.

Alexandre’s diminished ability to humanewash and greenwash not only cuts down deceptive marketing in agriculture, it also creates space for more ethical producers. Markets can only improve when consumers have accurate information. When a company like Alexandre forges the appearance of treating animals and the earth well, but out of consumers’ sight, it disregards its stated values to maximize profits, it drastically undercuts other companies’ incentive to commit to higher welfare practices. Any company curious about selling higher welfare products, whether motivated by ethics or profits, will hesitate if the marketplace is crowded with look‑alike “humane” claims, and consumers struggle to distinguish genuinely higher welfare products from those produced by fakers. But when fewer bad actors are allowed to profit from false veneers of higher welfare, it creates space and economic incentive for other companies to invest the time, money, and effort to build genuinely higher welfare conditions. Over time, transparency is one of the most powerful tools available for improving the treatment of animals in the food system.

The road leading beyond broken certifications

The ultimate goal is a food system where transparency is the norm and marketing claims reflect farming conditions. Whether that goal is achieved will depend on sustained scrutiny from journalists, advocates, regulators, and consumers. Concerning Alexandre—once the category leader for Certified Humane, Regenerative Organic Certified dairy—society is closer to that goal today than at the end of 2025. The industrial dairy stepping back from (even some) indefensible claims is a critical step toward market honesty and improved animal welfare.

In the short term, though, Alexandre and others seem committed to continuing their cons in whatever ways they can. When they can’t grift as effectively with animal welfare, they fully embrace the “regenerative” buzzword—now backed by $700 million in taxpayer funds through the President’s new Regenerative Pilot Program. Grifters will grift.

In the long term, if some portion of the population continues to consume animal products (which we think they will), we must demand far more humane methods and accurate marketing. Sadly, we’re not there yet. Progress, while meaningful, is slow. The industrial farms that raise at least 90 percent of U.S. farmed animals show no signs of willingly changing anytime soon, and the certifications that endorse them need to be reformed or replaced.

Shoppers concerned with animal welfare should support watchdogs’ efforts toward transparency. But that’s a long-term project. For now, given the dominance of broken certifications and the rarity and expense of products bearing the few that are most meaningful, an effective choice for consumers searching for genuinely high-welfare, environmentally-friendly food at grocery stores is to opt out of this inherently compromised system. Shoppers who want to accelerate progress toward a better future can reduce, or even eliminate, their financial support of foods that are disastrous for animals and the earth by changing their diets.

In January, Farm Forward announced its partnership with the Aquaculture Accountability Project with the release of a new report scrutinizing the sustainability narrative surrounding industrial fish farming, including the widely repeated claim that aquaculture alleviates overfishing. Drawing on recent research, we showed that industrial fish farming relies so heavily on small wild fish—processed into fishmeal and fish oil for feed—that it continues to drive enormous pressure on vulnerable wild fish populations.

Now, new research reveals an even bleaker picture: even where marine ingredients are reduced, aquaculture’s environmental impacts are not shrinking; they are shifting and intensifying.

The study, led by researchers at the University of Stirling and published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, examines how changes in aquafeed ingredients reshaped the environmental impacts of European aquaculture between 2000 and 2020. The authors model how feed composition has evolved over time. As small coastal fish populations have been exploited to or near their limits—and as scrutiny of fishmeal and fish oil dependence has grown—the industry has increasingly turned to land-based crop ingredients to replace marine inputs. The study analyzes what happened as that shift unfolded.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, and Water Consumption Surge as Aquaculture Feed Shifts to Soy and Rapeseed

The findings are striking. Over the past two decades, European aquaculture nearly doubled its production. But the environmental impacts linked to fish feed rose even faster. Greenhouse gas emissions from feed production increased by 314 percent. Land use grew by 594 percent. Water use rose by 236 percent. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters also climbed sharply, largely because of fertilizer use and nutrient runoff tied to expanding soy and rapeseed farming.

Some of this increase is expected when an industry grows—more production usually means more environmental impact. But the researchers found that the biggest driver was not the growth of aquaculture itself, but changes in the ingredients used to make fish feed.

One way to see this is by looking at the environmental impact per kilogram of fish produced—a measure that accounts for industry growth. Even by that standard, the impacts worsened. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of farmed fish more than doubled, and land use per kilogram increased by 336 percent. In other words, producing each kilogram of farmed fish became significantly more resource-intensive over time, regardless of how much the industry expanded.

The primary drivers were the production of soy protein concentrate and rapeseed oil, ingredients that increasingly replace wild fish in feed formulations. Ultimately, substituting marine ingredients with crops did not reduce environmental impacts. It magnified and transferred them to land.

As Dr. Spencer Roberts of the University of Miami recently observed, “What we’re talking about is not so much increasing efficiency as much as a shift in pressure from ecosystems like the Humboldt Current [in Peru], where the anchovies come from, to ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest where the soy comes from.”

Feed Accounting Methods Obscure the True Toll on Wild Fish 

The University of Stirling study uncovers the disturbing reality of the environmental pressures of crop-based feed production. At the same time, like much of the aquaculture literature, it relies on standard feed accounting methods that do not always capture the full scope of marine extraction. As our recent report—drawing on Roberts and colleagues’ 2024 Science Advances analysis—explains, conventional feed accounting often treats trimmings and “by-products” as if they are not wild fish inputs. These materials include heads, frames, offcuts, and even whole non-target fish who are processed into fishmeal and fish oil. As demand for aquaculture feed has grown, these so-called “by-products” have acquired significant economic value. Yet most accounting methods subtract them entirely, making industry feed look less dependent on wild fish than it is. Correcting for these exclusions raised estimated wild fish use by as much as 300% compared to the figure most frequently cited to demonstrate aquaculture’s efficiency.

What the Stirling findings do make clear is that, regardless of accounting method, altering feed ingredients has not lightened aquaculture’s environmental load, but redistributed it. Forest ecosystems, freshwater systems, and agricultural landscapes have absorbed the impacts of expanded crop production, while marine ecosystems still remain under strain.

Aquaculture Feed Diverts Wild Fish from Food Systems, Raising Global Nutrition Concerns

As researchers revisit the environmental consequences of aquaculture feed, new work is also drawing attention to its nutritional implications. A separate Harvard-led study published in February estimates that if wild fish currently diverted into aquaculture feed were instead retained within Global South countries from which they were caught, they could meet the nutritional needs of up to 31 million undernourished people. Rather than remaining in local food systems, these fish are funneled into feed for higher-value farmed species destined largely for wealthier markets—a far cry from the industry’s claims of “feeding the world.”

A Shift to Truly Sustainable Food Systems

Together, these findings point to the same underlying reality: Whether measured in greenhouse gas emissions, land conversion, nutrient pollution, or lost nutrition, the feed systems underpinning industrial aquaculture deepen environmental and social burdens rather than resolving them. Substituting soy for anchovies does not eliminate pressure; it changes where this pressure is concentrated and who bears it.

This is why incremental ingredient substitutions are not enough. Fish farming remains anchored in resource-intensive feed systems, whether those inputs come from oceans or croplands. As long as production continues to expand, environmental and nutritional trade-offs will continue to multiply.

Reducing the scale of sea animal production—and accelerating a shift toward plant protein with lower greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and nutrient runoff—remains essential if we are serious about protecting both marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Whether you’re cooking for your family or you work in foodservice or procurement, you can find practical steps and resources for serving more sustainable, ocean-friendly food here. To keep up-to-date on our work on this issue, sign up for Aquaculture Accountability Project’s newsletter. 

Farm Forward is proud to announce the launch of a new campaign focused on the global aquaculture industry in partnership with the Aquaculture Accountability Project (AAP). Formed in late 2025, AAP is an organization seeking to debunk the myths of “sustainable” aquaculture and reduce unsustainable consumption of sea animals. Building on our ongoing work on humanewashing and greenwashing, we are working with AAP to expose these myths that have allowed the fastest growing food animal sector to expand exponentially, even as it is causing irreparable harms to our oceans.  

Why Focus on Aquaculture? 

Fish farming is the factory farming of the sea. Like land-based animal agriculture, aquaculture uses high-confinement farms to raise fish in overcrowded, disease-ridden, and filthy conditions. In addition to causing widespread animal suffering, aquaculture has catastrophic effects on surrounding ecosystems, destroys critical carbon sinks, and has a high carbon toll. Massive amounts of (often illegal) drugs are used to keep diseased fish alive, deepening the crisis of antibiotic resistance resulting from overuse and misuse of antibiotics in factory farming. But these realities are obscured by myths carefully crafted by an industry that claims that fish farming offers a sustainable alternative to both wild caught fish and land-based animal products. 

What are the Myths of “Sustainable” Aquaculture?

Myth #1: Fish Farming Reduces Pressure on Wild Fisheries 

Fish farming emerged as a “solution” to the crisis of the depletion of wild fish populations, promising to reduce pressure on fragile wild fisheries. In reality, industrial aquaculture puts more pressure on wild fisheries, further depleting wild fish populations in ways that continue to imperil our oceans. With fish farming comes a high demand for small wild fish species (like anchovies and sardines) caught for farmed fish feed. Carnivorous species like salmon require large amounts of these feed fish, with recent research revealing that they may consume nearly six times their weight in wild fish before harvest.

Myth #2: Fish Farming Meets a Growing Demand for Seafood

Aquaculture has proliferated as a solution to growing demand for sea animals, when in reality, the industry has worked across scientific, policy, and cultural arenas to manufacture that demand. Fish farms now supply more than half of all aquatic animal products consumed worldwide. This rapid growth, rather than responding to demand, is driving higher levels of consumption of both wild-caught fish and farmed fish, deepening the crisis of the depletion of wild fish populations and ocean health. 

Myth #3: Farmed Fish Is a Healthy Ocean Protein

Fish farms are disease-ridden spaces where massive amounts of antibiotics are administered to keep fish alive. Even with the high rates of drug use in the industry, mortality remains high as fish continue to die from disease and spread these diseases to wild populations. The overuse and misuse of antibiotics in industrial agriculture is a leading cause of global antibiotic resistance, and the aquaculture industry is no exception. Aquaculture poses a risk to human health, not only in compromising the efficacy of antibiotics for the treatment of human disease, but also in the health risks associated with consuming these fish. 

Myth #4: Farmed Fish Is a Climate-Smart Food

Fish farming, in reality, exacerbates climate change. Feed production, energy use, and high mortality make aquaculture highly carbon-intensive, with emissions often exceeding poultry and pork, and many times higher than plant-based proteins such as peas or soy. Worse, the industry also undermines natural carbon sinks by depleting forage fish who drive ocean carbon storage and by clearing mangroves for shrimp ponds, turning key carbon reservoirs into emissions sources.

