A measure to end factory farming in Sonoma County has only received about 15% of the vote so far - so supporters are gathering tomorrow in Santa Rosa to find a new way forward. Measure J would have required big dairy and poultry farms classified as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to downsize significantly.

Cassie King, a member of the group End Factory Farming, said they raised the issue's profile - and will keep up the fight.

"The fact that the industry had to spend millions of dollars and rally so hard to defeat Measure J shows that they understand the public opposition to factory farming is growing and this system is on its way out," she said.

The No on J organization did not respond to a request for comment. In mailers before the election, it warned that Measure J would have cost jobs, hurt tax revenues as large farms shut down, led to higher food prices, and opened up the land to unwanted development.

Almira Tanner, lead organizer with the group Direct Action Everywhere, said cases of extreme animal confinement, cruelty and neglect have been exposed at factory farms around the country. And she calls the waste pits a huge environmental hazard.

"One of these dairy CAFOs in Sonoma County produces more waste than the human population of Petaluma. And that is not treated often. It is leaching into our groundwater," she explained. "It's emitting enormous amounts of methane, accelerating climate change."

Tanner noted that a similar initiative in Berkeley called Measure DD is currently winning with 60% of the vote. DD was intended to target the stables associated with Golden Gate Fields Racetrack, which ended up closing in June, five months before the election.

"There were up to 1,400 horses there at any given moment. They were in confinement for 22 to 23 hours a day, and of course, being trained and raced to death for profit," she continued.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When Brent Hershey entered the hog business, he was told that every pork producer in America uses gestation crates on their farm. Gestation crates are metal enclosures, typically seven feet long and two feet wide, where a pregnant female pig, a sow, is kept during her pregnancy. The stalls are so small that sows typically cannot sit or lie down for four months — the entirety of their pregnancy while in the stall. And these gestation crates, long a fixture in industrial pork production, are at the center of a fierce debate between industry groups and the hog farmers who say they don’t want to go back to using them.

Florida was the first state to ban gestation crates in 2002. At the time, Hershey thought Floridians had no idea what they were doing — that they didn’t “understand good production.” Twenty years and a California ballot initiative later, Hershey would be tearing all the gestation crates out of his 1,000-head Pennsylvania sow farm and his 2,000 head Delaware sow operation.

The new laws got Hershey rethinking the crates. “We thought, look at the life that we are asking the animal to live,” he says. “They’re going to be safe, but they can’t walk, they can’t turn around. At the same time, we started going to see some barns that animals were free in. We looked at that and thought, wow, that really looks more natural.”

California’s Proposition 12 and Question 3 in Massachusetts are state ballot measures that banned the sale of pork born to gestation crate-sows. These laws also offer protections to egg-laying hens and veal calves. Organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) have long called for Prop 12 to be overturned, and in 2023, their case against the California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary traveled from the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States. The highest court eventually upheld the constitutionality of Prop 12, but the two industry groups did not drop their opposition. Instead, they shifted focus to Congress.

The public position of the Farm Bureau and the National Pork Producers Council on gestation crates has never wavered — both groups insist pork farmers do not want the ban — yet Hershey and other farmers say differently. “As soon as the Supreme Court announced this decision, within weeks, we tore all our gestation crates out,” Hershey said at a briefing for the U.S. House of Representatives. “Now we’re on [the California] standard, and we’re doing better. It’s very ironic.”

Not long after the decision, Kansas Senator Roger Marshall introduced the “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act” to the Senate, which would prohibit “against interference by state and local governments with production of items in other states.” In effect, this bill would overturn Prop 12. And in the May 2024 version of the Farm Bill, House lawmakers included language similar to the EATS Act that would “ensure that producers of covered livestock are not subject to a patchwork of State laws restricting access to a national market.”

Farmers like Hershey are concerned that the language, if passed, could destroy the more humane pork market that has been created, nationwide and internationally, for farmers looking to serve the California market. California is the 5^th largest economy in the world, and the state gobbles up close to 15 percent of the country’s entire pork consumption.

