By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Deborah Van Fleet for Nebraska News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

If you consider yourself a conscious consumer, grocery shopping can get very complicated very quickly, with countless different labels implying that the food inside was produced humanely. It's important to know what these labels mean, and that can be difficult with a term like "organic," which is often used loosely in casual conversation. But what does meat or dairy being organic really mean for animals, farmers and consumers? We break the latest rules down in this explainer.

To start, the answer is more complicated than you might think. Just six percent of all food sold in the U.S. is organic, but any meat or produce that's marketed as such has to be approved by the United States Department of Agriculture. Although the Trump administration had suspended any updates to the organic standards, the Biden Administration reversed that decision, and earlier this year, the USDA announced its updated rules for organically-produced livestock.

The change was the culmination of a years-long push by some organic farmers to improve how animals are treated on organic farms, and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack celebrated the changes as a win for animals, producers and consumers.

"This organic poultry and livestock standard establishes clear and strong standards that will increase the consistency of animal welfare practices in organic production and in how these practices are enforced," Vilsack said in a statement. "Competitive markets help deliver greater value to all producers, regardless of size."

Before looking at what "organic" means under these changes, however, it's important to know what it doesn't mean.

Does 'Organic' Mean Pesticide-Free?

No. Organic doesn't mean pesticide-free, and this is a common misconception. Although the standards for organically-produced livestock do place some limits on the use of medications, antibiotics, parasiticides, herbicides and other synthetic chemicals in livestock farming, they don't prohibit the use of all pesticides - just most of the synthetic ones, though even then, there are exceptions.

What Do the Current Organic Rules for Livestock Require?

The purpose of the USDA's new Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards is to ensure "clear, consistent and enforceable" animal welfare standards, according to the Organic Trade Association. The rules cover all types of livestock: non-aviary species like lamb and cattle have one set of requirements, while birds of all kinds have another. There are also some additional rules that apply to specific species, such as pigs.

It's long - over 100 pages in total. Some of the rules are fairly simple, like the bans on certain practices, including gestation crates for pregnant pigs; others, like those addressing how much space livestock must have in their living quarters, are much more lengthy and complex.

One thing to keep in mind is that these rules only apply to farms and companies that want their products to be certified organic. It's perfectly legal for producers to ignore all of these requirements, so long as they don't market or refer to their products as "organic." They might instead opt for one of the food labels with less or no regulation at all, like "natural."

Lastly, although these rules take effect in 2025, there's one big exception: Any farm that's certified as organic before 2025 will have until 2029 to abide by the new standards. This provision effectively gives existing producers, including the largest ones, more time to adapt to the new rules than any new farms.

With that said, let's take a look at what these standards are.

New Organic Rules for Livestock's Outdoor Access

The new rules require organically-produced livestock to have access to outdoor space, a privilege many livestock are not afforded. Under the new rules, non-avian livestock like cows and lamb must have year-round access to "the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight." If that outdoor area has soil, it must be maintained "as appropriate for the season, climate, geography, species of livestock." The previous rule required outdoor access, but didn't specify any maintenance requirements for outdoor areas.

Birds, meanwhile, need to have "year-round access to the outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, direct sunlight, clean water for drinking, materials for dust bathing, and adequate space to escape aggressive behaviors."

The shelters must be constructed such that birds have "ready access" to the outdoors throughout the day. For every 360 birds, there must be "one (1) linear foot of exit area space;" this, according to the USDA's calculations, would ensure that no bird has to wait more than an hour to come inside or go outside.

Egg-laying chickens are required to have access to at least one square foot of outdoor space for every 2.25 pounds of bird at the facility; this requirement is calculated per pound, rather than per bird, to account for variations in size between different birds of the same species. Broiler chickens, on the other hand, are to be given a "flat rate" of at least two square feet per bird.

New Organic Requirements for Livestock's Indoor Space & Housing

The new organic standards also require farmers to give animals enough space to stretch their bodies, move around, and engage in their natural behaviors.

