By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient Climate.
Broadcast version by Edwin J. Viera for New York News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Over a three-decade span, 71 percent of industrial greenhouse gas emissions - that is, emissions from factories and manufacturing - were fueled by just 100 fossil fuel producers. Researchers documented the pollution from these so-called "Carbon Majors," companies including Chevron, BP and Shell, in a database that came to inspire two dozen lawsuits. Now, climate activists are applying those same tactics to hold the meat and dairy industries accountable under the law. A new study by Yale Law School researchers traces this new trend, and finds that when lawmakers fail to hold corporations accountable, lawsuits can become a tool to create change.

Research shows meat and dairy are responsible for anywhere from 11 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet lawmakers are failing to pass meaningful policies to curb emissions from what's on our plate. These include methane, from cattle burps and manure waste from dairy and pork farms primarily, as well as the massive amounts of land required to feed animals, both pasture and for feed crops.

In the U.S. for instance, the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 has a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2030, but its "climate-smart agriculture" funding has mostly gone to fund no-till and cover crops on industrial farms - farming practices that evidence suggests are not effective for curbing emissions. And just as with fossil fuel pollution, when policymakers fail to pass policies to curb emissions, climate advocates turn to the courts.

To date, just two lawsuits are attempting to hold the animal agriculture industry accountable for climate emissions, the authors of the study caution, but these two do suggest an increase in momentum for holding meat and dairy companies accountable. These early lawsuits point to a growing trend - people are seeking to hold all extractive industries accountable, both fossil fuels and livestock companies.

Suing the Carbon Majors for Fossil Fuel Pollution

In the past several decades, litigation has become an increasingly successful strategy for climate action. One study found that out of 2,341 climate decisions, half resulted in some favorable impact for climate action. In one 2020 case for instance, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action sued Australia's Environment Protection Authority to do more to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in light of a particularly severe series of bushfires the year before, fires arguably made more intense by climate change. The court ordered the EPA to put in place environmental policies, guidelines and objectives for environmental protection from climate change.

The city of Honolulu has been allowed to proceed in its case against fossil fuel distributor Sunoco for misleading the public about the dangers of climate change, a tort case primarily based on allegations that the company failed to disclose information to the public and engaged in deceptive marketing tactics. The case first for climate nuisance claims, and continues the success that litigation has on the "Carbon Majors."

From Carbon Majors to Methane Majors

"Climate litigation is really expanding around the world," Daina Bray, a lecturer at Yale Law School's Law, Ethics and Animals Program and a co-author of the report, tells Sentient. That expansion is reflected in a couple of ways, Bray says, "the creativity of theories" and the jurisdictions where these suits are being filed.

One of these creative theories is holding more industries accountable, including the meat and dairy producers adding to the planet's methane emissions, which inspired Bray, and her colleague Thomas Poston, to dub them as the "Methane Majors."

Suing the Mega-Dairies of New Zealand

In the case of Smith v Fonterra, Michael Smith, a Maori tribe leader in New Zealand filed claims against seven polluters, including the mega-dairy conglomerate, Fonterra. In the lawsuit, Smith alleges that the seven companies are not only responsible for one-third of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, but the company's part in contributing to sea level rise, and damage to the land where Smith, some Maori and other New Zealanders live.

Originally the claim was struck down by New Zealand's Court of Appeals, but the country's Supreme Court reversed this decision and is now allowing all of Smith's claims to proceed. The court found that Smith has the right to sue these companies for the harm caused by their emissions, including Fonterra.

In the U.S., New York State's Attorney General brought suit against meat supplier JBS for misleading the public over their environmental claims.

The Yale researchers also see promise in the JBS case, as it illustrates different legal avenues for climate justice. Though both cases are pending, the efforts are encouraging, says Thomas Poston, co-author of the study and J.D candidate at Yale Law School.

"It's reassuring that our courts here in the United States remain open to this kind of litigation," Poston tells Sentient. "Even if a given case does not reach the result that climate advocates might hope for, the fact that there are still venues for questions of justice and accountability to be raised, and potentially mitigated is a good thing."