Yet the Farm Bureau and the Pork Council continue to deliver a national campaign that all pork farmers are in favor of the EATS Act and that Prop 12 is killing their farms. “It’s not true at all,” Hershey tells Sentient. “They’re saying that they represent us all, but they do not represent us at all.”

Calling “Baloney” on the Farm Bureau

In a statement released after the Supreme Court upheld Prop 12, Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall wrote, “This law has the potential to devastate small family farms across the nation through unnecessary and expensive renovations, and every family will ultimately pay for the law through higher food prices.”

“I call baloney on that,” says Iowa hog farmer Ron Mardesen, who has been raising hogs in Iowa since the 1980s. Mardesen is a farmer with Niman Ranch, a network of farmers who produce meat that is hormone-free, cage-free and compliant with Prop 12.

Mardesen sees a lack of representation for independent farmers. “We’ve lost 90 percent of independent hog farmers in the last 35, 40 years. The National Pork Producers just sit and bobble their head every time everybody wants to get bigger and wants to get more consolidated.”

In a recent advertisement campaign backing the EATS Act, the Pork Producers Council highlights “Cindy,” a fictional character who runs a barbeque food truck that sources from Perkins Family Pig Farm. Cindy’s operation shutters due to rising pork prices, and the farm does too.

A note with the video reads: “This scenario could soon become a reality across America.” The video stresses that Prop 12 especially hurts smaller farmers: “A farm that would have been transferred to future generations deteriorates into ruin or is sold to a big company,” the narrator says. “Proposition 12 has burdened every link in the food supply chain, from the farmer to the business owner.”

Yet Missouri sow farmer Hank Wurtz says he has no idea where this is coming from. All of the farms he knows are converting to Prop 12. If a sow farm is closing, it is not because of Prop 12, Wurtz adds.

 “I know for a fact that there are many [gestational] crate farms in this country right now that are considering shutting down,” he says. “They’re not able to be viable anymore, but that’s not caused by California. That’s caused by 20,000 sow operations going up all over the Midwest. It is the rest of the industry’s large-scale operations that are making the small family farms irrelevant.”

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, since 1990, “the number of farms with hogs has declined by more than 70 percent as individual enterprises have grown larger.” Meanwhile, the number of hogs continues to grow in the U.S., primarily in concentrated animal feeding operations that typically house anywhere from 750 to tens of thousands of hogs per building.

Rising input costs and stagnant pig prices are causing smaller, independent farmers to turn to alternative strategies to stay afloat.

A New Type of Sow Farm

When Prop 12 was passed in 2019, Wurtz saw an opportunity in a niche market. According to Wurtz’s research, sow farmers have been getting approximately the same price — around $42 — for piglets throughout the past ten years. With Prop 12, Wurtz saw an opportunity to make his farm more economically viable.

“We love farming, but we need to be able to make money and support our families,” he says. “When Prop 12 came along and they’re offering around $50 a pig, that’s a game changer.”

Wurtz says he has invested $12 million into building a brand-new Prop 12 sow barn to replace his gestation crate operation in Northwest Missouri.

“It wouldn’t have been feasible in 2019 to go build a $12 million farm based on just the animal humane aspect of it. We wouldn’t have been able to bankroll it. It had to pay around 30 percent more because it cost 30 percent more to make it Prop 12,” he says.

When the law was challenged by the Supreme Court, Wurtz felt abandoned by the NPPC, and envisioned a future where small, family farms like his would no longer be able to exist.

“We were actually shaking in our boots at that time,” he says. “We’d be no longer financially viable.”

Wurtz did not get into the Prop 12 business for animal welfare — he’s sure to clarify that. But the increased quality of life for his sows has been an unanticipated benefit.