The indoor shelters for non-avian livestock state that the animals have to be given enough space "to lie down, stand up, and fully stretch their limbs and allow livestock to express their normal patterns of behavior over a 24-hour period." This is much more specific than the previous version, which only required enough space for "natural maintenance, comfort behaviors and exercise," and made no reference to how often the animals must have access to this space.

The new rules say that animals may be temporarily confined to spaces that don't meet these requirements - for instance, during milking - but only if they also have "complete freedom of movement during significant parts of the day for grazing, loafing, and exhibiting natural social behavior."

For birds, the indoor shelters must be "sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch both wings simultaneously, stand normally, and engage in natural behaviors," including "dust bathing, scratching, and perching." In addition, although artificial lighting is allowed, birds must be given at least eight hours of continuous darkness every day.

The rules require that egg-laying chickens be given at least six inches of perch space per bird; chickens who are raised for meat, and non-chicken birds that also lay eggs, are exempt from this requirement.

Organic Rules for Livestock's Health Care

Under the new rules, all surgeries to treat disease in livestock must be carried out "in a manner that employs best management practices in order to minimize pain, stress, and suffering" of the animal. This is a significant addition, as the previous rules did not require farmers to do anything to minimize the pain of animals during surgery.

The USDA has a list of approved anesthetics that may be used on animals during surgery; however, if none of those anesthetics are available, producers are required to take alternative steps to ease the animal's pain - even if doing so results in the animals losing their "organic" status.

Banned Practices for Organic Livestock

The following procedures and devices are completely banned under the new rules for organic products:

• Tail docking (cows). This refers to the removal of most or all of a cow's tail.


• Gestation crates and farrowing cages (pigs). These are harshly-confining cages that mother pigs are kept in during pregnancy and after giving birth.


• Induced molting (chickens). Also known as forced molting, this is the practice of depriving chickens of food and/or daylight for up to two weeks in order to temporarily increase their egg output.


• Wattling (cows). This painful procedure involves slicing off chunks of the skin under a cow's neck for identification purposes.


• Toe clipping (chickens). This refers to cutting off a chicken's toes to prevent them from scratching themselves.


• Mulesing (sheep). Another painful procedure, this is when portions of a sheep's hindquarters are cut off in order to reduce the risk of infection.

The new regulations also contain partial bans on other common factory farm practices. They are:

• Debeaking (chickens). This is the practice of cutting off chickens' beaks to prevent them from pecking one another. The new regulations prohibit debeaking in many contexts, but still permit it so long as a) it takes place within the first 10 days of a chick's life, and b) it doesn't involve removing more than one-third of chick's upper beak.


• Tail docking (sheep). While tail docking of cattle is flatly prohibited, sheep's tails may still be docked under the new regulations, but only up to the distal end of the caudal fold.


• Teeth clipping (pigs). This refers to removing the top-third of a pig's needle teeth to prevent them from injuring each other. The new rules state that teeth clipping may not be performed on a routine basis, but is permitted when alternative attempts to reduce infighting have failed.

Do Organizations Other Than the USDA Offer Certification for Animal Products?


Yes. In addition to the USDA, several nonprofit organizations offer their own certifications for ostensibly "humane" food products. Here are a few of them; for a more thorough comparison of how their welfare standards compare to each other, the Animal Welfare Institute has you covered.


Animal Welfare Approved


Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is a certification granted by the nonprofit A Greener World. Its standards are quite rigorous: all animals must have continuous outdoor pasture access, tail-docking and beak-trimming are prohibited, no animals may be kept in cages and calves must be raised by their mothers, among other requirements.


Over the last century, the chicken industry has selectively bred chickens to grow so abnormally large that many of them can't support their own weight. In an attempt to combat this, AWA standards place a limit on how quickly chickens can grow (no more than 40 grams a day, on average).