Myth #5: Certifications and Labels Ensure Sustainability

Consumers concerned with the sustainability of fish and crustaceans often rely on labels and certifications to ensure that what they’re buying meets sustainability metrics. As in the case of animal welfare labeling in land-based agriculture, certifications rarely reflect meaningful guarantees of responsible production and are, instead, primarily used as marketing tools to deceive conscientious consumers. 

Together, we can make a difference 

As the aquaculture industry continues to grow, it has never been more important to include this sector in our work to end factory farming. We are proud to be working with AAP on finding  solutions to the problem of industrial aquaculture, from helping to empower consumers to make truly sustainable food choices to working with institutions to change their food purchasing practices. We hope that you will join us in this work. In addition to following Farm Forward’s work on this issue, you can also sign up for the AAP newsletter to get involved.

Farm Forward, joined by Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice, and more than 30 allied organizations, filed a petition calling on USDA to make anaerobic digesters at industrial animal operations ineligible for funding from the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

Anaerobic digesters capture factory farm gas (FFG) from the massive waste cesspools at industrial animal operations. This gas is then branded as “renewable natural gas” and sold under a green veneer as a supposed climate solution.

When REAP was established, it had the noble goal of investing in renewable energy and strengthening rural economies across the country. While some of the REAP funding goes to valuable products such as on-farm solar, tens of millions in taxpayer funds are going to some of the largest meat and dairy companies to install digesters at industrial animal operations, further entrenching factory farming.

This petition adds to a growing body of evidence (including Farm Forward’s 2025 report) showing that FFG subsidies function as a reverse Robin Hood scheme by funneling public dollars to the largest, most polluting operations while failing to deliver on environmental benefits.

While it fails to deliver climate benefits, FFG is also objectionable because of the green branding and perverse incentives for expanding the factory farm model. Every digester project marketed as “renewable energy” is another reason to add more animals, produce more waste, and lock in a system that has failed rural communities for decades.

When it comes to helping the climate, there are a slate of better alternatives to FFG on offer. We should move our attention towards those and away from a model that doubles down on and necessitates vast pollution and runaway emissions.

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.

Update: December 15, 2025: Today, Senator Markey and Congresswoman Adams reintroduced the EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

Some useful links on the updated bill:

• Sen. Markey press release
• Rep. Adams press release
• Bill text 
• Fact sheet
• Section-by-section summary 
• Friends of the Earth Nov. 2025 report: How USDA’s commodity food purchasing favors industrial agriculture

What you can do: If you are a U.S. resident, contact your senator and representative to ask for their support! Just look up their contact info on the Senate and House directories, and ask them to support Senator Edward Markey’s and Congresswoman Alma Adams’ EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act of 2025. In addition, you can ping them on social media, and while you’re at it, ask for the support of USDA @USDA (X, FB), @usdagov (IG), and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins @secrollins (X).

—

Update: December 5, 2023: The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act has been assigned bill numbers: S.3390 in the Senate and H.R.6569 in the House of Representatives.

—

Original Post: December 4, 2023: In anticipation of the 2024 Farm Bill, we are proud to play a part in introducing new federal legislation that would leverage billions of dollars of food spending by USDA to help build a more just, healthy, and sustainable food system. 

Introduced by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) and Congresswoman Alma Adams (NC-12), the Enabling Farmer, Food worker, Environmental, and Climate Targets through Innovative, Values-aligned, and Equitable (EFFECTIVE) Food Procurement Act would direct and support USDA to shift toward values-aligned food procurement. The legislation would benefit workers, farmed animals, and the environment alike, and has been endorsed by more than 200 organizations.  

The vast majority of USDA’s food purchases are not congruent with its own values-based goals and policy objectives like mitigating climate change, conserving natural resources, building resilient supply chains, supporting socially disadvantaged producers and worker well-being, and expanding healthy choices for schools and its other program beneficiaries. 

The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would change that. The Act was inspired by a new Federal Good Food Purchasing Coalition (FGFP Coalition), of which Farm Forward is a founding member. The FGFP Coalition grew out of the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), a flexible metric-based framework that encourages large institutions to direct their buying power toward six core values including equity, nutrition, valued workforce, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and community-based economies. For years, we have led the team that updates GFPP’s animal welfare value area. As GFPP has been implemented by dozens of cities, municipalities, and school districts across the country, we have seen the outsized role that the federal government plays in food purchasing. This year we joined with other GFPP leaders in a concerted effort to redirect those federal food dollars, almost 40 percent of which in 2022 was spent on animal products. In 2022, The biggest food purchaser in the federal government, USDA, spent more than four billion dollars on commodity foods for school districts, food banks, low-income seniors, foreign aid, and Indian reservations. 

The USDA primarily purchases from a handful of agricultural megacorporations, many of which have repeatedly violated labor, environmental, and animal welfare laws. For example, Tyson Foods accounted for 43 percent of USDA poultry spending in 2022, despite incurring more than 30 workplace and environmental violations within three years of receiving their contract, and USDA suspending program personnel at Tyson due to what USDA termed “egregious violation of the humane handling requirements” that very year. 

The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would shift USDA away from evaluating bids based only on cost to evaluating bids based on multiple values, including equity, worker well-being, climate mitigation, animal welfare, resilient supply chains, and nutrition. While increasing transparency in USDA spending, the Act would (among other things) measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with USDA’s procurement, provide grants and technical assistance to small and socially disadvantaged producers and businesses, and shift USDA’s purchases of animal products from the lowest common denominator to more pasture-raised livestock, more farms participating in independent animal welfare certification programs, and more plant-based proteins.

The social and environmental benefit of such shifts would be staggering. Earlier this year the FGFP Coalition produced a report on federal food purchasing with findings including: 

• The USDA is the largest direct food purchaser in the federal government, and combined with the Department of Defense accounts for 90 percent of direct federal food purchases, which totaled more than $9 billion in 2022.
• The USDA Foods Program had a carbon footprint of more than 19 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent between the school year of 2018 and 2019, equal to the annual emissions from 4.1 million cars.
• Replacing 25 percent of federal animal product purchases with plant-based sources of protein would spare 26,736,641 animal lives, make available 9.3 million acres of land (equal to the size of Maryland), save $248 million, and reduce 1.6 million tons of Co2e annually—more than the equivalent of taking every passenger vehicle in Washington, D.C. and Alaska out of commission, all year, every year.

On November 7, Farm Forward and other representatives of the FGFP Coalition met with Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) office, and we’re pleased that Senator Blumenthal has now signed on as the bill’s Senate cosponsor. 

You may be interested to review the FGFP Coalition’s report on how we could better leverage federal food purchasing for climate, environmental, and social benefits, and the Civil Eats article about the Act. But most importantly: all U.S. residents can contact their senators and representatives to ask that they support the EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act. [December 2025 update: Just look up their contact info on the Senate and House directories, and ask them to support Senator Edward Markey’s and Congresswoman Alma Adams’ EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act of 2025. Additionally, you can ping them on social media, and while you’re at it, ask for the support ofUSDA@USDA (X, FB), @usdagov (IG), and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins@secrollins (X).]

Good food purchasing at the federal level is the next step in how we are building a better future for American workers, communities, ecosystems, and farmed animals. Together, we are building a future free of factory farms.

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.

In a time when the changing climate demands that we bend the curve away from large-scale factory farming, the federal government is heavily investing in a scheme that does little to address the root causes of environmental harm and can even strengthen industrial animal farming: Factory Farm Gas (FFG).

FFG, marketed as “renewable natural gas,” has enjoyed millions of dollars of government subsidies and incentive programs in recent years.

However, to double down on FFG is to double down on a strategy that perpetuates the very system it claims to mitigate—massively confined, industrial animal farming.

Our new reports, “Gaslit by Biogas: Big Ag’s Reverse Robin Hood Effect” and “The ‘Biogas’ Plot: Fueling Factory Farms in the Midwest,” detail this phenomenon and were recently cited in a powerful Vox piece.

What Is Factory Farm Gas?

FFG is gas captured from the massive cesspools of waste generated by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—-factory farms. These operations are touted by industry as exciting renewable energy sources and as a plausible replacement for fossil fuels. They use devices called anaerobic digesters to capture methane gas from cesspools and process the waste into “biogas.” After further refinement, the gas is used to generate electricity and heat.

We don’t deny the basic fact that anaerobic digesters capture methane, nor do we deny the urgency of reducing methane pollution. The problem is that FFG subsidies promote the entrenchment and expansion of industrial animal agriculture while doing nothing to address one of the most significant methane emissions from animals—enteric fermentation.

Despite its greenwashed veneer, FFG doesn’t meaningfully address the harms of factory farming; instead, it obfuscates the pollution problem while funneling public money to some of the worst offenders in industrial agriculture.

Subsidies for Factory Farm Interests

Federal and state subsidies and incentives for FFG have exploded in recent years. In 2024, we received government data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Analysis revealed that the 2023 federal value funneled to FFG exceeded $150 million, including grants, low-interest loans, and tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In 2023, programs like the USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which includes funding for truly necessary programs like on-farm wind and solar, saw an over 2,600 percent year-over-year increase in biogas-related grants after the IRA’s passage.Unsurprisingly, private investment is surging alongside these subsidies. FFG companies are cashing in on tax credits and government-backed loans, projecting tens of millions of dollars in benefits in the coming years.

A System by and for the Biggest Polluters

The nature of FFG collection means that some of the worst CAFO practices—like mass animal confinement and manure cesspools—are necessary to make such operations viable. Accordingly, subsidies for FFG disproportionately benefit the largest and most environmentally destructive factory farms. For example:

• Our analysis of three years of state grants shows that dairy digester projects funded by the state of California were “fed” by an average of ~7,500 cows.
• Similarly, in a national dataset, FFG operations “fed” by pig manure reported operations involving between 14,000 and nearly 80,000 animals.

These subsidies not only support the status quo but may actively encourage the expansion of CAFOs and potentially drive out small, independent pasture-based farmers. This “reverse Robin Hood effect” of FFG means public funds are being diverted to the wealthiest agricultural corporations and interests.

Doubling Down on Subsidizing CAFOs

The federal government is doubling down on public incentives for FFG despite major critiques from legislators. In 2024, for example, a coalition of 15 members of Congress sent a letter to then Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack expressing concern over the USDA’s inclusion of FFG in climate-related programs. Their concerns were clear: Incentivizing FFG risks consolidating the agricultural sector and contradicting climate goals. Secretary Vilsack’s response—which Farm Forward received via FOIA request—failed to meaningfully address these concerns while reaffirming a commitment to using manure digesters. Given his past role as a lobbyist for the dairy industry, Vilsack’s support for these subsidies is hardly surprising.