“We didn’t feel like we were abusing our animals all those years. But in hindsight, now looking at the farm that we have in Missouri here, I get the point,” he tells Sentient. “If you grow up a certain way, you just think crates are normal.”

Wurtz says he knows a lot of farmers who do not want to speak out in support of Prop 12 because they do not want to be associated with animal rights activists.

“But the fact of the matter is, Prop 12 is one of the best things, economically, that’s happened to us in a very long time,” he says. “That’s good for American farmers. We need to make a living somehow. If Californians want to pay more for it, we welcome that.”

The Farm Bill as a Legislative Vehicle

The last farm bill to pass through the U.S. Congress was in December 2018. It expired in Sept. 2023, got a one-year extension, and then expired again at the end of September 2024. The EATS Act is included in the House Republicans’ version of the 2024 farm bill draft.

“[The EATS Act] was introduced with the strategy of them trying to attach it to the farm bill,” says Farm Action Fund Senior Director of Programs Christian Lovell at an EATS Act event held at George Washington Law School. “I don’t think anybody thinks that a bill like that would be considered as a standalone item.”

The EATS Act is unprecedented in that the broad language of the bill could have larger ramifications to states’ rights than just what kind of food can be sold. According to a report by the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program, certain terms in the bill, like “agricultural products” are “defined so broadly as to potentially include vaccines, vitamins, and even narcotics.” The Act could even threaten the labeling of meat, including where it comes from.

At the G.W. Law event, Lovell emphasized that consumers care about where their food comes from and how it was raised, and the EATS Act could obstruct that information.

“The corporations that control our food system, it’s almost like they want to hang a veil over that,” he says. “They don’t want the consumer to see anything until it gets to the grocery store shelves, and that’s because those corporations have rigged a food system that is extractive to rural communities like the ones I grew up in and now live in.”

For Mardesen, the fact that the EATS Act was just slipped into the farm bill makes the prospect of its passage more likely.

“I have not seen this as a hill that many people are willing to die on. The thing that scares me, and it really worries me, is that, look, if we get into this 11th hour wheeling and dealing, and you’ve got somebody who says, ‘Okay, I’ll do this. If you do this,’ I don’t know how pivotal this is [for legislators] at this point,” he says.

The saddest part for Mardesen is the impact this could have on farmers like Wurtz, who have shifted their entire operation for Prop 12.

“So many guys have already made the commitment, already made the investment, already made the transition to gestation-crate-free systems in order to reap the benefits from the higher markets, and that stool is going to be kicked right out from underneath them,” he says. “And that’s a lot of good, hard working pork producers that we need.”

That includes hog farmers like Hershey, who came to question what he once believed to be a necessary part of his work: “If, hypothetically, that model was the cheapest way to produce pork, putting pigs in cages that can’t turn around and can’t walk for four months at a time, if that’s legitimate, then you gotta ask the question, ‘yes, but is that okay?’”


Nina Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's Department of Natural Resources is pushing a bobcat trapping plan after a new law required a hunting season by 2025.

Opponents said the plan is premature and risky without accurate data on bobcat numbers.

Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director for The Humane Society of the United States, said the DNR released only a map of bobcat sightings, mostly in southern Indiana, with no full population study.

"They should be using data to determine what type of number that quota would be," Chapman contended. "We're incredibly frustrated because we have yet to see any type of comprehensive population study from DNR."

The public hearing allows Hoosiers another opportunity to share views. Chapman hopes residents push for the zero quota to protect Indiana's recovering bobcat population. She noted the season would benefit only a few trappers. The current plan allows trapping in about 40 southern Indiana counties starting next November, with a statewide quota of 250 bobcats. Trappers would have a one-bobcat bag limit and be required to purchase a special bobcat license.

The Humane Society is determined to prevent past wildlife declines for the bobcat from repeating. Chapman pointed out wildlife watching brings far more revenue to Indiana than hunting or trapping.

