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

A growing number of consumers want to know that their meat, dairy and eggs come from animals who were treated well. The trend has become so widespread, in fact, that in the past decade, animal welfare labels have become a familiar sight on grocery store shelves. Now, a growing number of industry and animal welfare groups say fish welfare labels are the next frontier. The once-pervasive "happy cow" marketing campaign of the early-aughts may soon find a new life with the fish industry, as we enter the era of the "happy fish." But just as with labels for meat and dairy, the promise does not always meet the reality. In other words, there's no reason to believe the practice described as humane-washing won't be a problem for fish too.

The Rise of 'Sustainably Raised' Fish

Americans are saying they want to eat a lot more fish these days, citing a mix of health and environmental concerns. Just as many consumers of meat are drawn to cuts marked "sustainable," fish shoppers too are looking for an environmental seal of approval. So much so, in fact, that the "sustainable" seafood market is predicted to reach more than $26 million by 2030.

One popular sustainability certification program for wild caught fish is the blue check from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), one of the oldest fish certifications, used for an estimated 15 percent of the global wild fish catch. The blue check signals to consumers that the fish "comes from healthy and sustainable fish stocks," according to the group, meaning that the fisheries considered the environmental impact and how well the fish populations were managed to avoid overfishing. So while restricting how many fish a company harvests doesn't address how fish die, it at least avoids wiping out entire populations.

Yet the pledge does not always match the practice. According to a 2020 analysis, researchers found that MSC blue check marketing materials often misrepresent the typical environment of the fisheries it certifies. Even though the certifying group "disproportionately features photographs of small-scale fisheries," most of the fish certified by MSC Blue Check are "overwhelmingly from industrial fisheries." And while around half of the group's promotional content "featured small-scale, low-impact fishing methods," in reality, these types of fisheries represent a mere "7 percent of the products it certified."

In reaction to the study, the Marine Stewardship Council "raised concerns" about the authors' connection to a group that had criticized MSC in the past. The journal conducted a post-publication editorial review and found no errors in the study's findings, though it did revise two characterizations of the council in the article and revise the competing interest statement.

Sentient reached out to the Marine Stewardship Council to ask about what, if any, animal welfare standards the blue check promises. In an email response, Jackie Marks, senior communications and public relations manager for MSC replied that the organization is "on a mission to end overfishing," with a focus on environmentally sustainable fishing" and "ensuring that the health of all species and habitats are protected for the future." But, she continues, "humane harvest and animal sentience sit outside the MSC's remit."

Another resource for conscious consumers is the Monterey Bay Seafood Watch Guide. The online tool shows consumers which species and from which regions to "responsibly" purchase, and which ones to avoid, covering wild fisheries and aquaculture operations alike. Here too, the emphasis is on environmental sustainability: "Seafood Watch's recommendations address the environmental impacts of seafood production to help ensure that it is fished and farmed in ways that promote the long-term well-being of wildlife and the environment," according to its website.

Yet in Seafood Watch's extensive standards for aquaculture, and for fisheries, (all 89 and 129 pages, respectively), standards that "promote the long-term well-being of wildlife," neither animal welfare nor humane treatment are mentioned. For now, most fish labels with claims about sustainability primarily cover environmental practices, but a new crop of labels that investigate fish welfare are on the horizon.

The Future of Fish Labels Includes Fish Welfare

Up until a few years ago, most consumers didn't give much thought to fish, how they lived or whether they were capable of suffering. But a growing body of research has uncovered evidence of fish sentience, including that some fish recognize themselves in the mirror, and are quite capable of feeling pain.

As the public learns more about the inner lives of all sorts of animals, including fish, some consumers are willing to pay more for products that assure them the fish was treated well. Fish and seafood companies are taking notice of this, along with some labeling bodies, including the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which has called animal welfare "a key factor in defining 'responsible production."

In 2022, ASC published its Fish Health and Welfare Criterion draft, where the group called for certain welfare considerations to be included, including "anesthesia of fish during handling operations that can inflict pain or injury if fish are moving," and "maximum time fish can be out of water," that "shall be signed off by a veterinarian."

Much like most meat industry labels, the group leaves oversight mainly to farmers. ASC spokesperson Maria Filipa Castanheira tells Sentient that the group's "work on Fish Health and Welfare consists of a set of indicators that allows farmers to continuously monitor and evaluate their farming systems and the status of fish species." These are "real daily actions that take into account some key indicators defined as Operational Welfare Indicators (OWI): water quality, morphology, behavior and mortality," she adds.