Advocating For Smaller-Scale Farmers Instead

In recent weeks, many farmers, including smaller-scale farmers, have reported that climate funding has been paused following a presidential executive order. Essential initiatives like on-farm solar, which can help smaller farms be more sustainable and offset electricity costs, are up in the air.

Unlike large agribusinesses that can absorb financial setbacks, these farmers operate on much thinner margins, making the sudden funding halt a potential death knell for pro-climate initiatives. Struggling smaller-scale and local farmers would be left holding the bag for the major financial burdens of previously subsidized climate programs they cannot afford on their own.

The new administration has expressed interest in addressing the lack of healthfulness in the food system via its push to “Make America Healthy Again.” One good way to start would be to ensure that promised payments get to smaller-scale farmers. Why? To support ways of raising animals for food far better for our public health than factory farming’s outsized contributions to pollution, the antibiotic resistance crisis, and pandemic risk.

Conclusion

Climate interventions that entrench and expand industrial animal agriculture won’t cut it. Instead of facilitating well over a billion dollars into factory farm interests, we should:

• Invest in plant-based food systems that reduce reliance on industrial animal farming.
• Push for legislation like the Farm System Reform Act to phase out massive, confined factory farming and support independent farmers transitioning to sustainable practices.

FFG is not the climate solution it claims to be. Perhaps there’s a world where certain iterations of biogas could be a meaningful part of a serious climate strategy—it’s not inconceivable. Our concern is not with the notion of using waste for heat and electricity but with how we see it manifesting: massive subsidies for large-scale agricultural polluters, little oversight, factory farm expansion, and industrial profiteering.

By propping up factory farming, the government is perpetuating a system that threatens public health, rural communities, animal welfare, and the very climate it purports to protect. It’s time to redirect these subsidies toward a more humane and sustainable food system.

For more details, see our recent reports and the Vox article:

Gaslit by Biogas: Big Ag’s Reverse Robin Hood Effect

Biogas’ Plot: Fueling Factory Farms in the Midwest

Big Oil and Big Ag are teaming up to turn cow poop into energy — and profits. The math doesn’t add up

 

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.

Factory farming isn’t inevitable. Giant, filthy, cramped animal farms are not simply the consequence of technological advancement in agriculture. Industrial farming is a system built by companies with the help of friendly governments; public policies and taxpayer subsidies play a critical role in propping up factory farming. Farm Forward opposes public funding of factory farms and greenwashing technologies like biogas, which serve to entrench and expand factory farming. Earlier this year, Farm Forward joined a coalition, the Michiganders for a Just Farming System, opposing a proposed bill (Senate Bill 275) in the Michigan legislature that would enrich industrial animal agriculture at the expense of smaller-scale farmers, Michigan communities, and truly clean energy solutions.

This proposed legislation is another case of public policy being used to calcify the status quo of large-scale, confinement agriculture. SB 275 would classify farm-derived biogas as a clean fuel source, which would allow it to qualify for participation in a lucrative carbon credit market. Factory-farmed animals, particularly cows and pigs, produce vast volumes of waste that emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, along with other pollutants. Biodigesters (also called anaerobic digesters) can capture some of the methane produced by manure waste, which can be burned to produce modest amounts of electricity. While biodigesters may reduce some methane emissions, the purpose of the technology is not primarily to solve climate change. The technology is used by the meat and dairy industry as well as the fossil fuel industry to create government programs to profit from their polluting practices. The pattern is so clear that it’s commonly referred to as “brown gold” by dairy producers.

Michiganders Oppose Propping Up Factory Farms

According to a recent survey conducted by Data for Progress for Farm Forward, a plurality of Michiganders (47 percent) have an unfavorable view of large-scale factory farms, whereas 89 percent have a positive view of small family farms. What’s more, Michiganders are supportive of climate legislation, but with a catch: they are less likely to support climate legislation like factory farm biogas when they learn that it’s a boon for industry.

If SB 275 is passed by the Democratic House and Senate and signed by Governor Whitmer, Michigan factory farms may be eligible for tens of millions of dollars in lucrative credits, enriching an industry that most Michiganders have a negative view of.

In the poll, Democrats’ support for SB 275 dropped by 22 points after respondents learned that industry heavily influenced the bill. The prime backer of SB 275 is a group called Clean Fuels Michigan, which represents numerous companies and interests, from Amazon to BP to Delta. Conversely, SB 275 has virtually no support from environmental groups within the state.

Those survey results should be no surprise. Good climate legislation should leverage public investment in the technologies and industries that stand to make a meaningful impact on climate change and improve local environments. Enriching factory farms does neither of those things. Michiganders want to invest in climate solutions to reduce greenhouse gasses, improve air and water quality, support sustainable farmers, and benefit rural communities. So do we. That’s why we oppose SB 275 and efforts to greenwash factory farms.

Instead, we should push for legislation like the Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act, which moves the US closer to a more sustainable and humane food system.

 

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.

 

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.

Our investigation of fraud, deception, and animal welfare abuses at Alexandre Family Farm (Alexandre) revealed that Alexandre’s national reputation for high animal welfare is largely a mirage. It is highly likely that milk sold across the country—including in products like toddler formula and ice cream—came from abused, neglected, and mistreated cows who were allowed to linger in their suffering. Maddeningly, many of these products were sold under humane labels that ideally should signify something meaningful for animals.

This is a clear case of humanewashing: when marketing and certifications create an image of exceptional animal treatment meant to assuage consumers, despite the reality being far more grim.

It’s no secret that “ethical” dairies like Alexandre are used to market the entire industry to consumers, giving a halo of respectability and credibility to the very factory farm corporations that make cruelty and abuse endemic. But the corruption at Alexandre has spread further, as its lies rippled not only through the organic, higher welfare dairy market but beyond.

Alexandre’s “ethical dairy” status has been used to lend a veneer of respectability to natural food retailers like Whole Foods Market, food companies like Alec’s Ice Cream and Cheddies Crackers, and even baby and children’s food companies like Serenity Kids and Once Upon a Farm. All of these companies actively use Alexandre’s halo of respectability to entice conscientious consumers to buy their own products. Alexandre’s humanewashing stains a swath of companies and products that perpetuate Alexandre’s deceptive claims.

Whole Foods Market named Alexandre a “Supplier of the Year” in 2021, and markets its partnership with Alexandre as “Restarting Dairy”—likely an effort to leverage Alexandre’s reputation to improve the public image of dairy, which has been declining over the years. Whole Foods proudly showcases a video with Alexandre co-owner Blake Alexandre, who notes that seeing Alexandre’s products on Whole Foods shelves “gives us a tremendous sense of pride and it also highlights the fact that we’re making a difference. It’s a small difference, but what we’re doing here on the farm is contributing in a positive way to the betterment of our society and humanity.”1

Jarringly, that same flashy video can’t conceal some of Alexandre’s inhumane practices. The video inadvertently documents cows with extremely low body condition scores (suggesting disease and/or malnutrition), as well as hundreds of plastic calf hutches (widely seen as inhumane)2345 where Alexandre isolates calves from their mothers, other cows, and other calves. Alexandre’s hutches do not even include the standard patch of ground in front that would allow calves to go outside; a veterinary expert who reviewed our report noted that hutches were never meant to be used as cages, and “calves not able to step outside their hutches is a horrific perversion of use.” Even Whole Foods Market’s rosy portrayal of Alexandre unintentionally reveals systemic and unnecessary suffering.

Update! Following the release of our report, Whole Foods Market appears to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page that referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade.”

In addition to supplying cows’ milk to Whole Foods, Alexandre sells it to food manufacturers, including baby food and kids’ snack companies and leading organic cheese, cracker, and ice cream companies. Alexandre promotes a partnership with Serenity Kids, which sells baby food and “toddler formula” (and according to the Serenity Kids website its toddler formula “meets FDA nutritional requirements for infant formula”).6 Serenity Kids notes that its formula’s milk ingredients come from Alexandre, “which is known for its quality, ethical practices.” Serenity’s President and Co-Founder Joe Carr glowingly recounts in a video featured on Serenity’s YouTube,

At Serenity Kids we support American family farmers that treat their animals ethically … We are just super excited to have now created a product that proves that you can make formula … created in a way that’s great for the planet and great for the animals. -Joe Carr, President and Co-Founder, Serenity Kids7

Once Upon a Farm was co-founded by actor Jennifer Garner. A recipient of the Clean Label Project’s “Purity Award,” until recently Once Upon a Farm produced only completely plant-based foods for infants, toddlers, and children. In January 2024 it announced that it will incorporate Alexandre’s products into some of its foods marketed to kids 12 months and older,8 noting (correctly) that Alexandre is “the leading regenerative organic certified dairy farm in the U.S.” Once Upon a Farm products are sold at Whole Foods, Target and Costco.

Alexandre also supplies to Rumiano Cheese, which claims “a deep commitment to … animal welfare”9 and sells Organic cheese to thousands of grocery stores nationwide, including grocery giants like Safeway, Vons, Whole Foods, and Costco. Rumiano boasts that their cheese “benefits the animals and consumers by helping produce healthy and humane dairy products.”10 Rumiano Cheese buys milk from milk suppliers like Organic West that process milk from  Alexandre and resell it to a wide variety of outlets.

It doesn’t end there, but continues with prominent relationships with food companies like Alec’s Ice Cream, which markets “the first-ever regenerative organic ice cream—one that’s improving our world through the way it’s created” and that “improves the lives of animals.”11

Update! Following the release of our report, Alec’s Ice Cream 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.”

Cheddies Crackers, which differentiates its products in large part by marketing them as Certified Humane and Regenerative Organic Certified. In addition to stating “Happy cows make the best milk,” Cheddies notes on its homepage,

Our cheese comes from regenerative farms, like the Alexandre Family Farm in California. These farms are like VIP clubs for cows – they get the royal treatment. -Cheddies Crackers website

All of these suppliers use Alexandre’s certifications and marketing to differentiate their products, trying to convince a public that is increasingly skeptical of cows’ dairy products because of their health, animal welfare, and environmental impacts that it’s acceptable—even beneficial—to eat their products. In the marketing language of one of Alexandre’s buyers, “Every time you enjoy Alec’s ice cream, you’re making a positive impact.”12

In other words, Alexandre’s deception is propagated in the market by the companies that use Alexandre’s products and reputation to hide the ubiquity of the ethically repugnant practices that are virtually unavoidable in dairy, given the present structure of the industry.13

 

Taking Action

Below is a list of companies that sell Alexandre products or source them for ingredients. Farm Forward asks these companies to cut ties with Alexandre and if possible reformulate to take cows’ milk out of their products. We will update you on how each company responds to our request.