Certified Humane


The Certified Humane label is granted by the nonprofit organization Humane Farm Animal Care, which has developed its own specific welfare standards for each of the most commonly farmed animals. Certified Humane standards require that cows have access to the outdoors (but not necessarily pasture), pigs have adequate bedding and access to rooting materials, egg-laying hens have at least one square foot of space per bird, and perhaps most significantly, no animals of any kind are kept in cages.


Note that Certified Humane is not the same as American Humane Certified, a different program that many animal rights activists believe is insufficiently committed to animal welfare at best - and actively deceptive at worst.


GAP-Certified


The Global Animal Partnership, another nonprofit, differs from the other organizations on this list in that it offers a ranked certification program, with products receiving different "grades" depending on which level of standards they adhere to.


Most of GAP's standards focus on what sort of access animals have to pastures, and the organization has many different metrics for assessing this. It also addresses other areas of animal welfare; under GAP standards, cages are prohibited for both pigs and chickens, and beef cows may not be fed any growth hormones of any kind.


How Does 'Organic' Compare With Other Labels?


Animal products are often marketed as being "cage-free," "free-range" or "pasture-raised." All of these terms have different meanings, and some can have multiple meanings depending on the context.


Cage-Free


At least three different organizations offer "cage-free" certification: The USDA, Certified Humane and United Egg Producers (UEP), a trade group. Naturally, all three of them define the term differently; in general, all three prohibit cages, but some are more stringent than others. For instance, the USDA has no minimum space requirements for cage-free chickens, while Certified Humane does.


Additionally, all eggs produced in California are cage-free, thanks to the passage of Proposition 12.


In any event, a lack of cages doesn't necessarily mean these chickens are living happy, healthy lives. There's no requirement that cage-free chickens be given access to the outdoors, for instance, and although the UEP discourages beak-trimming on cage-free farms, it doesn't prohibit it.

Despite these shortcomings, studies have shown that cage-free systems significantly reduce the amount of pain that chickens experience on factory farms.


Free-Range


Under current USDA rules, poultry products can use the label "free-range" if the flock in question was "provided shelter in a building, room, or area with unlimited access to food, fresh water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their production cycle," with the stipulation that outdoor areas can't be fenced in or covered with netting.


Certified Humane's Free-Range standards are more specific, with a requirement that the chickens get at least six hours outdoor access a day and two square feet of outdoor space per bird.


Pasture-Raised


Unlike "cage-free" and "free-range," "pasture-raised" labeling is not regulated by the government at all. If you see a product that's labeled "pasture-raised" without the mention of any third-party certification, it's essentially meaningless.


If a product is Certified Humane Pasture-Raised, however, it means quite a lot - specifically, that every chicken had at least 108 square feet of outdoor space for at least six hours a day.

Meanwhile, all AWA-certified products are pasture-raised, regardless of whether those words appear on the label, as this is a core requirement of their certification.


The Bottom Line


The new USDA Organic regulations do hold organic meat companies to a higher level of animal welfare than non-organic products, and that includes large players like Tyson Foods and Perdue with organic product lines. The new standards aren't quite as high as those of some third-party certifiers, like AWA, and even for the best certifications, how animals are raised in reality depends on the quality of oversight and independent inspectors. Ultimately, "humanewashing" has become a common enough marketing practice that it's easy for even the savviest shoppers to be fooled by unverified or deceptive labeling. The fact that a product is marketed as "humane" doesn't necessarily make it so, and likewise, the fact that a product is marketed as organic also doesn't necessarily mean it's humane.




Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

For the last few years, hundreds of thousands of people around the world have taken part in Veganuary, a challenge to give veganism a try for the month of January. What began as a small campaign in the UK in 2014 has since grown into a global movement drawing attention to the intersection of diet, ethics and environmental sustainability. With more than 1.8 million participants in January 2024 (meaning those who sought resources from the Veganuary organization) — and many more unofficially signed up — Veganuary’s potential impact is not insignificant.