Heather Browning, PhD, a researcher and lecturer on animal welfare at the University of Southampton, raised concerns about the measures. Browning, telling industry publication The Fish Site that these measures mostly focus more on animal health than well-being.

Other measures that could address animal well-being specifically include preventing overcrowding - which is common and can lead to stress - and avoiding sensory deprivation caused by a lack of natural stimuli. Mishandling during capture or transport can also cause fish to suffer, and slaughter methods for farmed fish, also often considered by animal protection advocates to be inhumane, are overlooked by many labeling schemes.

Fish Welfare for Wild and Farmed Fish

In the U.S., "wild caught" labeled fish do tend to experience some welfare benefits as compared to farmed fish, at least during their lives.

According to Lekelia Jenkins, PhD, associate professor of sustainability at Arizona State University, who specializes in solutions for sustainable fisheries, these animals "grow up in their natural environments, are allowed to engage in the ecosystem and provide their ecological function in their natural environment." This, she adds, "is a healthy thing for the environment and the fish up to the point of capture." Compare this to many fish raised in industrial aquaculture operations, where overcrowding and living in tanks can cause stress and suffering.

That all takes a drastic turn for the worse, however, when fish are caught. According to a 2021 report by Eurogroup for Animals, fish can die in any number of painful ways, including "chased to exhaustion," crushed or asphyxiated. Numerous other fish called bycatch are also caught up in nets and killed in the process, often in the same painful manner.

Is a Better Death for Fish Even Possible?

While regulating "humane slaughter" is notoriously difficult, a number of national welfare organizations are trying, including Australia's RSPCA, Friends of the Sea, RSPCA Assured and Best Aquaculture Practices, by making stunning before slaughter mandatory. Advocacy group Compassion in World Farming created a table that lists the standards - and lack thereof - for a variety of fish labeling schemes, including whether the way the fish is slaughtered is humane and whether stunning prior to killing is mandatory.

CIWF tells Sentient that for the group "humane slaughter" is codified as "slaughter without suffering, which can take one of those three forms: death is instantaneous; stunning is instantaneous and death intervenes before consciousness returns; death is more gradual but is non-aversive." It adds that "Instantaneous is interpreted by the EU as taking less than a second."

Included on CIWF's list is the Global Animal Partnership (GAP), which also requires stunning before slaughter, but unlike the others, also requires larger living conditions, minimized stocking densities and enrichment for farmed salmon. However, a representative from GAP tells Sentient that, for now, there are no GAP-certified salmon operations.

Still, there are other efforts, some more ambitious than others. One, the Ike Jime slaughtering method, aims to fully kill the fish in seconds, while the other, cell cultivated fish, requires no slaughter at all.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates said a lack of animal welfare laws is leading to pain and suffering on American factory farms.

Close to 99% of livestock is now raised in industrial-type facilities, where animal welfare groups said efficiency and profitability take precedence over animals' well-being.

Delcianna Winders, associate professor of law and director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, said while more than a dozen states have banned what are deemed torture-like confinement for animals, there is no federal law protecting them from abuse.

"If most people were aware that the animal they're sitting down to eat couldn't move throughout their entire life, just to give one example, I don't think they would want to support that," Winders contended.

Winders pointed out the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act requires animals be knocked unconscious before they are killed but corporations running factory farms are lobbying for the law to be weakened in order to speed up meat production.

So-called "ag-gag" laws in several states criminally penalize those who seek to expose animal suffering on farms, in slaughterhouses and at animal auctions. Winders added she is concerned a second Trump Administration could allow factory farm owners to further erode any remaining health and safety standards.

"They've been able to carve themselves out from complying with the laws that everybody else has to comply with," Winders asserted. "That certainly includes cruelty-to-animals laws. It also includes pollution laws, worker-safety laws, the whole gamut."

Winders advised people concerned with animal welfare to try more plant-based alternatives to meat and learn more about how their food is raised. She stressed as consumers increasingly turn to "organic" and "free-range" meat options, corporations are working to lower the standards for what those labels mean and the conditions under which those animals can be raised.

