By Marlena Williams for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Greater Dakota News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down their long-awaited opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overruling decades of settled precedent and effectively gutting the power of federal agencies to regulate on behalf of consumers, workers, animals and the environment. Loper Bright threatens a wide range of federal regulations, including policies that govern food safety and water pollution. The decision could undercut the authority of the federal agencies that regulate the meat and dairy industries and protect endangered species, meaning the loss of Chevron could also be a major loss for animals.

The Loper Bright case centered on a 40-year-old administrative law doctrine known as Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to executive agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under Chevron, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Food and Drug Administration had considerable leeway to interpret federal laws and issue regulations based on their specific knowledge and expertise. The Supreme Court's momentous decision on Friday dramatically shifts power away from these federal agencies and towards the increasingly conservative federal courts.

What is Chevron Deference?

Chevron deference has been law since 1984, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the decades after the case was decided, Chevron became shorthand for the idea that courts should defer to federal agencies when they are interpreting and applying ambiguous parts of federal statutes. As long as an agency's interpretation of a statute was reasonable, a court could not substitute its own interpretation of a law for that of an agency.

As a result, Chevron deference gave executive agencies wide latitude to fill in the gaps Congress left in sprawling, complex pieces of federal legislation. Federal agencies were able to issue regulations based on their specific expertise and respond to developing situations and needs, including climate change and the Covid pandemic.

Loper Bright and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, take that power away from expert agencies and give judges the massive authority to make complicated, often highly technical or scientific policy decisions about everything from dangerous pollutants to life-saving medications, as well as the meat and dairy industries.

The twin cases were brought by Atlantic herring fisherman who challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policy that required them to pay out-of-pocket for federal monitors onboard their ships to enforce limits designed to prevent overfishing. But the fishermen's victory at the Supreme Court was also a win for major corporations, conservative politicians and even several members of the current Supreme Court who have long been hostile to Chevron deference and the power it granted federal agencies.

In January, The New York Times reported that the two cases were bankrolled by the conservative Koch Network, founded by the petrochemical giants Charles and David Koch. Overruling Chevron culminates a decades-long conservative project to roll back federal regulations and eviscerate what some call "the administrative state."

A Closer Look At the Opinion

In the 35-page opinion issued on June 28, just days before the belated end of the Supreme Court's latest controversial term, Chief Justice John Roberts outlined the Court's reasoning for overturning Chevron. The Court described the Chevron decision as a misguided and inconsistently applied "fiction" riddled with a "byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions" that have led some lower courts to ignore the doctrine altogether.

Relying on a novel interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as timeworn constitutional arguments about the separation of powers, the Court asserted that it is the job of the neutral judicial system, not the executive branch, to decide complicated legal and statutory questions. While it appears that courts may still consult agency expertise for guidance, under Loper Bright, they are no longer required to give agencies deference as required by Chevron. The Court also seemed to suggest that Congress can, under certain circumstances, confer discretionary authority to an agency, but such authority will no longer be presumed.

In a forceful dissent joined by the court's three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan criticizes the majority for ignoring precedent, dismissing the value of agency expertise and dismantling what has become a cornerstone of modern law and governance.

"In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue - no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden - involving the meaning of regulatory law," wrote Justice Kagan. "As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country's administrative czar."

What Overruling Chevron Means for Animals and the Environment

Since the Court handed down its ruling on Friday, many groups have voiced their opposition to the decision, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. Environmental groups worry that the decision could have profound consequences for the agencies tasked with keeping our land, water and air healthy and clean. Without Chevron, it may be easier for polluting industries or other actors to challenge the actions of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior, in turn imperling regulations meant to curb pollution, protect the environment and slow the progress of climate change.

Earlier this year, Sentient reported on how overruling Chevron could impact farmed animals and wildlife. Many federal agencies - including the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - play crucial roles in regulating animal industries and protecting wildlife. Animal advocates worry that losing Chevron will make it easier for courts to overturn regulations that directly or indirectly benefit animals.

For example, the end of Chevron may threaten pending emissions limitations for slaughterhouses and rendering plants and potentially undo new animal welfare standards rolled out by the USDA.

Overruling Chevron may also undermine the power of the Endangered Species Act, which is administered by two federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Courts have often deferred to these agencies' interpretations of the Endangered Species Act in litigation involving endangered wildlife, but the ruling in Loper Bright could make endangered animals even more vulnerable by making courts less deferential to the agencies tasked with protecting them.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued finalized rules designed to revise habitat and species classifications and help the ESA to respond more readily to the effects of climate change on wildlife. Without Chevron deference, any challenge to these new rules is more likely to prevail.

