By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Sentient/Public News Service Collaboration

A new feed additive intended to reduce methane emissions in dairy cows is now the first of its kind to be allowed for sale in the United States. Sold under the brand name Bovaer, the drug passed FDA review in just under twelve months, far shorter than industry standard. Now some lawmakers want to make this fast-tracked process standard for the entire feed industry - an industry that has billions of dollars riding on the so-called "climate-friendly" meat and milk market.

Bovaer's manufacturer, Elanco, may not be a household name, but the veterinary pharmaceutical maker is poised to play a critical role in marketing industrial meat and dairy as sustainable. If the proposed law were to pass, it would be a financial boon to an industry that is projected to be valued at nearly $100 billion by 2027.

Feed companies like Cargill and their trade associations back the policy change. Cargill spent over $1.3 million on lobbying in 2023, and the American Feed Industry Association employed four DC lobbyists last year to help push for the proposed legislation.

New Drug Touts Climate Benefits to Pass FDA Review

Bovaer, or 3-nitrooxypropanol or 3-NOP, is already being sold for use in both beef and dairy production in more than 50 countries. The drug's compound works by inhibiting the enzyme responsible for producing methane inside the cows' intestines. And according to Elanco's testing, the drug can cut methane emissions by 30 percent for dairy cattle. But the FDA did not independently test these claims and a metaanalysis of 3-NOP trials has found a wider range of results. Sentient has submitted a public records request to review what Elanco subitted to the FDA.

Now that Bovaer is available for use in the U.S., Elanco can allow the farmers who participate in the carbon credit market it funds, Athian, to feed the new drug to dairy cows and claim the carbon credits.

Athian is a different model of carbon market. Typical carbon markets work by allowing companies and groups to monetize various forms of climate action. Even though touted as an essential part of global climate action by the United Nations, many carbon markets have been criticized for high rates of fraud and worthless credits.

Earlier this year, Athian hosted its first sale of carbon credits, at the time generated by a dairy farm that fed its cows a different Elanco-owned feed additive. Called Rumensin, this drug is used to stimulate increased milk production in dairy cows.

Athian works differently, by selling what are called "carbon insets," which are different from the traditional model of "carbon offsets." Typical offsets allow companies to pay someone else, like a conservation group, to plant trees or rewild barren farmland as a way to offset their own pollution. Carbon insets, on the other hand, are a newer idea: these allow polluting companies the ability to trade on their own efforts to slash emissions in their supply chain.

Critics of insets say that many of these reductions should be taking place across polluting industries anyway, not giving the companies even more financial incentives to do what is necessary to reduce food sector emissions. Feed additives are a perfect example. The dairy industry is fueling 11 percent of methane emissions each year - with a single dairy cow able to emit up to 264 pounds of methane in that time. If feed additives work even a little, they should be industry standard, these critics say.

New Legislation Would Fast-Track Feed Additive Approval

For now, feed additives like Bovaer that "affect the structure or any function of the body of an animal" are regulated as drugs, which usually require manufacturers like Elanco to submit to a lengthy and expensive review by the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. The typical review process for new animal drugs can take almost a decade and cost tens of millions of dollars.

The new law would drastically scale back the FDA's review. Called the Innovative FEED Act, the proposed legislation is supported by leading livestock industry groups, including the American Feed Industry Association. Congressman Greg Pence (R-IN) is among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who introduced the bill in December 2023. One of the lawmakers, Angie Craig (D-MN), has received $14,300 in funds associated with feed company Cargill this year. If passed, the FEED Act would allow fast-track review for all feed additives, by reclassifying them as "zootechnical animal food substances," not drugs.

The new law would make it easier to commercialize feed additives. Yet Jennifer Molidor, PhD who leads Center for Biological Diversity's sustainable food campaigns, says there is little evidence showing these additives are effective. "[Many] of the claims about feed additives are speculative (and largely overblown)," Molidor told Sentient in an email.

Earlier this year, 200 experts surveyed by Harvard University said they overwhelmingly agreed. The researchers called for a broader food system shift to truly address climate change, one that moves away from eating too much meat and dairy - with or without drugs like Bovaer - in favor of eating a more plant-forward diet.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Results of a new study from Michigan State University suggest farmers no longer have to choose between growing crops and harnessing solar power. They can do both on the same land.