Sandra Hungate, director of Veganuary U.S., tells Sentient that for every million people who go vegan for 31 days, around “the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to Paris” in emissions are saved. Longer term, one study found replacing even half of the meat and milk consumed with vegan alternatives would curb food and land use emissions by 31 percent in 30 years.

As an organization, Veganuary has also developed into a non-profit, working throughout the year with individuals and businesses “to move to a plant-based diet as a way of protecting the environment, preventing animal suffering and improving the health of millions of people,” according to its website. The group offers resources, recipes and tips, and raises awareness about animal agriculture, sustainability and the impact of our food choices on the planet. It also works with companies and institutions to implement Veganuary on a greater scale.

Still, some critics of Veganuary argue that it focuses too much on short- rather than long-term commitments to sustainable dietary change and lifestyle choices, and that the organization is too focused on corporate partnerships. For example, Jake Conroy, also known as The Cranky Vegan, stated in a 2023 video that Veganuary is more focused on reducetarianism than veganism, and also questions the organization’s methods of measuring success. In a more recent post on Instagram, Dr. Leila Dehghan called out the Veganuary organization for working with militaries and reinforcing Eurocentric capitalism.

“Veganuary is far from promoting Eurocentric food norms,” Nital Jethalal, co-chair of the Veganuary Canada Coalition, tells Sentient. “It actually challenges the dominance of Western meat-heavy diets, and promotes alternatives that are rooted in non-European food systems.”

While it remains difficult to pin down exact numbers on Veganuary participants, the impact — both for animals and the environment — is potentially significant. Let’s take a closer look.

Why Is Veganuary in January?

After the indulgences of the holiday season, January is often considered a time to start fresh, embrace healthier habits, make New Year’s resolutions and re-center the body and mind. January is also considered a time for new beginnings and doing good for the world around us, making it a fitting time to take on a diet with both health and environmental benefits, as well as less animal suffering. As a 31-day challenge, Veganuary hopes to be part of the New Year’s resolution season while also quelling any overwhelm participants may have about committing to going vegan long-term. By offering the option to simply give it a go for the month. there is hope it will stick or at least make people more adept at incorporating plant-based eating into their diets.

What Does Being Vegan for January Mean?

The Vegan Society defines veganism as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” It adds that, by extension, veganism also “promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms, it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

As a month-long challenge, total veganism would mean opting out of consuming any products of animal origin — including meat, dairy, eggs and honey — throughout January. For some Veganuary participants, this may also mean using only cruelty-free home and beauty products, not purchasing clothing or other items made with animal-based textiles, such as leather, wool, down, fur or silk, and not visiting animal-exploiting businesses such as zoos, marine parks and circuses, among others.

What Is the Impact of Veganuary?

In 2020, University of Oxford environmental researcher Joseph Poore estimated that thanks to the 350,000 people who participated in Veganuary that year, global carbon emissions were cut by about 45,000 tons. This is equivalent to removing nearly 8,600 cars from the road for a year. At the individual level, going vegan for one month can save approximately 33,000 gallons of water, 1,200 pounds of grain, 900 square feet of forest, 600 pounds of CO2 and 30 animal lives. Multiply that by the number of unofficial Veganuary participants, which Hungate puts at 25 million for 2024, and you have a significant impact. Huntgate says 2024 participation was measured through “several You Gov services in nine of our core countries, and that established a percentage of people who reported trying vegan during Veganuary in 2024.”

How Many People Stay Vegan After January?

Veganuary reports growth each year, and the organization releases data most years, based on participant surveys from those who signed up through the site. According to that data for 2024, the organization reports that 81 percent of participants who took the survey, “maintained a dramatic reduction in their animal product consumption” six months on, with 27 percent reporting that they continued to eat a fully vegan diet, and 37 percent “eating at least 75 percent less meat and other animal products than pre-Veganuary.”