• Whole Foods Market
  • Whole Foods Market stopped marketing Alexandre products.
• Once Upon a Farm
• Serenity Kids
  • A day after receiving our outreach in April, Serenity wrote to note that they had opened their own investigation as a result of our report and would take appropriate action based on what they uncover. Almost four months later, they still claim that their investigation is “ongoing.”
• Alec’s Ice Cream
  • 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.”
• Cheddies Crackers
• Rumiano Cheese
• United Natural Foods (UNFI)
• Providore
  • The natural food store completely has dropped Alexandre as a supplier as a result of our investigation.
• Luke’s Local
  • The premium grocery retailer in San Francisco with three locations has cancelled its orders of all Alexandre Family Farm products.
• Walt’s Wholesale Meats
  • Walt’s, which specializes in slaughtering dairy cows for meat for human consumption, has stopped accepting all cows from Alexandre Family Farm.
• Gus’s Community Market
  • The California grocery with five locations has pulled its Alexandre promos and reduced Alexandre’s product lines and shelf space as a result of the investigation’s findings.

For more updates, including certifications that have delisted or suspended Alexandre, see our Timeline of Alexandre Dairy Investigation.

Jewish institutions–like Hillels, synagogues, and summer camps–often serve as hubs of community life. Within these spaces, we practice and celebrate our shared values and traditions. Central to these communal experiences is the food we share, which nourishes both body and soul.

An organizational food policy serves as a guide that outlines how food is sourced, prepared, and served within institutions. Some Jewish organizations already have established food practices, such as preferred kashrut standards or accommodations for dietary requests on an as-needed basis. Formalizing best practices into an organizational food policy can improve kitchen and food operations while expressing a community’s values.

Why Develop an Organizational Food Policy?

Developing an organizational food policy is an opportunity to embody Jewish values through the lens of communal dietary choices. It reflects a community’s commitment to sustainability, justice, compassion, and inclusivity. By creating an official food policy we turn these values into long-term commitments to be implemented across all of an organization’s activities.

Moreover, plant-forward food policies ensure that everyone feels welcome and valued within our communal spaces. By reducing or eliminating ingredients with common allergens–like milk and eggs–from menus, we can create inherently more inclusive dining experiences. Accommodating diverse dietary preferences and needs promotes a sense of belonging for all members of the community.

DefaultVeg: A Plant-Based Nudge Strategy

DefaultVeg, also called “greener by default” or “plant-based by default,” is a simple yet powerful nudge strategy that promotes plant-forward eating. Essentially, it involves making plant-based options the default choice in communal settings.

Making plant-based food the default can help reshape what people in our communities think of as a “normal” meal. Whether at a conference or a Shabbat dinner, this approach recognizes that individuals are influenced by the choices presented to them and that their choices have a huge impact.

By serving plant-based meals by default, your organization offers the chance for community members to easily make more humane and sustainable food choices. With a DefaultVeg food policy, everyone can choose the meal that’s right for them.

Bring Jewish Values to the Table 

For centuries, the question of what’s kosher, or “fit” for Jewish communities has guided our daily actions, religious identities, and moral values. Today, industrialized animal agricultural practices like factory farming, are the norm for 99% of animals in our food system. Kosher-certified animal products are no exception. Along with the lives of farmed animals, intensive farming practices have dire consequences for our world.

Reducing the animal products our community serves and choosing higher-welfare meat, when possible, embodies the Jewish value of tza’ar ba’alei chayim–preventing unnecessary suffering to living creatures. By embracing sustainable practices such as sourcing local ingredients, prioritizing plant-based foods, and minimizing food waste, organizations exemplify the Jewish values of bal tashchit–avoiding wasteful destruction–and sh’mirat ha’adamah–protecting the Earth.

From animal welfare to environmental justice to public health, there are many Jewish values-based reasons to commit to alternatives to industrial animal agriculture. Through plant-forward organizational food policies, we turn these commitments into action.

Take Action for Your Community

Jewish tradition offers a rich tapestry of values and teachings that emphasize ethical eating. Developing an organizational food policy rooted in this tradition allows institutions to authentically embody their core beliefs through their food practices.

JIFA works with Jewish institutions to build a more humane and sustainable future, starting with the food we buy and serve to our communities. We offer resources, education, and a free consultation to help your community establish a values-based food policy. Together, we will create a more humane, sustainable, and compassionate future for all beings.

Contact JIFA to schedule your free consultation.

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.”

 

 

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.

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.

“It may not be over night, or over a year; it may take a few decades or so, but change is inevitable. It is possible. I hope it is possible.”
―Dr. S

Since 2012, Farm Forward has worked to identify and help fund some of the most innovative programs working toward humane and sustainable agriculture in South Asia. Our granting programs especially aim to empower India’s hundreds of millions of farmers to find their own unique path to resist factory farming, preserve rural life, enhance community health, and create animal agriculture systems that are both productive and more humane.1

Our Changing Farming: Transcending Borders to End Factory Farming video introduces veterinarian Dr. Mandhaven Sugumaran (“Dr. S”). Our most influential and empowering work to date includes providing financial support to Dr. S and his allies in The Nilgiris region of India as they resist the encroachment of industrial farming. The knowledge gained from this on the ground work with farmers now informs Farm Forward’s efforts to support research that can change farm policy across India.

Internationalizing the Fight Against Factory Farming

Global meat production has increased sevenfold since 1950 and factory farming is the fastest growing method of animal production worldwide. With our globalized economy, factory farming anywhere in the world is a threat to animal welfare and ecological stability everywhere in the world.2

If we’re going to defeat factory farming, we can’t be content with victories only in the US, Canada, and Mexico—we must also turn back the progress of the factory farm in the world’s most populous nations, India and China, before it’s too late.3 India, as a fellow democracy with a developed and free media, is a natural ally. Action in India today can have an outsized impact precisely because India still has comparatively low rates of meat consumption and—while factory farms are beginning to dot the countryside—traditional systems of farming are still widespread.4

Why India?

In India we simply need to preserve and expand the traditional systems already producing so much of India’s animal products. Unlike in America, where farmers and consumers alike forgot the value of heritage genetics as cheaper hybrid chickens came to comprise 99 percent of the market, people in India still recognize the superior value of slower-growing birds.5 In the areas of South India where we provide grant support, locals typically pay up to more than double the amount for heritage or “country birds,” as they are referred to locally.

Farm Forward began developing partnerships with local animal welfare and pro-traditional farming groups in India when the director of the Eating Animals documentary, Christopher Quinn, asked for our help telling the international side of the factory farming story. In the course of forging relationships with several of India’s citizens, including Dr. S, we saw just how much even modest donations could achieve. After three years of rigorous vetting, we’ve identified partners and projects that we know make an outsized difference, stretching charitable dollars to achieve the most good.

Our Work

Our most influential and empowering work to date includes providing financial support to Dr. S and his allies in The Nilgiris region of India as they resist the encroachment of industrial farming and support poor rural farmers in more than 36 villages for less than $35,000 annually—less than $1,000 per village. The Nilgiris is a beautiful, mountainous region featuring five national parks and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Through our support, our allies in The Nilgiris have provided emergency veterinary relief for small farmers facing pandemics like hoof and mouth disease, launched a campaign to help repopulate local heritage birds, and even started work on an animal shelter on donated land.

The most developed ongoing program is a pilot program distributing India’s native heritage breeds to small farmers who recently transitioned to hybrid birds. In addition to the animal welfare benefits and higher market value, the use of local genetics is crucial to allowing farmers in India to retain their independence from agribusiness. If local poultry genetics are lost in India like they have been in the US, farmers will be forced to buy hybrid strains from industrial hatcheries.

Wildlife Conservation

Work to promote humane and sustainable farming in India is work to protect wild animal species. The complex ecosystems of this area mean that our allies must develop farming systems that are not only higher welfare but also compatible with local efforts to protect forest species, including elephants, panthers, and tigers.

We believe our work to internationalize the movement for truly humane, sustainable, and just animal agriculture is key to defeating the factory farm.

***

Please consider a recurring monthly donation to provide basic free and subsidized veterinary care to an entire village in The Nilgiris. Write “photos please!” in the comment area of the donation form and we’ll have our partners in India send photos of how your dollars are being put to work.

Please sign up for our monthly newsletter below to receive updates about our work.

Watch our Changing Policy video next!

United Nations scientists warn that a climate catastrophe is coming, and a leaked UN document urges a shift to plant-based proteins as a strategy to stave off the most dire scenarios.

Read on to learn about political, institutional, and individual remedies already underway. Though it can feel like actions of an individual, institution, or state do not matter, when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. Every bit of climate change mitigated matters, so every meal matters.

“Code red for humanity”

Released last month, part one of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) sixth report (AR6) pulls together findings from more than 14 thousand peer-reviewed studies. In the strongest language the IPCC has ever used, and for the first time, the IPCC stated that it is “unequivocal” that humans have caused “widespread and rapid” changes to ocean, land, and atmospheric temperatures, and that many of these changes are “irreversible.”

The report says that because climate change is cumulative, we will see unavoidable intensification over the next 30 years. That is, even if the world dramatically cut emissions starting today, a hotter future is certain. In all scenarios, by “the early 2030s,” average global temperatures will rise 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.

That kind of temperature change may not sound like much, but it brings with it cataclysms and catastrophes. As the New York Times explained upon the release of the report,

“At 1.5 degrees of warming, scientists have found … Nearly 1 billion people worldwide could swelter in more frequent life-threatening heat waves. Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.”1

Unless we dramatically cut emissions, we can expect additional degrees of warming over 1.5°C as the century progresses, bringing more wildfires, floods, rising sea levels, and animal and plant extinctions.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres says that AR6 is nothing less than “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.”2

Humanity must act decisively, now, if we are to limit average global temperature rise to just 1.5 degrees. Thankfully, the report states, there is still time to act.