The 25-year study of California farmland found farmers who added solar panels, a practice known as agrivoltaics, made more money per acre than those who did not. The research shows crops and solar work together, especially when panels are placed on low-yield acres, or spots not growing as much food due to poor soil or too much shade.

The research indicates the approach helps farmers boost income without reducing food production.

Jake Stid, a graduate student at Michigan State and lead author of the study, said farmers can also benefit through a system called Net Energy Metering.

"A return structure where farmers can directly in many cases, interconnect so they can use the electricity to offset their own needs, as well as sell excess generation, excess electricity back to the utility for a discounted rate," Stid outlined.

Researchers estimate California land now used for solar panels could have fed 86,000 people had it stayed in crops. The study looked at the trade-off between farming and solar energy, while critics warned it could worsen food security by reducing farmland.

Stid highlighted his team chose California's Central Valley as the focus of the research due to its significant contribution to both national and global food production, particularly for a variety of orchard crops.

"It's a really, really agriculturally valuable state and it also happens to be a pretty water-stressed state," Stid pointed out. "Specifically, the Central Valley has been experiencing pretty significant drought, as well as over allocation of water resources."

Some farmers expressed concern about solar panels shading crops, affecting growth and reducing yields. Stid hopes to expand his research on solar arrays and food production nationwide, contributing to the ongoing debate among farmers on how to use land sustainably, without harming food production.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers and climate change activists are speaking out against a rumored executive action by President Donald Trump to revoke tax-exempt statuses from climate nonprofits. One rumored change includes the removal of climate change from qualifying topics for the exemption.

Last Thursday in the Oval Office, Trump hinted environmental nonprofits could have their tax-exempt statuses scrutinized by the administration. Federal law currently bars a president from directly or indirectly ordering the Internal Revenue Service to investigate specific tax-exempt organizations.

Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, said she found the rumored executive actions troubling.

"We should not be talking about removing tax-exempt status from the civic good that comes from the work of nonprofits to prevent environmental issues that impair and impact and are harmful on people's lives," Norton contended.

Climate nonprofits are not the only organizations in Trump's crosshairs. He has suggested Harvard University should lose its tax-exempt status over defying demands from the administration dealing with diversity, admissions processes and antisemitism.

Tax-exempt status allows organizations to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions and not pay federal income tax.

Joelle Novey, director of the nonprofit Interfaith Power and Light in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia, said the actions may target climate nonprofits first but all nonprofits are at risk.

"There is no attack on civil society groups in the United States that isn't an attack on every one of us who expresses who we are by forming, supporting, volunteering and taking action through nonprofit organizations," Novey argued.

A federal judge last week ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze billions of dollars in climate and infrastructure funds previously targeted in an executive order on Trump's first day in office.


get more stories like this via email

As of today, Earth Day, more than 50 elected officials have signed a letter urging lawmakers to make oil and gas companies bear the cost of climate change.

The California Polluters Pay Superfund, which goes before the state Senate Judiciary Committee today, would assess a fee on large oil and gas companies to pay for programs that mitigate damage from climate change.

Ahmad Zahra, a council member in Fullerton, signed onto the letter sponsored by the group Elected Officials to Protect America.

"Throughout the years, these large oil companies were really not necessarily telling the truth about air pollution," Zahra pointed out. "Just like we've seen in oil spills and ground pollution, the responsible party has to pay for it."

The Western States Petroleum Association opposes the bill, saying it would lead to higher gas prices. The bill directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to determine how much climate change has cost the state from 1990 to 2024. Federal data show California has suffered 46 natural disasters linked to climate change since 1980, each resulting in more than $1 billion in losses, with $250 billion from the Los Angeles firestorm alone.

Marisol Rubio, a council member in San Ramon, said 40% of the funds would be directed to low-income communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.

"Those funds can then be used to better manage and correct and abate the pollution that not only already exists but that will come inevitably in the future, until we are able to be independent of fossil fuels," Rubio explained.

Advocates said right now, everyday Californians foot the bill for climate change in the form of higher taxes, insurance rates and utility bills, as well as via medical expenses for pollution-related illness.