Nearly all participants who reported not maintaining a vegan diet after the challenge nevertheless “said they’re likely to try a vegan diet again in the future,” according to the group.

The movement is also growing globally, with more countries joining as official partners each year. This year, Canada signed on as an official Veganuary partner, along with Malaysia and Peru.

Jethalal tells Sentient that the new membership is an indication the movement is expanding. “Veganuary started in the UK in 2014,” he says, “and it grew to 17 countries last year.” There are three new countries this year too, including Canada. “So, good sign.”

Being a member country, explains Jethalal, means “working towards Veganuary’s strategic objectives, which are increasing participation through their 31-day pledge, corporate outreach from large multinationals to small retailers, offering support to increase production of animal-free items,” as well as raising awareness with the help of celebrities, influencers and mainstream media.

Jethalal adds that Canada is particularly well positioned for Veganuary interest after the federal government published its updated Food Guide in 2019, encouraging Canadians to eat more plant proteins.

Jethalal also disagrees that Veganuary is too focused on reduction rather than elimination of animal consumption. “As a campaign, Veganuary has been shown to lower barriers to entry to plant-based eating and makes it approachable for a broad audience,” he says, with a “goal to inspire lasting change.”

How To Take Part in Veganuary

While officially signing up for the challenge on the Veganuary website isn’t required, doing so allows participants to partake of a variety of resources for free, including a “celebrity cookbook, meal plans, nutrition guides, recipes and lots more,” according to the website. But for those wanting to go at it on their own, there is also an abundance of online information available for how to veganize your favorite meals, how to swap out animal products for plant-based ones and how to get enough essential nutrients throughout the month, and beyond.

The Bottom Line

The growing popularity of Veganuary highlights the tension between the entrenched culture of animal agriculture and the growing urgency of addressing climate change, public health crises and animal welfare. The month-long challenge is considered a user-friendly way to introduce veganism to those who may not otherwise try to drop all animal products from their diet in the long-term. While the exact success of the challenge is difficult to measure, the Veganuary organization has had some notable wins (including helping the author of this story go vegan).


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Nebraska News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Livestock auctions exist all across North America. They serve as a stop between the farms where animals are born, and the farms where they will be "fattened" or "finished;" the stop between life and death, where animals are sold to be slaughtered. In these fast-paced spaces, animals are pushed through like products - prodded, chased, tossed and dragged - by people paid to get the job done, quickly.

Between late 2022 and early 2024, footage was gathered from over a dozen of these auctions, from across 10 U.S. states by Pete Paxton (Sentient has agreed to use an alias), an undercover investigator with the group Strategies for Ethical and Environmental Development, or SEED.

For a recent story for Vox Media, I was tasked with watching this footage, which shows terrified, confused and exhausted animals being handled harshly, or outright abused. Some animals are shown with injuries, while others have already died at auction.

The footage also shows workers with seemingly no regard for the animals' suffering. Some lash out at the animals in frustration, while others laugh at animals in pain.

"Hundreds or even thousands of animals are sold at auctions within hours," Paxton writes on SEED's website, "and workers must keep up the pace to move scared, exhausted, sick and injured animals in and out of pens. Workers experience dehydration, hunger and exhaustion as a result, which often leads to impatience and subsequent abuse."

Writing the Vox story was difficult. The 20-minute compilation of secretly filmed clips initially took me a week to get through; I could only watch for a few minutes at a time before the discomfort became unbearable. But then, over time, something interesting happened: watching the footage became easier for me. And Paxton understands, firsthand, why.

Desensitization and Animal Abuse

Working on the story over a few months, I had to go back to the footage over and over again. As I did, the images and sounds that had once made me gasp and cover my eyes became less horrific. Over time, they even became bearable. I had become desensitized to the animals' pain and fear, a phenomenon common among those who work in animal farming spaces like auctions.