Litigation has the potential to shape public discourse, the authors say.

"From farms to slaughterhouse workers to environmental justice communities, water use, the harm to the animals themselves," Bray says, "any and all creative tools to find accountability and to shine a light on these harms are a reason for optimism."


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient Climate.


get more stories like this via email

By Grace Hussain for Sentient Law and Policy.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Kentucky News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Kentucky is one of the latest states to take aim at undercover investigations of factory farms. Passed after a legislative override of Governor Beshear’s veto on April 12, Senate Bill 16 prevents unauthorized filming, pictures or audio recording of food processing plants and meat and dairy operations. The law targets small and large producers — including Tyson Foods, whose lobbyist helped draft the bill. But SB16 is also unique from past ag-gag legislation, as the bill’s proponents sought to ban use of drones for investigations.

Historically, ag-gag laws are bills that make it illegal to film inside factory farms and slaughterhouses without the owner’s permission. The new Kentucky measure fits that description, but also includes the anti-drone component, and a prohibition on recording any “part, procedure or action” of a factory farm or food processing plant. Critics of the law say its broad language makes it vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge in court, which was the fate for ag gag laws passed in Kansas and Idaho.

Drones Under the Law

Commercial drone pilots are subject to the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight. This includes regulations that set federal no-fly zones, limits on how high they can fly, identification standards and permitting requirements. Earlier this year, the federal agency took steps to beef up drone governance by implementing a rule referred to as Remote ID, which requires that drones be remotely identifiable using long range monitors. There are only a handful of areas in which the ID is not necessary — most run by drone schools.

However, there are rules and then there is reality. “Drone laws are really hard to enforce,” Kentucky-based commercial drone pilot Andrew Peckat, tells Sentient. That’s especially true in rural areas where many industrial meat and dairy operations are located. “I imagine these facilities are in the middle of nowhere, and there’s not going to be any flight restriction zones around them.” Peckat sees regulations of drones as largely unenforceable. “I’m not going to have to apply for any permits,” Peckat says, adding, “There’s probably…going to be no way to figure out” who’s taking the drone footage.

Critics Call Out Unintended Consequences

Opponents of the legislation argue that the language of Kentucky’s SB16 is overly vague, which suggests that it could end up doing even more to shield the meat and dairy industry from the public eye. “I do think this is just so much broader than a typical Ag Gag bill,” says Ashley Wilmes, who leads Kentucky Resources Council, a nonprofit aimed at conserving the state’s natural resources.

According to Wilmes, the legislation leaves many unanswered questions, and that lack of clarity could discourage potential whistleblowers from coming forward. Wilmes isn’t just concerned about undercover investigations either. If allowed to stand, the law could have implications for some of Kentucky Resources Council’s current legal aid clients who want to monitor pollution. “We have clients that care considerably about water quality,” she explains, some of whom live next to food processing facilities or factory farms, and have reached out to Wilmes for guidance about what they can and can’t do under the new rule. “What if they see something, and they’re documenting it from their own property?” she asks. The law is written so broadly, she says, that it’s possible to conclude “that’s now a crime,” Wilmes says.

Tyson Behind the Push for the Legislation

Kentucky’s ag gag legislation was sponsored by Senators John Schickel (R), Rick Girdler (R), Brandon Storm (R) and Robin Webb (D). During testimony before the agriculture committee, Senator Schickel revealed the bill was originally drafted by Steve Butts, who appeared to then hold the title of Senior Manager of Security at Tyson. Throughout the bill’s progress through the legislature, lobbyist Ronald J. Pryor — who counts Tyson Foods and the Kentucky Poultry Federation among his clients — worked to get the law passed.

In a hearing before the state senate’s agriculture committee, Graham Hall, a government affairs manager with Tyson Foods, testified that drones pose a threat to agricultural operations, citing incidents in North Carolina where a drone landed on a truck containing livestock. But there were no such incidents in Kentucky presented as evidence, though the multinational corporation did open a $355 million pork processing facility in the state in January.