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


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Every year, humans around the world eat 360 million metric tons of meat. That’s a lot of animals — or more precisely, a lot of dead animals. At any given point, there are 23 billion animals in factory farms, and countless more being farmed or caught in the sea. As a result, the number of animals killed for food every day is almost too large of a number to comprehend.

Animal Agriculture, by the Numbers

Before getting into the death toll, it’s worth remembering that animals suffer immensely in factory farms, and on the way to slaughterhouses, and in slaughterhouses. Around 99 percent of livestock are raised in factory farms, and factory farms prioritize efficiency and profitability over animal welfare. There are few laws protecting livestock from abuse and mistreatment on farms, and violators of those laws are rarely prosecuted.

The result is a significant amount of pain and misery for farmed animals, and that suffering is an important thing to keep in mind as we dive into the numbers behind these animals’ deaths.

How Many Animals Are Killed for Food Every Day?

Quantifying animal slaughter is relatively straightforward — except when it comes to fish and other aquatic life. There are two reasons for this.

First, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which tracks global livestock statistics, measures fish production in weight, not number of animals. Second, the FAO’s numbers only include farmed fish, not those caught in the wild.

To overcome the first challenge, researchers attempt to convert the total pounds of fish caught into the total number of fish themselves. Obviously, this is an inexact science that requires quite a bit of guesswork, and as such, estimates of fish slaughter tend to vary significantly, and are generally expressed in relatively wide ranges.

As for the second challenge, researchers Alison Mood and Phil Brooke have attempted to quantify the number of wild fish caught every year, first by pulling data from multiple sources and then by converting the total weight of wild fish to an estimated number of animals.

The following numbers are based on 2022 data from the FAO, except for the fish tallies: for farmed fish, the low end of the range draws on research by the Sentience Institute, while the high end is based on an analysis by Mood and Brooke. For wild-caught fish, the low end and high ends of the estimate are both based on a range provided by Mood and Brooke.

With that being said, here are the best estimates of how many animals are killed every day on a per-species basis.

• Chickens: 206 million/day


• Farmed Fish: Between 211 million and 339 million


• Wild Fish: Between 3 billion and 6 billion


• Ducks: 9 million


• Pigs: 4 million


• Geese: 2 million


• Sheep: 1.7 million


• Rabbits: 1.5 million


• Turkeys: 1.4 million


• Goats: 1.4 million


• Cows: 846,000


• Pigeons & other birds: 134,000


• Buffalo: 77,000


• Horses: 13,000


• Other animals: 13,000

In total, this means that every 24 hours, between 3.4 and 6.5 billion animals are killed for food. That comes to a lower-end estimate of 1.2 trillion animals killed every year. That’s a positively staggering number. For contrast, anthropologists estimate that the total number of human beings who’ve ever existed is just 117 billion.


A couple of things stand out about this data.


For one, if we exclude fish, the overwhelming majority of animals slaughtered for food are chickens. This isn’t a surprise, given that poultry consumption has skyrocketed over the last 60 years: between 1961 and 2022, the average person went from eating 2.86 kg of chicken every year to 16.96 kg — an increase of almost 600 percent.


The consumption of other meats didn’t rise nearly as much over that period. There was a modest increase in per-capita pork consumption, from 7.97 kg to 13.89 kg; for every other meat, consumption has remained relatively stagnant over the last 60 years.


Also notable is the relatively high death tolls of animals that many Americans might not think of as meat sources for humans. Slaughtering horses for meat is illegal in the U.S., but that doesn’t stop people around the world from killing 13,000 of them every day. Rabbit meat isn’t a common dish in America, but it’s wildly popular in China and the European Union.


Animals Slaughtered Who Are Never Eaten


One thing that’s particularly frustrating about all of this, from both an efficiency standpoint and an animal welfare standpoint, is that a sizable share of the animals killed for food are never even eaten.


A 2023 study published in Sustainable Production and Consumption found that 24 percent of livestock animals die prematurely at some point in the supply chain: they either die on the farm before they’re slaughtered, die in transit on their way to the slaughterhouse, die at a slaughterhouse but aren’t processed for food, or are thrown away by grocers, restaurants and consumers.


This wasted food adds up to about 18 billion animals a year. The meat from these animals never reaches the lips of any human, making their deaths — which, it should be stressed, are often excruciatingly painful and bloody — essentially pointless. What’s more, this tally doesn’t even include seafood; if it did, the amount of wasted meat would be many orders of magnitude higher.