Dr. Philip Tedeschi, a clinical professor at the University of Denver, and an expert in the human-animal connection, explains that for people working in animal farming spaces, empathy can become incompatible with the job, "inefficient" and "inconvenient."

"One of the things we know about studying empathy is that the presence of empathy can be an inhibitor to engaging in the behavior itself," he explains. "If you're required to engage in forcing animals through a meat processing plant, or expected to stick to a very strict timeline," like at auctions or on an assembly line, "you can't afford to be gentle or kind or humane. Then one of the things that's inefficient or incompatible is to have empathy for those individual animals." Emotionally distancing from animals can aid these workers in getting through the work day.

Paxton admits that the work he does as an undercover investigator is "pretty fucking difficult."

"I've had ex-military and ex-law enforcement reach out to me, and they're like, 'I don't know how you do that, because, man, I would lose my shit.'" But Paxton knows he's there to complete an important task, and that allows him to compartmentalize his feelings. "I tell investigators when I train them, 'It's way easier than you think to get used to the abuse, because when you see it there's two things going on in your head: one is, 'Oh, shit, an animal is being abused,' and then the other thing in your head is, 'I have to document that and not get caught.'"

For Paxton, overriding his concerns about the animal abuse he witnesses is an important part of his job as an investigator. For the people who work at animal auctions, Paxton believes desensitization operates much the same way. Abuse of animals at auctions becomes normalized, Paxton reports, as workers are pressured by management to move animals in and out - fast.

The harsh environment forces workers - ranging from inexperienced teens to long-time workers - to handle animals roughly to keep up with the demanding work. They also learn abusive behaviors from each other.

The Mental Health Impact of Working in Animal Agriculture

As part of his investigation, Paxton kept video footage and written records of certain people he met while working at the auctions. On SEED's website, he describes some of these workers as "good people" who "do bad things."

For example, in one small rural town, Paxton met 17-year-old "Audrey." Exhausted and under pressure, she mimicked abusive actions she witnessed from co-workers, reflecting learned behaviors. "As the workday dragged on, her frustrations led her to drag baby lambs and goats by their legs in fits of anger, mirroring the abusive actions she saw around her," Paxton writes. He also recalls "Stewart," a hardworking 20-year-old, dragging goats and jabbing calves with his keys, seeing cruelty as necessary for the job, "a means to an end."

Similar working conditions have also been documented in slaughterhouses, where both workers and animals are known to suffer. Slaughterhouse workers have for decades been documented engaging in extreme cruelty beyond basic animal handling.

For example, a 2018 investigation by Animal Aid uncovered UK slaughterhouse workers beating cows with pipes, while encouraging others to join in. In 2022, Animal Equality documented workers in Brazil kicking, beating and dragging cows by ropes, and twisting their tails to force movement.

Research has shown that the slaughterhouse environment, and the nature of slaughterhouse work itself, can and does have notable psychological impacts on workers. For example, slaughterhouse workers are four times more likely to be clinically depressed than the general public, according to a 2015 study. Higher rates of anxiety, psychosis and serious psychological distress are also found among those working in slaughterhouses, compared to the population at large.

As Dr. Kendra Coulter, now coordinator of Huron University's Animal Ethics and Sustainability Leadership program, told Sentient in 2020: in slaughterhouses, both workers and animals are commodified, "animals literally so." But both are ultimately seen as disposable.

Cultural Impact on Animal Treatment

Upbringing and culture can also play a key role in one's ability to turn off empathy for farm animals. As Tedeschi explained to Sentient on the topic of rodeos, if a person is brought up since childhood to believe that something is "culturally defined as a deserving activity," it becomes normalized.

We see this in rodeo activities geared specifically toward children, such as "pig scrambles" and "mutton busting," where children will ride sheep or other animals, "or engage in wrestling an animal or controlling them in some form," Tedeschi says, "And then getting a lot of attention for that. This is early shaping of those behaviors." Organizations like 4H and Future Farmers of America similarly serve to socialize children to emotionally distance themselves from the animals they are tasked to care for, before selling them to be slaughtered.