However, some animal lawyers and advocates think overturning Chevron will ultimately have little impact on farmed animals, and may even benefit them. Without Chevron, judges might have room to look more critically at actions by agencies like the USDA or the EPA that have negative impacts on animals and rule in favor of advocates seeking more protections.

An Uncertain Future

Future litigation will likely be necessary before we understand the true contours of the new legal landscape the Supreme Court created last week. But it is clear that Loper Bright and Relentless signal a definitive turn towards deregulation, one that will make it even harder for agencies to regulate on the behalf of people, animals and the environment.


Marlena Williams wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

In 2018, California passed one of the strongest animal welfare laws in the country - and it's been under threat ever since. Proposition 12 forbids the extreme confinement of certain farm animals, and after failing to overturn the law in the Supreme Court, opponents are now trying to repeal Proposition 12 through the upcoming Farm Bill. Will they succeed?

"It really does lie in the hands of Congress at this point," Allison Ludtke, Legislative Affairs Manager for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, tells Sentient. "There's a level of uncertainty that I think we're all feeling."

On the surface, Proposition 12's chances seem grim. The GOP's Farm Bill proposals in the House and the Senate both include Proposition 12 repeal, and come January, Republicans will control both chambers of Congress and the White House. This would seemingly give them the killshot they need to take down the law.

But it's not quite that simple, says Ludtke, whose organization has fought to defend Proposition 12 in court. Ludtke tells Sentient that Proposition 12 has found some surprising defenders, including farmers, meat producers and even some "ultra-conservative folks in the MAGA movement," who believe Proposition 12 helps American farmers remain competitive with Chinese companies.

"We've seen really conservative folks, conservative Republicans, oppose [Proposition 12 repeal]," Ludtke tells Sentient. "Given the small majority that Republicans have in the House, and that they need to be working with Democrats, that gives me a semblance of hope that we do still have some leverage here."

What Prop 12 Does

Proposition 12 is a California law that bans the extreme confinement of certain livestock in the state. Specifically, it establishes minimum space requirements for breeding pigs, egg-laying hens and veal calves, and imposes fines on any producers who confine said animals to smaller spaces.

Just as importantly, Proposition 12 also forbids California retailers from selling eggs, pork and veal that was produced using extreme confinement in other states. Because California is such an enormous market, this provision of the law has compelled livestock producers in other states to either adopt California's minimum space requirements or, alternatively, stop selling their products in California.

What Prop 12 Does Not Do

Proposition 12 is generally regarded as the strongest animal protection law in the country, and rightly so. But it's also important to note what the law does not do.

For one, it doesn't apply to chickens raised for meat. Americans eat around 8 billion chickens every year, so that's quite a few animals who receive no protections under the law.

In addition, Proposition 12 still permits a variety of other factory farm practices that also cause undue suffering to the animals in question. Beak-trimming, tail-docking, castration without anaesthetic and other gruesome mutilations are par for the course on farms, and Proposition 12 doesn't restrict them in any way.

How Animals in California Were Treated Before Prop 12

Before Proposition 12, California livestock producers were already somewhat restrained by Proposition 2, a similar law that voters approved in 2008. Proposition 2 requires veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens to be given enough room to turn around, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs; however, it doesn't specify exactly how much physical space this entails.

Unlike Proposition 12, Proposition 2 doesn't place any restrictions on animal products produced using extreme confinement methods in other states. This partially changed in 2010, whenCalifornia legislators passed a law requiring all shelled eggs sold in the state - though not all pork and veal products -- comply with Proposition 2's standards.

But Proposition 2's space requirements are still quite modest. California regulators determined that, in order to comply with the law, egg-laying hens must be given at least 116 square inches of space in which to live. That's around 0.8 square feet - an improvement from the 0.4 square feet of space that was the industry standard prior to Proposition 2, but still not very much space.

How Have Opponents Tried to Repeal Prop 12?

Proposition 12 was the target of multiple legal challenges from the meat industry shortly after its approval. The North American Meat Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council all sued to have Proposition 12 overturned, arguing that it violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

But the Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12 in 2023, with the majority concluding that, "while the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."

Soon thereafter, a pair of Republican lawmakers attempted to repeal the law through a piece of legislation called the EATS Act. This bill would prohibit any state from imposing regulations on the sale of agricultural products produced in other states; as such, it would invalidate both Proposition 2 and Proposition 12, and prohibit any other states from enacting similar legislation in the future.