In the U.S., around a quarter of animals in this category die on the farm from disease, injury or other causes. Another seven percent die in transit, and 13 percent are thrown away by grocers after being processed into meat.


Some of these “wasted deaths” are part and parcel of factory farm operations. Every year, around six billion male chicks are intentionally killed, or “culled,” on factory farms due to the fact that they can’t lay eggs. In the seafood industry, billions of aquatic animals are caught by accident every year — a phenomenon called bycatch — and are either killed or injured as a result.


It’s worth noting that these numbers vary significantly from country to country. The global average for wasted meat is around 2.4 animals per person per year, but in the U.S., it’s 7.1 animals per person — almost three times higher. On the other end of the spectrum is India, where only 0.4 animals per person are wasted every year.


The Hidden Death Tolls of the Environmental Destruction of the Meat Industry


The above death tolls only count animals who are farmed or caught with the goal of being eaten by humans. But the meat industry claims many other animal lives in more indirect ways.


For instance, cattle farming is the number one driver of deforestation around the world, and deforestation inadvertently kills a whole lot of animals that were never intended to be food in the first place. In the Amazon alone, 2,300 animals are at risk of extinction due to deforestation, as the clearing of trees wipes out their natural habitats and deprives them of the resources they need to survive. 


Another example is water pollution. The manure from livestock farms often leaks into nearby waterways, and this can have a ripple effect that results in many more animal deaths: Manure contains phosphorus and nitrogen, both of which promote the growth of algae; this eventually leads to harmful algal blooms, which deplete the oxygen in the water and clog the gills of fish, killing them.


All of this is a long way of saying that killing one animal for food often results in many other animals dying.


The Bottom Line


The astonishing number of animals killed for food every day, both directly and indirectly, is a sobering reminder of the impact our appetite for meat has on the world around us. From the animals slaughtered on farms to the creatures killed by agriculture-driven deforestation and farm pollution, the death toll that a meat-based diet demands is much higher and more far-reaching than many people realize.




Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Arizona News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the largest health threats to humanity, according to the World Health Organization. It's been over 40 years since the discovery of a new antibiotic class; an ominous gap in modern medicine given the rise of superbugs and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The spread and severity of antibiotic resistance is exacerbated by antibiotic overuse and lax prescribing standards, but also by animal agriculture. Depending on the country, roughly 70 percent of all antibiotics produced are used in agriculture to prevent disease, or enhance animal growth. This overuse not only fosters the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals, but in humans who consume that meat.

At a critical meeting last month, the United Nations made a global pledge to reduce deaths from antibiotic resistance, which includes clamping down on antibiotic use in animal farming. Sentient's recent investigation in collaboration with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that Cargill routinely uses critically important antibiotics in livestock, despite rules from the FDA and warnings from the WHO.

It's clear that farmers need to reduce their dependence on antibiotics. But a complete ban would be a naive solution, says Jennifer Ronholm, Canada's research chair in agricultural microbiology and professor at McGill University. Ronholm argues a ban could result in food shortages and an uptick in livestock diseases. That's why her lab aims to uncover whether they can design and optimize animal microbiomes to lessen the need for antibiotic use in agriculture.

How Farming Practices Lead to Antibiotic Resistance

A lot of the pathogens we're seeing with high drug resistance originate from animals. Since the 1940s, roughly 50 percent of zoonotic diseases have been traced back to agriculture. "They're circulating in agriculture environments, picking up the [antibiotic resistance] genes and then circulating back to humans. So, figuring out a way to cut that zoonotic transfer feels like a really effective way to deal with the problem," Ronholm tells Sentient.

To prevent the emergence of zoonotic diseases, a 2022 paper called for reducing meat consumption to alleviate animal confinement on farms, and also to avoid clearing more land for agriculture. The paper's author, Matthew Hayek, described animal agriculture as a "trap of rising infectious diseases," and urged that escaping this trap means "limiting meat consumption."

Poor conditions on farms - such as cramped facilities and poor ventilation - can exacerbate the spread of antibiotic resistance. Recent estimates found 1.7 billion animals in the U.S. live on factory farms, up nearly 50 percent since 20 years ago, in response to growing demand for animal products. Further, factory farms produce twice as much sewage as the country's population. These confined conditions can create physical and mental stress for the animals, which may lead to weakened immune systems, making them more susceptible to infection. This, in tandem with the farm's high amounts of waste, creates an optimal environment for disease spread.