"In 2022, it generated $16 billion for the state of Indiana and only half a percent of that was generated by hunting and trapping."

Chapman argued it is important for Hoosiers to stress the value of live wildlife for tourism and conservation. They are encouraged to submit comments to the Natural Resources Commission by the deadline Nov. 14. The public hearing is at 5 p.m. at the Purdue Southeast Agricultural Center in Butlerville.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Agriculture policy may not be the most high-profile political issue, but it’s an immensely important one that significantly shapes millions of lives — human and animal alike. During his presidency, Donald Trump’s actions on agriculture, animal welfare and factory farming were a stark departure from that of his predecessor, and could be a hint of things to come if Trump wins a second term in November. Let’s take a look at what we could expect from a second Trump presidency when it comes to these issues.

In recent weeks, Trump has begun saying that he wants to “make America healthy again.” He appears to have gotten this slogan from former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. Kennedy speaks a lot about improving Americans’ diets and health, and Trump has recently started using some of the same language, pledging to “make America healthy again” and “get toxic chemicals out of our environment [and] our food supply” at a recent rally in Pennsylvania.

As many observers have noted, however, this is more or less the opposite of what Trump actually did during his presidency. In addition to reversing a ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that can be fatal to humans, Trump’s deregulation of factory farms made it more difficult to track toxic pollutants in the air and water supply, and his USDA moved to let schools reduce the amount of fruits and vegetables served to students at lunch.

How Can a President Impact Meat and Agriculture Policies?

When it comes to implementing and changing the country’s agricultural policies, presidents have a number of tools at their disposal.

They can, of course, sign or veto bills sent to them by Congress. A president can also signal to Congress which legislation they’d like to see on their desk — and if the president’s party also controls the House of Representatives and the Senate, such signaling might actually be effective.

Perhaps more significantly, the president has significant latitude when it comes to shaping and implementing federal regulations. Much of this has to do with how they manage the various agencies under their control, says Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of the nonprofit Farm Forward.

“Federal agencies, and the way in which the agencies operate — how they interpret their own regulatory mandates, [and] how they choose to be more or less aggressive towards certain industries” all fall under the president’s purview, deCoriolis tells Sentient.

This element of the equation is particularly significant in the meat and agriculture industries, as both are subject to significant — though not necessarily comprehensive — regulations.

As we’ll see, Trump had a significant impact on U.S. agriculture policy, and he used all of the above tools to do so.

How Did Trump Impact Farm and Agriculture Policy As President?

Trump struck a pro-business, anti-regulation stance toward agriculture and meat producers during his time in the Oval Office, and took many actions to assist those industries — sometimes, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the expense of the general public.

In general, Trump’s actions as president also indicated a lack of concern for animal welfare. However, there are a couple of significant exceptions to this that are worth highlighting.

First, Trump signed a Farm Bill in 2018 that outlawed the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption — something that, incredibly, was only illegal in six states prior to that bill’s signing. That bill also reauthorized a program that provides federal assistance not only to victims of domestic violence, but also to their companion animals, as they transition out of abusive relationships.

The next year, Trump signed the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act  (PACT). This law strengthened existing laws against animal cruelty by closing a loophole that made it difficult to prosecute acts of animal cruelty that took place on federal land and in federal facilities.

To be clear, Trump didn’t vocally champion either of these policies, and the PACT Act was so uncontroversial that it passed unanimously in the Senate. Nevertheless, the former president could have plausibly killed either initiative if he’d so desired, and he didn’t.

But again, these were the exceptions. Most of what the Trump administration did in the agricultural realm did not improve the lives of animals, and instead empowered factory farmers and agribusiness interests.

Is Trump Funded by Agribusiness?

During his 2016 campaign, Trump did receive some donations from some major players in the agriculture industry. But it would be wrong to blame these donors for Trump’s pro-agribusiness stance, simply because these donations, in the grand scheme of things, were relatively small.