The EATS Act died in Congress. But in June, Congressional Republicans proposed inserting a version of it into the Farm Bill, a package of legislation that's renewed every five years and serves as the basis for American farm policy.

House Republicans' Farm Bill proposal would prohibit states from restricting the in-state sale of livestock products that were produced out of state, based on the conditions in which the animals were raised. However, this prohibition would not apply to "domestic animals raised for the primary purpose of egg production."

In effect, then, the House GOP's Farm Bill would repeal both Propositions 2 and 12's restrictions on pork and veal production, but not the laws' restrictions on egg production.

The Democratic Farm Bill proposal didn't include the EATS Act, or any form of Proposition 2 or Proposition 12 repeal.

But Congress has been unable to agree on a new Farm Bill for the last two years, and it's unlikely that they'll be able to do so during the last two weeks of the year. What's more likely is that they'll pass an extension of the last Farm Bill, then return in January to deliberate on a full, five-year bill.

Is Proposition 12 Doomed Once Republicans Take Control?

In the new year, Republicans will control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. In theory, this will give them the ability to repeal Proposition 12, either through the Farm Bill, a new version of the EATS Act, or some other piece of policy.

And yet oddly enough, not all Republicans are on board with repealing Proposition 12. One of the most surprising developments in this story has been the number of conservatives who either support Proposition 12 or oppose repealing it - which, as we'll see, is not necessarily the same thing.

In 2023, 16 House Republicans declared their opposition to the EATS Act in an open letter to the chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture. The next year, eight more House Republicans wrote a separate letter opposing the anti-EATS Act. For perspective, House Republicans will only have a five-seat majority when Congress reconvenes in January.

Right-wing publications like The American Conservative and Newsmax have run op-eds opposing the EATS Act as well. Even Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, a Republican who blames wind turbines for power outages and thinks the USDA is racist against white people, wrote a fiery op-ed opposing Proposition 12 repeal.

Equally surprising are the farmers, retailers and meat companies who've said that don't want Proposition 12 repealed. This diverse list of opponents includes industry leaders like Perdue, meat distributors like ButcherBox and individual hog farmers across the country. According to the Humane Society, almost 5,000 farms in 39 states have also come out in favor of Proposition 12.

"The typical coalition that you would see supporting GOP efforts is not necessarily on board here," Daniel Jasper, senior policy advisor for Project Drawdown, tells Sentient.

Why Prop 12 Has So Many Unexpected Allies

Needless to say, it's not every day that you see Republicans, business leaders and meat farmers defending a strict government regulation that would cost businesses money in the name of protecting animals. There are a few factors at play here.

States' Rights

Some Republicans see the fight over Proposition 12 as a state's rights issue. For Congress to repeal a state law that California passed on its own accord would be a violation of state's rights, they say, and could lead to more federal intervention in state laws.

"While I don't agree with Prop 12, I'll defend to my dying day California's right to self-determination, and any state's ability to use its constitutional authority as that state's citizens best see fit," Sid Miller, the conservative Texas Agriculture Commissioner, wrote in an op-ed in The Hill. "While I understand the motivation for congressional leaders to want to rein in California, the EATS Act or something similar is a massive overreach of federal power."

Miller isn't just fear-mongering, as an analysis by Harvard Law identified over 1,000 state and local laws that could potentially be prohibited if the EATS Act passed.

"It would have really damaging implications on states' rights, the regulation of animal products, pesticides, and so forth," Ludtke says of the EATS Act's broad language. "I think it could really cause chaos throughout the industry, both for producers and regulators alike."

Increased Profits

On the business side, producers have cited several reasons for opposing a Proposition 12 rollback. In interviews with Sentient, several hog farmers have said that they support Proposition 12 not only because it's more humane, but because it's actually making them more money than before, as many welfare-minded customers are willing to pay a premium for Proposition 12-compliant products.

"Prop 12 is one of the best things, economically, that's happened to us in a very long time," Missouri pig farmer Hank Wurtz told Sentient earlier in the year. "That's good for American farmers. We need to make a living somehow. If Californians want to pay more for it, we welcome that."

Despite opponents' claims that Proposition 12 will wreak economic havoc on producers, the meat processing giant Hormel confirmed that it "faces no risk of material losses from compliance with Proposition 12." The Perdue-owned pork company Niman Farms has argued that Proposition 12 is merely a natural result of customers' growing distaste for animal suffering.