Leaked UN report urges switch to plant-based protein

Not scheduled for public release before March 2022, the leaked third section of AR6 focuses on ways to reduce human impacts to the climate. It reads in part, “A shift to diets with a higher share of plant-based protein in regions with excess consumption of calories and animal-source food can lead to substantial reductions in emissions, while also providing health benefits …”3

The recommended shift to plant-based proteins builds on a 2019 IPCC special report that stated that plant-based and sustainably produced animal-sourced food “present major opportunities for [climate] adaptation and mitigation.”4

This is because of industrial animal-sourced food’s disproportionate impact on climate. For example, in 2018 Oxford University researchers published in the journal Science a study of nearly 40,000 farms in 119 countries that found “meat, aquaculture, eggs, and dairy use ~83 percent of the world’s farmland and contribute 56 to 58 percent of food’s different [greenhouse gas] emissions, despite providing only 37 percent of our protein and 18 percent of our calories.”5

According to AR6, “strong, rapid, and sustained reductions” in methane emissions are critical if we are to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and thereby prevent the worst climate scenarios. This is no surprise: over the first 20 years after methane is emitted, it is over 80 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Anthropogenic methane is the cause of more than 25 percent of today’s global warming.6 Meat and dairy production is the largest source of human-caused methane, from enteric fermentation (a digestive process of ruminants like cattle) and manure emissions.7 In fact, if cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.8 9

Following the release of the 2019 IPCC report, Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, said,  “We don’t want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”10

The political and personal: every change matters

Some US politicians have put forward policy options that take seriously industrial animal agriculture’s contributions to the climate catastrophe.

In July 2021, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) reintroduced the Farm System Reform Act (FSRA), which would place an immediate moratorium (pause) on construction of new and expanded large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and phase out the largest CAFOs by 2040.11 The Act is the boldest vision for American agriculture that we have ever seen put forward on a national policy stage. Federal legislation related to animal farming more typically reflects the vision of a small number of corporate meat companies’ lobbyists and advocates in government. In contrast, the vision outlined in the FSRA contains several first steps toward Farm Forward’s own vision for agriculture—ending factory farming, leveling the playing field for independent farmers, and raising fewer animals for food.

Another example: In June 2021, Reps. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Jamaal Bowman, Ed.D (D-NY) introduced the “Healthy Future Students and Earth Pilot Program Act,” which would fund healthier, climate friendly, culturally appropriate plant-based entrée options for public school students. “At the same time as we invest urgently in the transition to renewable energy, we must build sustainable food systems at every level of our society—and our public education system can lead the way,” said Rep. Bowman.12 He noted that the bill would advance food justice in marginalized communities and support local farmers of color while fighting the climate crisis with healthier, plant-based food. The bill would fund $10 million in grants for a voluntary pilot program to help school districts address challenges in transitioning to plant-based meals, such as lack of culinary training.13

While politicians debate, it is incumbent that individuals and institutions take their own steps to mitigate climate change. Farm Forward has long supported efforts to reduce meat consumption, and recently began promoting DefaultVeg, an approach to dining which uses simple behavioral “nudges” to encourage institutional and home diners to choose more climate-friendly foods, without restricting anyone’s choices. The use of plant-forward defaults is enormously effective: for example, making plant-based meals the default menu option while giving people the choice to opt in to meals with animal products (an approach called “Greener by Default”) can increase the selection of more sustainable plant-based options by an average of 60 percentage points and up to 80 percentage points. Dozens of institutions are adopting plant-based nudges, from Harvard recommending them in its catering guide to organizations like Climate Nexus and the American Lung Association committing to use them for their events.

Sometimes when facing a problem as vast in scope as the climate crisis, it feels like actions of an individual, institution, and even a city, state or nation do not matter. In fact, when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. Every fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the decades ahead will have consequences, particularly for the world’s most vulnerable. So every action matters, every bit of climate change mitigated matters, and every meal matters.

And they matter, too, because individual and institutional decisions often ramify: they influence and motivate other individuals and institutions, redefining what is “normal” and even eventually leading to political change. Decisions made for dining room tables, offices, schools, hospitals, and university departments become the social norms that change society and eventually change politics.

The good news embedded in the IPCC report is that there is still time to act to avoid the worst scenarios. No one person, institution, or country can do everything. Still, we can each do something. Do what you can, knowing that every day, more and more people are doing the same. And please donate to Farm Forward so that we can keep this good work going.

Header image: Food photo created by freepik – www.freepik.com 

Last month, Farm Forward, as a member of the Stand Up to Factory Farms coalition, submitted testimony to the Oregon Senate committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife Recovery urging the committee not to pass Senate Bill 151: The Bovine Manure Tax Credit.

In the testimony, the coalition educated the Senate about how the bill “incentivizes and props up unsustainable mega-dairies in Oregon”, “to the disadvantage of family farm dairies”, “and the detriment of rural communities and the environment”, among other vital pieces of the bill’s impact that the Oregon Senate is sworn to protect its people against.

Our testimony also warned about the misleading solution that biogas presents, which seems to be underwhelmingly understood by those who are blindly relying on its perceived benefits:

 “Mega-dairy digesters are touted for their purported climate benefits from methane capture. But in reality, methane digesters are a false solution to climate change and have no place in Oregon’s clean energy future. Digesters at best capture only the additional methane created by the adoption of factory farm practices in the first place.”
― Farm Forward

The Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Recovery committee has not yet voted on the bill.

Read the full testimony

To support our work fighting on the right side of history, please consider making a donation to the legislative policy program of Farm Forward. 

We write to you from the year 2050 to let you know that humanity is thriving on a rejuvenated planet. Looking back, 2020 was a turning point. Colliding crises—runaway climate change, a global pandemic, and extreme inequality—motivated a mass movement of people to demand change.  

In the years that followed, a diverse coalition of farmers, activists, communities, and consumers built the political will to end factory farming. That work went hand-in-hand with confronting racism and systemic oppression to build a just society and an economy that promotes equity. Over decades, we mitigated the climate crisis, greatly reduced the risk of another global pandemic, and rebuilt an American food system that works for everyone. 

Your support of Farm Forward made this all possible.

 

What does that food system look like from the vantage point of 2050? Monolithic factory farms have been replaced by a mosaic of family farms producing grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, mostly for domestic consumption. American diets have shifted plants to the center of the plate. Today, the few animals that are raised for food have healthy genetics and are raised on pasture.  

As a result, rivers and streams run clean of pesticides, fertilizer, and toxic animal waste. Soils are rich and healthy and are a key part of climate mitigation. Workers across the food chain have safe, dignified jobs that allow them to thrive.  

You might wonder how we did all this in just 30 years. We worked together. People like you, people dedicated to this vision of a better future, pitched in to build it.  

Historians say that 2020 was a critical turning point. Crisis created opportunity. That hard year laid the foundation for the progress that followed—none of this progress would have been possible without people deciding, in 2020, to generously invest in the causes they cared about. That year, your support of Farm Forward helped make progress possible. 

In 2020, Farm Forward: 

• Launched a campaign about factory farming and pandemics that reached millions of people and helped pave the way for the political changes to come;  
• Supported frontline food workers and demanded that meat companies protect their workers—most of whom are people of color and immigrants—from the rampant spread of COVID-19 in slaughterhouses; 
• Pushed to repeal ag-gag legislation in multiple states, and won in North Carolina (resulting in the court deeming ag-gag laws unconstitutional in one of the largest animal ag states in the country);  
• Advocated for an anti-racist animal protection movement; and  
• Lobbied for a new vision for American agriculture, which begins with phasing out CAFO’s and a transition to more just, sustainable, and humane forms of agriculture.  

All of these efforts were integral to what we now experience as a resilient new normal in 2050, and they wouldn’t have occurred without you.  

Your support in 2020 made a different future possible. Consider a recurring gift today and help Farm Forward ensure a better world.   

SALEM, Ore. — Today Farm Forward and a coalition of public interest groups filed a legal petition with the Oregon Water Resources Commission requesting it restrict new mega dairy’s use of groundwater in areas in eastern Oregon where special protections are needed. Without special protection new dairies would be allowed to use unlimited amounts of water at their facilities under a “stockwatering exemption.” The petition is being filed as a new mega dairy within one of the critical groundwater areas is in the permit process. 

In 1976, the critical groundwater areas were designated to address groundwater level declines near Boardman in Northeastern Oregon. The designations closed the areas to new permits to use groundwater, but they specifically allowed for new exempt uses, which do not require a water appropriation permit. One such exempt use is for stockwatering, which allows factory farms and dairies limitless extraction for that purpose. 

Today, there are three mega-dairy sites within the critical groundwater areas: Sage Hollow Ranch, Meenderninck Dairy, and the site of the former Lost Valley Farm. Threemile Canyon Farms — the largest mega dairy in Oregon and in all of the United States — lies just outside the critical groundwater areas. It is permitted to confine approximately 90,000 cows on its 93,000-acre property under several affiliated businesses. 

“It takes 48 gallons of water to produce one glass of cows’ milk,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “While residents are being forced to conserve water due to drought conditions, new dairies cannot be permitted to further deplete already taxed resources. We urge the Commission to protect its residents and its groundwater.”   

All industrial animal agriculture facilities consume vast quantities of water, but publicly available groundwater data reveals that mega dairies are particularly water-intensive, requiring even more water than feedlots. The continued expansion of industrial dairy facilities within critical groundwater areas has and will exploit water reserves at even greater rates than other industrial facilities. 

To address this situation, the “Stand Up to Factory Farms” coalition — which includes the Animal Legal Defense Fund, WaterWatch of Oregon, Humane Voters of Oregon, Food & Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Family Farmers, Columbia Riverkeeper, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Oregon Rural Action, and Farm Forward — is proposing the Commission amend its rules so that the stockwatering exemption does not apply to new water uses of more than 5,000 gallons per day within two critical groundwater areas in eastern Oregon. “The unlimited stockwatering exemption to water-use permit requirements may have made sense in a time of small, dispersed farming operations, but it doesn’t make sense in today’s world of industrial agriculture with tens of thousands of animals confined in one place,” said Brian Posewitz, a staff attorney with WaterWatch of Oregon. “It especially doesn’t make sense in an area otherwise closed to new uses because existing groundwater use has already been found to be unsustainable.” 

Read the full petition here.  

Sign up for the Farm Forward newsletter to receive updates and important information about how you can get involved. Read more about our work to bring a mega-dairy moratorium to Oregon here. 

On Wednesday, May 15th the New York Times published an opinion written by Farm Forward’s Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis in response to the Times’ interactive article Climate Change, Answered: How to shop, cook and eat in a warming world. While the Times’ article does a wonderful job of illustrating how animal products contribute to our warming world and encouraging readers to consider more sustainable options, it also recommends that readers replace beef and cheese—the foods with the largest carbon footprints—with pork and poultry.  

“A 2018 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave the world just 12 years to reduce emissions and avert the worst impacts of climate change,” wrote deCoriolis. “Though chicken has a smaller carbon footprint than conventionally raised beef, ‘switching from beef to chicken’ (as your article suggests) is not a sustainable option.” 