A study looking at the effects of various pig farming conditions found lower levels of antibiotic resistance in organic and alternative farms than in conventional farms. The authors suggest the lower levels were from tighter regulation of antibiotic use, straw bedding and open ventilation.

Optimizing Animal Microbiomes to Prevent Disease

The premise of Ronholm's research ties into a key microbial concept of competitive exclusion, or simply, that particular healthy gut bacteria will outcompete harmful bacteria. By maintaining a balanced microbiome, this competition can prevent infection and disease from taking place.

At a recent presentation for World Antimicrobial Resistance Congress Week, Ronholm explained how her lab isolates these bacteria that competitively exclude infectious bacteria from healthy animals. The goal is then to create a tailored probiotic solution that optimizes animal's microbiome to lessen reliance on antibiotics for treatment.

Ronholm is particularly interested in mastitis infection, which is the most common disease in dairy cattle. Cows can get mastitis when bacteria infect their udder from the process of milking, dirty milking equipment or from their environment. Mastitis infection causes udder pain, swelling, and may leave the cow disorientated and feeble. The probiotic, when developed, could be applied to the cow's udder daily after milking. This probiotic could then strengthen their udder microbiome to fend off infection.

In a 2022 study, her team looked at Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria known for causing mastitis, and identified microbial differences in the cows who were susceptible to infection or not. The results showed three bacteria, most notably Aerococcus urinaeequi, as being protective against infection. In a further study published last month, the researchers also looked at mastitis caused by Escherichia coli infection and found that A. urinaeequi again prevented microbial colonization. Both papers were funded, in part, by a Canadian initiative called The Mastitis Network that aims to prevent mastitis and reduce antibiotic use on farms.

Erika Ganda, an assistant professor of food animal microbiomes at Penn State University, attended Ronholm's presentation and says the prospects of her research are "fantastic." Ganda's lab researches animal microbiomes to tackle antimicrobial resistance, while also bolstering health and food production.

For example, although antibiotics for growth promotion in livestock and poultry were banned in 2017 by the Food and Drug Administration, probiotics can act as a growth promotion alternative. Disease prevention and growth promotion aren't mutually exclusive, Ganda says. "It costs energy to fight disease, so if that energy doesn't go into the immune system but goes instead into making milk or putting on muscle mass, that is a way of growth promotion." In Ganda's 2024 paper, probiotic supplementation improved growth in broiler chickens compared to other natural sources like essential oils. However, it's important to note that various fast growth methods in chickens come with animal welfare concerns.

From Research Lab to Farm Use

While Ronholm's team has yet to put one of these synthetic microbiomes in an animal, they are hopeful to get to this stage soon. "We have one product that we tried in a pre-clinical trial this year that worked well. I think in less than 10 years these types of products will be on the market," Ronholm says, but notes that her lab is purely focused on the research, not the business end of things.

An important next step is to understand the exact mechanisms of these gut bacterial battles that prevent infection."It's possible that they won't be as effective as antibiotics and people will not want to switch. But I don't foresee large limitations, efficacy issues or scaling factors," Ronholm says.

Research suggests that probiotics, among other gut-enhancing products, may also ward off avian flu - a serious disease that affects both animals and humans. Probiotics appear to clear harmful microbes and repair inflammatory damage in later stages of the infection. However, an exact probiotic cocktail to protect against avian flu in all of its infectious stages requires further work, the researchers concluded.

Managing this issue of antibiotic resistance on farms, at its core, boils down to proper management practices and vaccination strategies on farms, Ganda says. "The cleaner [and] the healthier animals are, the less antibiotics we're going to need, the less antimicrobial resistance you're going to find," she says. For now, researchers like Ronholm and Ganda endeavor to create tailored and effective solutions that can be added into farm systems easily to protect animals from infection and mitigate the larger issue of antibiotic resistance. Other researchers are looking into viruses that kill harmful bacteria in animals and selective breeding to produce animals that are more resistant to infection.

However, the onus is ultimately on the industry to address their role in this growing global public health challenge, which is predicted to kill 10 million people annually by 2050. Whether new strategies such as targeted probiotics are incorporated on a large scale into farming practices is also up to the agricultural industry. Antibiotic resistance is becoming increasingly widespread in both humans and animals, and the cramped and unsanitary conditions on factory farms are clearly a systemic root of the problem.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email