Paxton notes that the people he met while working at livestock auctions come from this same wider community. "They're the same people," he says. "They fucking love rodeos." This also includes the police and inspectors on site. "If you're a cop and you're in a rural area, you probably have cows, you've probably kicked them," he says. "Your parents have kicked them, and you're not going to bring charges against a fucking kid or elderly person who does the same thing."

"It's cowboy culture," Renee King-Sonnen, a former cattle rancher turned animal sanctuary operator, told Vox. Cowboy culture involves the normalization of inhumane treatment of animals at auctions, she adds. The drive to belong to that culture is what drives that shared behavior.

"People that are part of this community or this culture feel a solidarity with each other," explains Dr. Rebekah Humphreys, a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Wales, and an expert in animal ethics. In the case of spaces where animals are farmed, slaughtered, tested on, etc., "the mistreatment of animals," she says, is "reinscribed and perpetuated through cultures. And then anyone that is outside of that norm is criticized as being overly sentimental or anthropomorphic."

Paxton believes that most people working at auctions don't believe they're doing anything wrong when they mistreat animals. "For many of them, it is the right thing, pulling a screaming goat by the ear," he says. "This animal just needs to move, [and] everyone's always done it that way. Does that make me an asshole?" he asks, putting himself in the position of the workers. "Or wouldn't I really be an asshole if I said, 'Everyone stop the entire auction?' If I had to assuage this animal's feelings and recognize this animal as an individual?"

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, both Tedeschi and Humphreys agree that the commodification of farm animals as property, legally and morally, allows places like animal auctions to exist, and for farm animals to be othered so severely. "The industrialization and commodification of [farm animals] has turned them into objects to the extent that we are really quite distanced from them," says Humphreys.

And that distance, Tedeschi believes, prohibits humans from thinking of these animals with more ethical consideration. "We're not likely to see people do a deeper kind of moral investigation into how we interact with other animals, as long as we view them as having the same legal position as the toaster on our counter."

For people like Paxton and me, who exist outside that cowboy culture but are tasked with investigating it, the ability to compartmentalize - to distance ourselves from the natural empathy we feel for animals, in order to get the job done - also reveals just how easily desensitization can happen.

This is in part what allows Paxton to see those who abuse animals at auctions as otherwise good people. "I'm not really scared of these people," he says. "I didn't find them to be violent or terrifying people. They're fucking nice people," he says. As long as you're not a cow.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Animal rights organizers are regrouping after mixed results at the ballot box in November.

A measure targeting factory farms passed in Berkeley but failed in Sonoma County. Measure J, to ban concentrated animal-feeding operations, only got 15% of the vote and Ordinance 309 to ban slaughterhouses failed in Denver.

Cassie King, an organizer with the Coalition to End Factory Farming, helped raise $280,000 to promote the ban in Sonoma County, even as opponents raised $2.2 million.

"We learned that money and the ability to lie during political campaigns is a very powerful combination of factors to be up against," King asserted. "I was shocked by the amount of misinformation that came out from the No on J campaign, just statistics that had no basis in reality."

Measure DD in Berkeley passed but is mostly symbolic since the only existing concentrated animal feeding operation, a horse racing operation called Golden Gate Fields, closed last June.

King stressed win or lose, the measures went a long way toward raising public awareness of the pollution and animal welfare issues at large factory farms.

"It's a test case, and whether it wins or loses, it's generating tens of thousands of conversations in the county and many more beyond," King contended. "And making the end of factory farming visible for a lot of people who haven't realized that it's something we can achieve in our lifetimes."

The "No on J" campaign and opponents of the Denver slaughterhouse ordinance argued the bans would have hurt jobs and tax revenue.

This story is based on original reporting by Seth Millstein for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email