The Times deserves praise for its incisive and compelling article but—even as we face threats as serious as the looming climate crisis—when it comes to supporting the conventional pork and chicken industries in the wealthiest nations, the ends simply don’t justify the means. In deCoriolis’ words: 

More than 70 percent of all antibiotics are fed to farmed animals, causing the growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance. Some of the most dangerous jobs in American are in chicken slaughterhouses. Rural communities near poultry farms have their air and water polluted by waste. And let’s not forget the chickens themselves — 99 percent of whom are raised in cramped, unsanitary conditions on factory farms. 

One more bit of praise for the Times. The Times editor who ultimately accepted deCoriolis’ letter initially rejected his use of the pronoun “whom” when referring to chickens. The editor informed deCoriolis that the Times’ style guide only permits the use of the pronoun “which” when referring to non-human animals. deCoriolis pushed back, and in a sign of the editor’s thoughtful judgment and the public’s changing views of non-human animals, the letter was published as intended. 

Today Farm Forward joined The Center for Biological Diversity, Brighter Green and 12 other organizations to release a policy brief calling on organizers and attendees of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change conference COP25 to take immediate action to reduce planet-warming emissions from food and agriculture.  

The recently released IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land affirmed what a growing body of evidence-based research has concluded: Food and agriculture must be addressed as a key driver of land-use change and the climate crisis.1 Within weeks of the report’s release, the international community witnessed tens of thousands of fires destroy more than 2 million acres of irreplaceable Amazon rainforest for livestock and feed production, worsening the climate and extinction emergencies.2,3 The urgency of these issues and the future of life on this planet demand international action to transform destructive, industrial and unsustainable food systems. Yet the need to address overconsumption and overproduction of animal-based foods remains largely absent from international climate negotiations and commitments. The livestock sector alone accounts for at least 14.5% of global GHG emissions.4 At the same time, with population growth, urbanization, and increasing per-capita consumption of animal products (associated with rising incomes), it is projected that demand for livestock products will increase 70% by 2050.5 Several studies indicate that we cannot meet the ultimate Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius,6,7,8 much less to 1.5 degrees, unless we rein in agricultural emissions. 

Reducing consumption of food from animal sources, compared to current global trends, is crucial for meeting this goal while also allowing for emissions from other sectors.9 A multi-pronged approach by governments, cooperating with researchers, civil society organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders is necessary to reduce food and agriculture emissions in order to meet international climate targets.  

We call on COP delegates to support the following actions:  

• The UNFCCC must acknowledge the largest contributors to climate change in food and agriculture and provide technical assistance for parties to integrate food and agriculture into NDCs. This should be guided by the stark realities and opportunities for large-scale action laid out in the IPCC 1.5 degrees C report with a focus on addressing meat and dairy consumption and production. UNFCCC conference food service should reflect these priorities and minimize its own contribution to the climate crisis with plantforward menus and a commitment to zero food waste. 
• Global climate and development policies must work together to promote sustainable diets and systems of food production to achieve accelerated emissions reductions and the SDGs, specifically Goals 2 (zero hunger), 3 (good health and wellbeing), 12 (responsible production and consumption), 13 (combat climate change and its impacts), and 15 (life on land). This should include creating national guidelines for sustainable and healthful diets that recognize the links among dietary patterns, environmental impact and food security and encourage individuals and institutions to shift toward diets higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods. 
• Government must take bold steps to internalize the costs of livestock production, including to the global climate, and end tax and other incentives for growing feed crops. Governments should identify and remove or redirect subsidies and fiscal policies for practices that threaten the Paris Agreement and that have negative impacts on forests, other ecosystems, soils, water and overall resilience to the effects of global warming. Shifting financial incentives from livestock production to more sustainable agriculture also means investment in development of alternatives to animal-based protein, including plant-based proteins and cellular meat and creating a regulatory environment to support such innovation.
• Governments and international meetings must host dialogues between different governmental departments (including Agriculture, Environment, Climate, Forests and Health/Nutrition) to ensure policies are aligned and not being jeopardized by measures or regulations taken in other departments. In addition, departments should be aligned on public education campaigns to raise awareness of the climate consequences of meat and other animal-based foods production and consumption and inform people about the health and other co-benefits of plant-centered diets. 
• Governments must shift procurement to encourage and demonstrate low GHG pathways. Governments are often the largest buyers of food products, for example for schools, state institutions like hospitals and government ministries, and militaries. They should put priority on purchasing low GHG foods (mainly vegetables, fruits, legumes, and grains) and by doing so help transform national and global food-supply chains and priorities. 

 

Like many groups working towards a more sustainable global food system, we’re disappointed to learn that this year’s UN Climate Conference (COP25) won’t take place in Chile as planned, although we understand that the safety and well-being of the Chilean people must take priority over an international conference.  

As the conference organizers and international climate groups move forward with alternate plans, we want to alert them to one significant casualty of this change. COP25 Chile was set to become a historic first—the first global climate event to reflect agriculture’s role in climate change in the food served at the conference. Last year’s conference in Poland was criticized for serving a meat-heavy menu to its attendees, even as the same attendees and leading climate scientists advocate meat-reduction as one of the most important ways to slow climate change globally. If the people advocating for a change in how we eat aren’t willing to change how they eat, then how can the global community take them seriously? 

This year’s conference in Chile was set to be different. The conference organizers had agreed to recommendations put forward by the Food and Climate Alliance, a global coalition of food and climate organizations that Farm Forward is a part of, facilitated by a Chilean advocacy organization, Fundación Vegetarianos Hoy, and were in the process of seeking out caterers to serve a climate-friendly menu. The top recommendation was that the conference “default veg”—that is, that plant-based meals would be offered to all attendees, by default, unless they request meals with animal products. This recommendation was based on a behavioral economics concept that switching defaults is one of the most powerful ways to shift consumer behavior. 

In our experience and that of our partners, adopting a default veg menu typically results in an increase in people choosing the plant-based meal option by anywhere from 20-50%. For a conference of COP25’s size, this could result in a carbon savings of approximately 28,000 pounds of carbon. Moreover, it would be a way to model to thousands of global climate leaders how easy and delicious it can be to eat mostly plants. 

But just because the conference won’t take place in Chile doesn’t mean this opportunity is lost. We urge Spain to follow through with the commitment to serve food that reflects the UN’s own recommendations for climate action. 

A shift in how we understand food’s role in climate change is taking place and we’re proud to be part of the movement that is helping the world adapt to this shift. 

“We ultimately recognize that we are operating in an imperfect system. We often have to make difficult purchasing decisions based on budget, time, availability, seasonality, customer demands and staffing. Evaluating the role of meat in the dining program is complex because there is a high demand for it, but it comes with a higher cost and environmental impact than plant-based items. And yet, we ask ourselves hard questions all the time because if we don’t, we may miss opportunities. We challenge ourselves to push the boundaries in order to change our narrative, hold ourselves accountable to our values, and hopefully influence the system for the better.”

– Bethany Fong, Director of Food Services, The Northwest School

Over the past few years, more and more institutions have made the connection: our food choices impact our health, the environment, and the lives of animals, and are interwoven into many other social justice issues. The Northwest School (NWS) has taken this message to heart and changed the food they serve to align with their ethical, environmental and public health values. NWS is the first 6-12 grade school to enter into the Leadership Circle program’s Animal Welfare Track—and they didn’t stop there. They continue to source higher welfare products wherever possible, and reduce their overall consumption of animal products. 

NWS Director of Dining Services Bethany Fong has come to believe that serving fewer and higher welfare animal products serves NWS’s mission: “to graduate students with historical, scientific, artistic, and global perspective, enabling them to think and act with integrity, believing that they can have a positive impact on the world.” Jenny Cooper, NWS Director of Environmental Education and Sustainability, agrees with Bethany’s approach. “Food is the connector for all sorts of different issues and communities,” she says. “The Dining Hall connects you to large scale environmental impacts, immigration issues, and other humans in general.” In order to serve meals that align with their values in the Dining Hall, Bethany and her staff strive to serve “less and better” animal products: less meat, fish, dairy, and eggs overall, and higher welfare animal products whenever they can. 

The ‘Better’ 

Earlier this year, NWS became the first 6-12 grade school to join the Leadership Circle, by committing to source 100 percent of their eggs from third-party animal welfare certified producers. After they made the switch for eggs, Bethany began trying to find higher welfare meat suppliers as well. There have been hurdles along the way, such as higher product cost and smaller suppliers not having adequate quantities, but Bethany is determined to continue the search for higher welfare products. “NWS has a dining program grounded in the environmental sustainability and DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] values of our school” Bethany said. “Our current food system is flawed in many ways that can make it difficult to carry out those values. Given how food is produced and sold in the US, if you try to track your food back to the source you will often go down a trail that lacks transparency–one that is characterized by inequity, unfair labor practices, mistreatment of animals, poor resource management, misleading marketing, unreliable research and biased and ineffective policy. Getting to the truth can be difficult, unless you are growing your own food and raising your own animals or buying directly from farmers. Essentially, when you get closer to the source you get closer to the truth.” So far, Bethany has been able to find higher welfare beef from Skagit River Ranch and Skiyou Ranch. She’s continuing to connect with pork and chicken farmers for future purchases. 

Credit: @nws.kitchen

The ‘Less’ 

To afford higher welfare products and to live by their mission of respecting the environment, NWS serves a plant-based meal for lunch as one of the two options available every single day!  

Each day, 10-20 percent of NWS students request the plant-based option. Six days a month, NWS offer a completely vegetarian or vegan lunch where both options are either vegetarian or vegan as well. NWS recently moved away from Meatless Mondays in order to move into serving more plant-based dishes generally. “From an environmental and sustainability perspective, we don’t have to confine our meatlessness to one day,” says Jenny. “We value plant-based dining not in isolation but every day, weaving it into our practices and principles.” 

Bethany is also reviewing NWS’s menus to evaluate where she can redesign meat-based meals as more plant-forward—meaning serving meat as a garnish or a side, rather than as the main portion of the meal. Some examples include blending ground beef with a vegetable panache for a pasta sauce, or serving a chicken stir fry (with pieces of chicken and vegetables) instead of a whole cut of chicken. The kitchen team is constantly trying new menu items and new recipes to incorporate more plant-based and vegetarian meals into the menu, as well as decrease the amount of meat used in recipes. “It’s equally important that students and faculty enjoy what we are serving and that we are serving up responsible, value-driven food” she says, “so we don’t make big changes without being confident in our flavors, ingredients and process.” If you’re interested in serving more plant-forward meals at your institution, let us know –– we can help!  

Become a Leader 

We hope that others will join Bethany in her quest to find the truth about the food she serves, and to serve products that are sustainable and ethically sourced. Follow in Bethany’s footsteps by showing your support for higher welfare farmers and making a serious effort to serve more plant-forward and plant-based meals, for the health of diners, farmed animals, and our planet. To learn more about how you can change the way your institution serves food, visit our Leadership Circle website, or contact info@farmforward.com.