"Even without Proposition 12, the market has shifted to create strong demand for pork that is farmed humanely and without cruelty," Niman Farms wrote in a Supreme Court brief. "Proposition 12 reflects that shift in consumer preferences."

Niman Farms added that farmers can "produce [pork] for the California market under Proposition 12 standards and for other markets under less rigorous standards if they choose." As a result, the law "will not substantially burden farmers with excessive costs - just costs reflecting the preferences of the California market."

Fear of Foreign Control

Finally, a handful of Republicans oppose the EATS Act because they fear it would lead to Chinese companies having greater control of American farms and the American meat market. These folks include some of the most notoriously right-wing members of Congress, such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Andy Biggs.
The leading pork distributor in the U.S. is the Chinese-owned company Smithfield Foods. Because China has no animal welfare laws at all for livestock, Chinese companies can produce pork at a lower cost and be more competitive than American farmers. If Proposition 12 is repealed, the argument goes, Chinese meat companies will be able to sell their pork in California, thus posing a threat to the livelihoods of American hog farmers.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, the fate of Proposition 12 lies with the new Congress, and only time will tell whether lawmakers decide to scrap it or save it. But Ludtke is optimistic, and welcomes the diverse coalition that's come together to defend Proposition 12.

"I think it's an amazing campaign that highlights what can happen when you join forces across the ideological spectrum on an issue," Ludtke says. "And so I feel, again, hopeful, even though there is a lot of uncertainty that lies ahead."


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathryn Carley for Maine News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Donald Trump is in the process of filling out his second-term cabinet, and he recently announced appointees to lead the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health And Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trump’s recent cabinet appointments have the potential to significantly change food systems in America — but how?

Laura Fox, environmental lawyer and research scholar at Yale Law School, tells Sentient that we can expect “deregulation, lax enforcement, reduced oversight and de-emphasization or even denial of certain frameworks, such as climate change,” from the incoming appointees.

“Those are things that I think we can anticipate seeing across the board that will have huge negative impacts on food systems and agriculture,” Fox says. “Environmental justice issues are going to take a back seat, or just be ignored, in these agencies’ decisions.”

Will Trump’s Appointees Do Whatever He Wants?

It’s worth pointing out at the top that, although Trump’s appointees are individuals with their own viewpoints, cabinet secretaries generally do what the president wants them to do. They do have discretion and a degree of autonomy, but in practice, agency heads operate largely as functionaries to carry out the president’s agenda, not individual actors implementing their own favored policies.

There are exceptions to this, of course. In 2017, Trump became outraged with his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, after Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department’s Russia probe without first consulting the president. But this is the exception that proves the rule; for his second term, Trump has appointed a staunch loyalist to head the Justice Department, not a senator to whom he has no personal ties.

Similarly, Trump’s picks to head the USDA, EPA and HHS are likely to implement his larger policy agenda, regardless of their own personal views. There have already been some small signs of this acquiescence: Trump’s HHS appointee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was once an outspoken opponent of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, but stopped mentioning the chemical after allying himself with Trump, whose former EPA head Scott Pruitt thwarted a ban on the pesticide during Trump’s first term.

Nevertheless, it’s still worth looking at who each of these folks are, and what their appointments might mean for animals and food systems in America.

United States Department of Agriculture: Brooke Rollins

Nominated to lead the USDA is Brooke Rollins, a conservative attorney who has served in a number of policy-oriented positions over the last few decades. In Texas, she served as former Gov. Rick Perry’s policy director, and later led the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Rollins held several White House positions during Trump’s first term, including Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and Director of the Office of American Innovation. She currently leads the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a Trump-aligned think tank.

Rollins has some personal history in agriculture, as she grew up on a farm and got her undergraduate degree in agricultural leadership and development. She doesn’t appear to have any professional experience in the sector, though, and aside from her vocal opposition to Chinese ownership of American farmland, Rollins’ views on agricultural issues are largely unknown.

Given her longtime involvement in conservative politics, however, she likely shares the same general positions on agricultural and food issues as most Republicans — that is, skepticism of climate-focused initiatives, support for crop subsidies, a desire to cut SNAP funding and a general opposition to regulations.

Environmental Protection Agency: Rep. Lee Zeldin

To lead the EPA, Trump has nominated Rep. Lee Zeldin, a New York Republican. Zeldin is most known for his 2022 run for New York governor; although he lost, it was the closest New York gubernatorial race in nearly 30 years, and his respectable showing made Zeldin something of a rising star in the Republican Party.