Kentucky’s Governor Beshear vetoed the measure, writing that “the bill diminishes transparency” in a statement accompanying his decision. With an overwhelming majority in both chambers however, state lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto. Now the bill is poised to become law in mid-July of this year — 90 days after the conclusion of the legislative session.

One potential hitch could be a legal challenge however, as Kentucky Resource Council is in talks with other organizations to consider filing a lawsuit to strike down SB-16 for violating the First Amendment.

If successful, the lawsuit would force Kentucky’s ag gag law to follow in the footsteps of so many ag gag laws passed before it in other states. One of the most recent decisions, in North Carolina, struck down a similar law, as lawmakers there sought to ban undercover investigations, but ultimately failed.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient Law and Policy.


get more stories like this via email

This week at the Ohio State Fair, residents can view 2,000 pounds of butter sculpted into cows and elite athletes, honoring the state's dairy industry and the Olympics.

There are around 1,400 dairy farmers producing around 650 million gallons in the state.

Scott Higgins, president and CEO of the American Dairy Association Mideast, said the dairy industry is a major economic player in rural communities.

"From our producers to our processor manufacturers is $35 billion to the economic impact of the state of Ohio," Higgins pointed out. "In total, we represent about 136,000 jobs just in Ohio alone."

Ohio ranks 11th among states for dairy production. Nationwide, the dairy industry creates more than 3 million jobs and has an overall economic impact of around $793 billion, according to the American Dairy Association.

Jenny Crabtree, senior vice president of communications for the American Dairy Association Mideast, said the butter sculptures were created by a team led by Paul Brooke of Cincinnati. She added the Ohio State Fair is a great opportunity to showcase the work.

"Ohio's dairy farmers have been a part of the Ohio State Fair for many, many years," Crabtree emphasize. "It's a tradition that they are so proud of."

Higgins noted, whether it is tire repair, feed sales or other farmer services, all create jobs to keep the fabric of local communities intact. He added the future of the dairy industry will require technical knowledge of processing and manufacturing, and hopes the next generation of Ohioans considers a career in dairy.

"It's really the fabric of our local communities," Higgins observed. "Because so many people rely on jobs or the results of the needs of those farms to supply them with the tools, the equipment, the services they need to keep the business going."


get more stories like this via email

A New York bill would change food procurement laws for municipal institutions.

The Good Food New York Act would allow municipal institutions to use value-based standards when awarding food contracts. Typically, food-purchasing contracts are given to the lowest bidder. The measure would permit contracts to be awarded based on a company's handling of workers' rights, climate resiliency and other issues.

Ryan Healy, advocacy manager for the nonprofit Feeding New York State, said the bill opens up opportunities for local growers and farmers.

"What this bill would do in the short term, however, is enable municipalities -- some across the state have really significant purchasing power -- to better support our own farmers and producers here in New York state," Healy explained.

New York City purchases more than $300 million in food each year. Under the bill, the city would have more options to evaluate who's awarded contracts beyond being the lowest bidder. While the bill passed with bipartisan support, some conservative farmers and farming groups opposed it based on politics more than its central elements. The bill awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's signature.

Another element of the bill is a transparency measure, in which all bidders must include certain supply-chain information about distributors, and others involved with producing the bidder's supplies.

Ribka Getachew, campaign director of the New York Good Food purchasing program for Community Food Advocates, said although New York-based growers and farmers are excited about the opportunities the bill creates, implementing it will take a lot of effort.

"This is going to require a paradigm shift and is going to require a lot of support on the part of many within the food system," Getachew pointed out. "To ensure the supply chain at large is actually ready to meet the demand that will hopefully be coming from municipalities."

A federal good food bill has been introduced in the Senate. It calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to procure food for child, senior and community nutrition programs nationwide using a value-based approach. The federal bill also prioritizes food purchases from independent operations rather than large corporate farms.


get more stories like this via email