We support the lawsuit that consumers have brought against the Tillamook County Creamery Association regarding Tillamook’s representations about the company’s dairy products. 

As consumer demand grows for dairy products from animals raised more humanely on sustainable family farms, the dairy industry has been doubling down on marketing efforts to trick consumers into believing that their products reflect these consumer values when they do not. Some of Tillamook’s ads encouraged consumers to “Say Goodbye to Big Food,” despite Tillamook’s sourcing the majority of its milk from Eastern Oregon’s Threemile Canyon Farms, one of the largest mega-dairies in the country. Tillamook also bought milk from the disastrous Lost Valley Farm, an Eastern Oregon mega-dairy permitted for up to 30,000 cows that racked up hundreds of environmental violations in its first year-and-a-half of operation and has since been permanently shuttered.  

Tillamook’s marketers depict cows roaming freely on rolling green hills, while knowing that this is not the reality of how these large, industrial facilities operate. On industrial dairies, cows are intensively confined with little or no access to pasture, artificially and repeatedly impregnated starting at around two years old to produce mass quantities of milk, and separated from their young calves shortly after birth. Once they stop producing enough milk to meet the intense and unnatural industrial demand, they are culled and sent to slaughter at a fraction of their natural lifespan.  

Industrial mega-dairies are also major polluters, generating huge quantities of waste that is disposed of⁠—virtually untreated⁠—on land where it can contaminate rivers, streams, and groundwater and harm wildlife. The noxious air emissions these facilities produce can threaten public health, contribute to climate change, and decrease visibility in special places like the Columbia Gorge.  

Tillamook’s increasing reliance on industrial mega-dairies to ramp up production further contributes to overproduction, which lowers prices for family farmers and contributes to Oregon’s devastating decline in family dairies. 

Tillamook’s representations in advertising are just one example of why we need a moratorium on new and expanding mega-dairies in Oregon until the state institutes safeguards to protect Oregon’s family farmers, environment, and communities. We applaud the plaintiffs’ effort to hold Tillamook accountable for the way it markets its dairy products. 

Sign up for our weekly news updates to stay in the know about this issue and all of our other efforts to end factory farming. 

Two days ago, Pope Francis was challenged by 12-year-old Genesis Butler to try eating a plant-based diet for Lent, with a promise of a million dollar donation to a charity of his choice should he say yes. Ms. Butler cited motivations including climate change and animals. This campaign may be surprising, but the links between plant-based diets, climate change, animals, and religious values should not be.

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably already familiar with the many connections between industrial animal agriculture and climate change, but you may be less familiar with their link to religious organizations. Faith organizations have published dozens of religious statements on how their spirituality calls them to fight climate change. And religious communities can make excellent forums to discuss the connection between farmed animals and climate change.

While no major religion testifies consistently about our obligations to nonhuman animals or the environment,1 all of America’s major religious faiths—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and indigenous faiths—guide and encourage increased respect and care for nonhuman animals. Empathy, compassion, stewardship, care for creation, lovingkindness, and nonviolence are just a few of the practices commonly encouraged by these traditions, and over the years, their inclusion of nonhuman animals in the circle of compassion has only increased.

Advocates for issues like environmentalism and animal welfare would do well to pay greater attention to religious communities. Houses of worship take seriously the challenging moral questions of our age. This is the role they’ve played in society for centuries. Religious leaders speak to the open hearts and minds of people seeking guidance in their moral and ethical lives. People of faith are interested not only in these ethical precepts, but in how to apply those teachings in their lives with integrity.

In the past, as I’m preaching a sermon about human responsibilities to other animals, or about how our support of factory farms contributes to the desecration of the environment, I’ve worried about how the congregation will receive my words. After all, the links between food, animal welfare, and climate change is a subject that many would rather avoid. Yet consistently I’ve found these topics very well-received. It’s not unusual for congregants to contact me later to let me know that after the presentation they decided to reduce their meat consumption or even go entirely plant-based. One congregant who decided to go vegetarian recently wrote, “Thank you for helping me do something I’ve been hoping to do for such a long time.” Spiritual communities provide fertile soil for genuine ethical consideration, even transformation, that is not always possible in the secular world.

When a topic such as compassion for animals is lifted up in a house of worship, this indicates to believers that the subject matters greatly, deserving not only consideration but action in everyday life. When a faith community begins to discuss adopting an institutional food policy, plant-based eating is demonstrated to be not only an ideal but also a practical choice. Engaging these topics in our communities gives adherents a place to process their own changing viewpoints, and as the community becomes more accepting—even encouraging—of plant-based diets, community norms reinforce and support the individual shifts, leading to lasting changes.

Whether we believe in a God who has a plan for humanity, or that spirituality has more to do with actions than beliefs, or that we are on our own to make our way in this universe, these beliefs place a special responsibility on us: to build a more decent society. For me, that means engaging religious communities to reflect and act on their own traditions’ best teachings about our responsibilities to the environment and to other animals. For more about how to involve faith communities in this topic, contact us.

All of us have a role to play. Whether or not you happen to be the Pope, going plant-based for Lent—or encouraging others to do so—is a good place to start.

Since Hurricane Florence hit eastern North Carolina in September, more than three dozen hog lagoons have breached or been submerged, releasing millions of gallons of toxic hog waste from CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) into the surrounding ecosystems. As floodwaters carried waste from the lagoons into rivers, streams, and the groundwater, they threatened the health of people living in the region and caused immeasurable and possibly permanent harm to ecosystems. At least 5,500 pigs and 3.4 million chickens were reported killed due to Hurricane Florence, according to preliminary estimates from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, but the true numbers could be much higher. This catastrophic harm to animals, humans, and the environment was not only preventable, but also predicted.

Hurricane season has barely ended in North Carolina, and yet national attention to this environmental and moral disaster receded with Florence’s floodwaters. We interviewed Rick Dove and Larry Baldwin of the Waterkeeper Alliance and Jessica Culpepper of Public Justice to learn why it is so hard to remove CAFOs from flood-prone regions and to ask what people can do to help. Rick and Larry took all the photographs in this article as they flew over Eastern North Carolina in the week following the storm. The interviews are below. First, some context.

Last September we spent a few days with Rick and Larry in Telluride, Colorado, during the premiere of the documentary film, Eating Animals. The film lifts up Rick’s and Larry’s efforts to monitor and expose the devastating damage that swine CAFO runoff has caused to river ecosystems in North Carolina. They told us how—despite advocates raising awareness about the problem for decades—politicians have made few moves to relocate or shut down the CAFOs, or to prevent new ones from locating in flood-prone regions. That weekend a storm warning was in effect for North Carolina, and Rick and Larry worried aloud that severe rains might flood the CAFOs, as several previous hurricanes had, polluting the rivers and lands that they had spent decades protecting. A year later, their worst fears have come true again.

The post-Florence ecological disaster is not a freak accident, but (literally and figuratively) a spillover into public view of the systemic harms to animals, humans, and the environment that the factory farm industry normally keeps hidden from sight.

Because the government agencies tasked with monitoring factory farm conditions provide very little actual oversight, investigations by activists are among the only effective ways to hold companies accountable. But in 2015 North Carolina became the eighth state to pass an ag-gag law, legislation that impedes activists like Rick and Larry. Ag-gag laws are designed to hinder investigations of abusive or environmentally dangerous conditions on factory farms by prohibiting, among other things, any individual or public interest group videotaping the farms themselves.

According to Farm Forward’s General Counsel Michael McFadden, who has spearheaded our own anti-ag-gag efforts,

The citizens of North Carolina face two problems—hog feces and hurricanes—and both are likely to continue getting worse over time. But rather than call out and address the increasing risks of keeping millions of animals and tens of millions of tons of toxic liquid waste hidden from public sight, North Carolina’s legislature chose to bury its head in the sand when it passed its ag-gag law in 2015. The law allows companies to sue their employees for exposing abuse, including punitive damages of up to $5,000 per day. While the law was clearly intended to intimidate animal advocates, it’s written so broadly that it could be used to punish whistleblowing at hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.
— Michael McFadden, Esq.

Since Hurricane Florence, Rick and Larry have been flying over the floodplains documenting the flooded barns and breached and submerged lagoons while Riverkeepers in the state have carefully tested water for contamination. They share the photographs and information they collect with the media and with groups that work to get CAFOs removed from flood-prone regions. One such group is Public Justice, which uses the data that Rick and Larry collect in lawsuits against the largest animal agriculture companies operating in North Carolina.

We spoke with Rick and Larry, and with Jessica Culpepper, the Food Project Attorney at Public Justice, to ask them what people need to know about these images showing flooded and damaged CAFOs in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence.

What follows are excerpts from those interviews:

Farm Forward: Can you help us Understand what we’re seeing in these Photographs of flooded CAFO’s and hog lagoons? Do any images stand out for you? 

Rick Dove: Since 1993, I’ve got over three thousand hours in the air, flying over these factory farms. In the 11–12 days after Hurricane Florence, I spent 30 hours in the air. So I’ve seen it again and again. The [images] that stand out most in my mind are where the berms of the lagoon completely blew out, and all the contents, an estimated seven million gallons, went flowing down the river.

We’ve seen a lot of these facilities where…the industry calls it “overtopping.” That kind of sounds like putting whipped cream on a dessert. “Submersion” is what’s happening. These lagoons go underwater, and when the floodwaters recede, they take the contents with them. We’ve got videos of hogs floating down the river. We’ve got dead chickens floating around in their own feces. Some journalists actually kayaked inside of some the poultry barns and filmed the dead chickens floating in the barns in the muck. It’s a terrible sight.

Farm Forward: Why does this keep happening? 

Jessica Culpepper: The answer is not to rebuild safer, because there is no safer. Even if you could prevent water from inundating the facility, there’s no way that operators can get there. It’s either leave the animals there, or rush them off to slaughter beforehand, which usually means [transporting them to] farther slaughterhouses—that is incredibly stressful for the animals. These facilities should never have been built there. If it were up to me, Smithfield would clean up its own mess, and it wouldn’t be the taxpayers buying out these facilities. But I think it’s more important for the public to use its resources to make sure this never happens again. In the 100-year floodplain, there are 62 hog facilities (over 200,000 hogs), and 30 poultry facilities (1.8 million chickens)…The worst possible thing that could happen right now is any kind of move to rebuild. I don’t think there should be CAFOs. But certainly, we should not be raising them in floodplains.