Like Rollins, Zeldin has little apparent background in the policy area over which Trump is giving him control. His background is in the military, and during his eight years in Congress, Zeldin didn’t sit on any subcommittees relating to the environment.

Zeldin’s voting record on environmental legislation earned him a 14 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters, suggesting a hostile attitude toward regulatory efforts to protect the environment. In a 2014 interview, he questioned the urgency of climate change. “I’m not sold yet on the whole argument that we have as serious a problem as other people are,” he told Newsday. More recently, he spoke of his desire to “roll back regulations that are forcing businesses [to] struggle” after Trump announced his nomination.

Department of Health and Human Services: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Trump has tapped attorney and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the HHS. Kennedy was once a respected environmental lawyer, but has since fallen out of favor with many environmentalists due to his increasingly controversial views, which include opposing offshore wind energy and incorrectly claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine is “the deadliest vaccine ever made.”

Kennedy has many opinions about many topics, but plenty of them will fall outside his jurisdiction as HHS secretary. For instance, he’s spoken out against various pesticides and advocates frequently for organic foods — but pesticides are regulated by the EPA, and organic food by the USDA, so he won’t have much power over these areas if he’s confirmed as HHS secretary.

How Trump’s Appointees Could Affect Food Systems

Let’s take a look at a few ways in which these three appointees might have an impact on food and animals in the United States.

Failing to Regulate Pollution from Factory Farms

Although food systems generally don’t fall under the EPA’s jurisdiction, Zeldin’s pro-business stance could nevertheless have an impact on what we eat and drink. As part of its enforcement of the Clean Water Act, the EPA regulates waste and water discharges from factory farms, and the agency is currently in the midst of re-evaluating whether these regulations are sufficient.

This study hasn’t been completed yet, but once it is, the EPA will decide whether to impose more regulations on these discharges. Zeldin’s affinity for deregulation suggests that he won’t be inclined to implement additional restrictions on factory farm pollution, even if the agency’s study suggests that they’re necessary. Such a decision would, in turn, stall efforts to make American drinking water safer — which was the point of the study in the first place.

Similarly, Fox tells Sentient that Zeldin is unlikely to crack down on other kinds of pollution from factory farms, specifically methane.

“The EPA has not done much on regulating methane emissions from large animal feeding operations, and we don’t see that happening under a Zeldin administration at all,” Fox says. “I don’t think it’s unique to Zeldin. I imagine any of the Republican appointees are likely to de-emphasize or deny the impacts of climate change.”

Changing School Lunches & Dietary Guidelines for Americans

One tool Kennedy and Rollins would have for influencing American food systems is the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Written jointly by the USDA and the HHS and updated every five years, this is a lengthy compilation of dietary recommendations that guides federal food purchases and other programs involving food.

One such program is the National School Lunches Program (NSLP). The USDA administers the NSLP, and by law, the lunches themselves must adhere to the DGA’s general guidance (although the USDA has some wiggle room when it comes to interpreting these recommendations, as we’ll see).

In total, the DGA influences over $80 billion in federal spending every year, and as heads of the USDA and HHS, Rollins and Kennedy would both have a major say over what’s included in the next version of the document. This, in turn, would give them indirect influence over how a number of federal food programs operate.

For instance, Kennedy is a longtime opponent of ultra-processed foods, and has said that he wants them out of school lunches “immediately.” As head of HHS, Kennedy wouldn’t have any direct say over the school lunches program — but he would have direct say over what’s in the next edition of the DGA.

“USDA is required by statute to update child nutrition meal patterns to conform with the latest DGA, which they do every five years,“ Chloe Waterman, senior program manager at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth, tells Sentient. “Kennedy could theoretically push for limits on ultra-processed foods in the 2025-2030 DGA, which could — again, in theory, and in another five years from now — translate to USDA issuing child nutrition meal patterns that limit ultra-processed foods.”

Project 2025, the lengthy book of policy recommendations prepared by Trump allies prior to his election, recommended abolishing the DGA entirely, ostensibly because “issues such as climate change and sustainability [have] infiltrated” the guidelines, which are officially meant to cover personal health, not planetary health.

This is a misrepresentation, however, as the guidelines do not take climate or sustainability into account. This possibility was floated in 2015 during preliminary meetings about the DGA, but Congress immediately shot down the idea, and passed legislation that actively forbids the document from taking anything into consideration other than personal health and nutrition.