Rick Dove: The hog industry has taken the same approach for the past 25 years … This is how it goes: First, everybody gets very concerned because a hurricane is coming, and for good reason. The hog industry says, “We’re getting prepared,” but there’s nothing they can really do to prepare. They could move some animals, but some is the key word—they don’t have the ability to move them all, there’s no space for them. They don’t know what areas will flood until the hurricane arrives. And there’s no way they can get these lagoons out of harm’s way. And then everybody gets concerned about it, there’s a lot of news. And [after the storm] everybody says, “Now we’re going to fix it.” But soon the aftermath of the storm fades away from memory and the press quits covering it. Then they start repairing the buildings and putting the animals back in the same buildings. Until the next hurricane comes, and then we do it all over again, and again, and again, and nothing really changes.

Larry Baldwin: We were no better prepared for Florence than we were for Floyd in 1999 … we still have too many of these facilities in the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. We’ve had three “100-year” floods in less than 100 years. Now, three times we’ve proven that these facilities should not be located where they are. What are we going to do?

Farm Forward: What kinds of legal actions are being taken to prevent this from happening again the next timer there’s a big storm?

Jessica: In the aftermath of Floyd, in 1999, the state legislature started the North Carolina Swine Flood Buyout program. To date it has bought out 43 swine operations that were in the 100-year floodplain…When they buy out these facilities they put a conservation easement on the land that says no animal facilities can be located there. That is a surefire way to make animals safe from flooding and people safe from the raw sewage.

Rick: The river’s edge is no place for these facilities to be located … What’s worse, all these new poultry facilities are being built right in the same place. What amazes me more than anything is—with all the problems faced by the older swine and poultry facilities located along the rivers—they should know not to build new poultry facilities there. But land in the lowlands is cheap, so that’s where they build them, and now they’re getting flooded too. They keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, and that’s never going happen.

I think if anything’s going to change it, it will be these lawsuits with these horrific punitive damages. There are only three cases tried so far, with some 21 more to go. If these cases keep coming in the way they have been, it’ll be a terrible blow to this industry. Everybody says, “Now change is going to happen.” From my standpoint, I say, “We’ll see.” I’m not overly optimistic. I’ve been through this drill so many times.

Farm Forward: What can consumers do?

Rick: The public has got to say “We don’t want this anymore.” Groups out there are talking about boycotting the meat, they’ve got yard signs, so that’s already happening. Personally, I think we make a big mistake in eating as much meat as we do. I don’t eat any. I was a vegetarian for years. I’m now a vegan. I’ve found a plant diet that for me is very, very satisfying, and very, very good tasting and healthy. I don’t miss meat anymore. That’s a personal choice I made—I don’t tell anybody else what to eat. But if all of us relied less on meat, it would be better for the planet, better for our health, and it would scale back a lot of this pollution that we’re seeing from these factory farms. If we’re eating the products that come from farming, we’re participating in farming activity … We’re all farmers and we have a duty to have a say in how food is grown.

Larry: It’s going to take the public … to be the ones that force that change. As long as we keep buying the bacon from the Smithfield Foods or the industry leaders, we’re still part of the problem.

Farm Forward: Is there anything that you think the media hasn’t paid enough attention to in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence?

Rick: There’s one issue that hasn’t been covered as much as it should…and that is what happens to all these dead animals. First of all, we’ll never know from the industry exactly how many of these animals perished…But the one thing I do know, there is no efficient way of disposing of these huge numbers of dead carcasses. And there’s a safety concern connected to that. In North Carolina, under normal conditions dead hogs are taken to a rendering factory, they’re boiled down for their fat and so on. But when we have a hurricane, or we have a disease like PED [Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea] which just killed millions of animals in North Carolina, the only way to get rid of them is to dig a hole in the ground and bury them.

In many instances where we’ve seen these burials take place, they’re unsupervised—the location is chosen by the local grower, there’s no chemicals or anything put in with the animals. In many cases they’re left uncovered for weeks. Buzzards are seen feeding on them. There’s groundwater in the burial pits mixing in with the dead carcasses…And the only agency in North Carolina that has supervisory control is the Department of Agriculture and its veterinarian service, but to my knowledge they don’t do any supervision.

We’re photographing it from the air and the ground when we can, and we’re sending them the pictures when it happens, but basically, they take a hands-off attitude … We have asked for years that the government task the local county health director with the ability to go in and supervise these burials as a public health issue. But to the surprise of most citizens, no county health director has any authority, under any normal condition, to go into factory farm buildings and do a health inspection. The only health inspection that is done is by the state veterinarian, and to my knowledge it’s just not happening. So, there is very little done regarding the protection of human health as the result of these animal deaths that occur.

Larry: This is. . . life and death stuff down here, not just for the animals, but for the people as well. Out here it’s environmental justice issues: the waters around [the CAFOs] are contaminated. If you happen to get your drinking water from a well…We know people are getting sick, we don’t know exactly why. We’re exposing communities to a level of health impact that we don’t know how to quantify.

Jessica: I would like to see the North Carolina Swine Plain Flood Buyout Program extended to poultry facilities. [Four] million birds have died. It’s really tragic. Unfortunately, the existing state program is heavily defined [as applicable only to swine]. Legislation needs to get together with industry and change that. In the time between Floyd and now, there’s been a really heavy influx of concentrated industrial poultry operations. And the laws need to catch up with that.

Farm Forward: What about the farmers, the contract CAFO owners? Are you seeing any of them question this system?

Larry: They’re corporate farms…I’m sure these producers are not getting paid by Smithfield when they’re not producing. I have compassion for these producers…they’ve bought into a system that was broken from the very beginning. There are some out there—who obviously do not want to be identified—who will say completely off the record, “If I had this to do again, I would never get into this situation.”

Jessica: Smithfield and the industries knew this would happen…they had a responsibility to their contract growers to make sure that they were located in a place that would keep their animals safe. That said, the important thing to me right now is getting these facilities out of the 100-year floodplain.

Farm Forward: For people who want to do something to help, right now, what do they do? 

Rick: It’s very helpful for the public to support environmental groups generally. You need to look at the reputation of each group—how they spend their money, what they do, what is the return for the money that people donate…So, certainly, Waterkeeper Alliance is an organization I’ve been associated with for over 25 years. To me they are at the top when it comes to water protection. But there are other organizations out there as well. Farm Forward is certainly right up there at the top as well. But people need to get involved, and they need to not only contribute money, but actually get in there and find how they can join up with the organization and volunteer and do good work.

Larry: I don’t care whether you live in North Carolina or don’t live in North Carolina. You can contact your own senator, or call the senators in North Carolina, [or the North Carolina county officials who] are in the pocket of the industry and will try to keep things as status quo as much as they can. Support North Carolina Waterkeepers so they can do more on-the-ground sampling before, during, and after the storm comes through.

In Closing

Rick, Larry, and Jessica know that media attention to the problems of CAFOs was drawn by Hurricane Florence and has faded after the storm. Sustained attention will be required, however, to put pressure on politicians, government agencies, and companies who could prevent North Carolina’s destroyed CAFOs from being rebuilt as soon as the floodwaters subside. There is only one solution that permanently addresses all the harms of factory farming that Florence has brought to the surface. We must end factory farming as a means of producing our food. A food production system that values cheap meat products more than the health of people, the lives of animals, and the well-being of rivers and other ecosystems should not be acceptable to any of us.

Here are a few ways you can help right now:

1. Support organizations that provide the oversight of CAFOs that the government is failing to deliver. You can donate to Waterkeepers Carolina, or support the Waterkeeper in your specific watershed.
2. Don’t buy products from factory farms, and tell your institutions to stop too. Farm Forward has resources to help you understand animal welfare certifications, as well as tools to help institutions like universities and businesses make the switch to “less and better” meat.
3. Join us in ending factory farming. It’s the only long-term solution to ensure that this sort of harm to animals, people, and ecosystems does not happen again.

For Immediate Release, December 2, 2018

Meat-heavy Menu at UN Climate Conference Could Contribute 4,000 Metric Tons of Greenhouse Gases.

KATOWICE, Poland — New analysis from the Center for Biological Diversity, Farm Forward and Brighter Green today finds that the meat-heavy menu at the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change conference COP24 could contribute more than 4,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases to the climate crisis.

The data found that if all 30,000 visitors choose meat-based dishes at the conference’s largest food court during the 12-day conference, they would contribute the equivalent of burning more than 500,000 gallons of gasoline or the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to 3,000 people flying from New York to Katowice.

The groups that compiled the research called on the United Nations to create a framework for host countries to prioritize climate-friendly menus at future climate meetings.

“The meat-laden menu at COP24 is an insult to the work of the conference,” said Stephanie Feldstein, director of the Population and Sustainability program at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If the world leaders gathering in Poland hope to address the climate crisis, they need to tackle overconsumption of meat and dairy, starting with what’s on their own plates. That means transitioning the food served at international climate conferences to more plant-based options with smaller carbon footprints.”

The menu features twice as many meat-based options as plant-based ones. These meat dishes generate average greenhouse gas emissions four times higher than the plant-based meals. The two dairy-free, plant-based options generate one-tenth of the emissions.

In addition to higher greenhouse gas emissions, the meat-based dishes on the menu require nine times more land and nearly twice as much water as the plant-based dishes.

“What people eat at a conference may seem like small potatoes when it comes to curbing global emissions,” added Farm Forward’s Claire Fitch. “But if those at the forefront of global climate negotiations aren’t going to ‘walk the talk’ at the highest-level climate conference, how can we expect the rest of the world to get on board?”

Studies have shown that it will not be possible to meet global climate targets without reducing meat and dairy consumption and production. Yet the need to tackle the overconsumption of animal-based foods has been largely absent from international climate negotiations and commitments. The majority of food-related efforts focus on improving production practices with few or no significant targets for shifting to less climate-intensive diets.

“We know that we cannot meet the Paris Agreement goals, or the 1.5C target, with business as usual,” said Caroline Wimberly of Brighter Green, who will be in Katowice for COP24. “Food is not a matter only of personal choice, but an essential factor in solving the climate crisis. Demand-side policies and efforts, including food waste reductions and shifting diets — prioritizing populations with the highest consumption of animal-based foods — are critical in achieving a climate compatible food system and curtailing emissions.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Brighter Green is an environmental think-tank based in New York, and has been participating as an NGO observer in the UNFCCC since COP15 in 2009.

Farm Forward is a team of strategists, educators, campaigners, and thought leaders guiding the movement to change the way our world eats and farms. They implement innovative strategies to promote conscientious food choices, reduce farmed animal suffering, and advance sustainable agriculture. Farm Forward is pushing the ceiling of animal welfare by looking beyond incremental suffering reduction on factory farms, towards the institutional and cultural change that will end factory farming.