In any event, the USDA and HHS are required by law to publish a DGA every five years, so eliminating the guidelines entirely would require Congressional action. But simply changing what the guidelines say would not.

Cutting SNAP Funding

The USDA is also in charge of SNAP, the federal food stamps program. While SNAP is funded by Congress through the Farm Bill, the actual benefit amounts themselves are determined by something called the Thrifty Food Plan. This is essentially the USDA’s guide for eating healthfully on a limited budget, and it’s written in accordance with the DGA’s recommendations.

This means that any changes Rollins or Kennedy make to the DGA would also influence how much money food stamps recipients receive. It’s difficult to game things out beyond that, as it would depend on what specific changes they make to the DGA — and whether these changes promote foods that are more or less expensive than current SNAP benefits allow for.

Congressional Republicans have proposed changes to the SNAP program that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would effectively cut SNAP payments by $30 billion over the next decade. While this effort is taking place in Congress, where Rollins has no authority, it’s still a good indicator of where Republican Party officials stand on the issue of food stamps: they want to cut them.

Lifting Restrictions on Raw Milk

As HHS chief, Kennedy would be in charge of several other agencies as well, including the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA, which Kennedy has accused of waging a “war on public health,” regulates interstate distribution and sale of raw milk — and Kennedy is a fan of raw milk.

He shouldn’t be, as raw milk is not safe for human consumption and can even facilitate the spread of zoonotic diseases like avian flu. Nevertheless, Kennedy could lift the FDA’s (modest) restrictions on unpasteurized milk sales, making it easier for raw milk fans to find, purchase and consume the dangerous beverage, which recently gave 171 people salmonella.

Deregulating Pesticides

How exactly the second Trump administration will handle pesticides is a bit of a mystery. On the one hand, Trump has elevated and heaped praise upon Kennedy, who is broadly in favor of additional pesticide regulations; on the other hand, Trump’s first administration deregulated pesticides.

Regardless, the EPA is in charge of pesticide regulation in the U.S., so this responsibility would fall to Zeldin, not Kennedy. While Zeldin’s views on pesticides are anybody’s guess, he shares the Republican Party’s general loathing of regulations, and both progressives and conservatives expect him to pursue an agenda of deregulation as EPA chief, which could include easing regulations on pesticides.

Lax Enforcement of Animal Welfare Standards

Fox tells Sentient that she expects Rollins — ”and probably anybody that’s going to be coming into USDA in this administration” — to pursue deregulatory policies that will hurt animals and humans alike.

“We’re going to see deregulation, which affects animal welfare standards and treatment of animals at production facilities,” Fox says. “Likely, policies that will increase slaughterhouse line speeds, which then risk worker safety, food safety and animal welfare.”

She also suspects that under Rollins, inspection duties at slaughterhouses will be increasingly privatized.

“Right now, we have federal employees looking at violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and under the first Trump administration, they had proposed allowing facility employees to do that function [instead],” Fox explains. “So I imagine that’s going to continue, which could lead to fewer enforcement actions against humane handling violations.”

Supporting Agricultural Subsidies

Every year, the U.S. government hands out over $30 billion in subsidies to agricultural producers, and the USDA is in charge of distributing this money. This is another area in which Rollins, as USDA chief, could conceivably have some influence.

While Republicans and Democrats sometimes bicker about the details from time to time, farm subsidies themselves are generally supported by both major parties. There’s no significant movement within the GOP to eliminate or significantly reduce farm subsidies, which isn’t the case with many other federal spending programs.

In fact, during the last Republican administration, the USDA actually increased farm subsidy payments by a significant margin. It did this in response to Trump’s trade war with China, which caused the value of U.S. farm exports — and thus profits for U.S. agricultural producers — to plummet.

With Trump pledging even more tariffs on day one of his second term, it seems highly possible that the USDA, under Rollins’ guidance, could again increase farm subsidies to stave off financial disaster in the U.S. farming sector.

The Bottom Line

It’s worth keeping in mind that none of these appointments are a sure thing just yet, as all three nominees will need to be confirmed by the Senate. Incoming presidents generally don’t have too hard of a time getting their cabinets confirmed, but it’s entirely possible that some combination of Rollins, Kennedy and Zeldin won’t win confirmation.

If they do, though, our food systems could undergo some serious changes. Exactly what those changes will look like remains to be seen, but it’s fair to say that in general, they’ll likely prioritize business interests and profits over environmental welfare, food safety and personal health.


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