According to data from OpenSecrets, Trump received around $4.5 million in agribusiness money during the 2016 cycle. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not exactly eye-popping either, and amounted to a relatively small share of Trump’s total haul from donors that year. By contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio received almost $7 million in agribusiness donations during that same cycle — and he didn’t even make it out of the Republican primary.

That said, Trump has received almost $10 million in agribusiness donations this cycle, more than twice as much as in 2016. If nothing else, this does suggest that the industry was pleased — or at least not displeased — with his actions the last time he was president.

Trump Withdrew Organic Livestock Rules

Food in the U.S. must be produced in accordance with specific standards in order to be labeled “organic,” and the USDA is responsible for writing and enforcing these standards. At the very end of his second term, President Obama finalized a sweeping update to the organic standards for livestock that, while far from perfect or comprehensive, would significantly improve the welfare of farmed animals.

Under Trump, however, the USDA withdrew this rule — which was over 10 years in the making and had garnered overwhelming public support during its public comment period — before it could be implemented. This meant that the previous rules, which have been widely criticized for their vague language surrounding animal welfare standards, remained in place.

Ultimately, President Biden reversed Trump’s decision and implemented the new livestock standards; as such, Trump’s move to withdraw the rules amounted to little more than a three year delay. It’s also worth noting that, while the new rules were generally lauded by animal rights activists, they contained some significant loopholes and still allowed for certain gruesome farming practices, like the debeaking of chickens, to continue on organic farms.

One could argue, however, that this makes Trump’s decision even more damning than it otherwise would have been, as it indicated that even a modest improvement in animal welfare was unpalatable to his administration.

Trump Fought Against Regulating Factory Farm Emissions

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), more commonly known as factory farms, release massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the air. This exacerbates global warming and, in many cases, sickens people in nearby communities.

There are several federal laws that, in theory, would require CAFOs to track their greenhouse gas emissions and report them to the federal government. This would be the first step to eventually empowering the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factory farms.

However, thanks to a series of legal loopholes, the largest factory farms are exempt from these reporting requirements. This is largely due to several actions taken by the Trump administration.

In 2018, Trump signed a law that exempted factory farms from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), a decades-old law that requires businesses to notify federal emergency response agencies when they spill, leak or otherwise accidentally discharge hazardous waste.

The next year, Trump’s EPA adopted a rule that exempted factory farms from the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which is similar to CERCLA but covers state and local emergency agencies instead.

Trump Ordered Meatpacking Plants to Stay Open During COVID

In the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, businesses involved in food preparation came under heightened scrutiny due to the highly contagious nature of the disease and the centrality of food in American life.

Three months into the pandemic, Trump signed an executive order compelling meatpacking plants to stay open amidst the outbreak, despite mounting public health concerns. Citing the Defense Production Act, it ordered the Secretary of Agriculture to “take all appropriate action under that [act] to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations” during the pandemic, even when some state and local governments were taking measures to close those plants.

It was later revealed that the meat industry had been vigorously lobbying the Trump administration to enact such an order in the weeks before Trump issued it. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI), a trade group, had drafted a hypothetical executive order on meatpacking plants and sent it to the administration a week before Trump issued the order. Certain parts of the final order mirrored the language in NAMI’s proposal.

Two weeks before signing the executive order, he announced the formation of an advisory committee to guide efforts on reopening the economy in the wake of the pandemic. Its members included several meat industry CEOs, such as Ronald Cameron, a wealthy Republican donor and chair of the fourth-largest poultry producer in the country.

DeCoriolis cites Cameron’s appointment as a key development in the administration’s COVID response — and the subsequent consequences of that response.

“The Trump administration elevating a meat executive to a position of influence in its COVID response had huge effects on workers, primarily in slaughterhouses, many of whom got sick and died because of their exposure at work,” deCoriolis says.

In the final tally, at least 59,000 workers at meatpacking plants contracted COVID in the first year of the pandemic, 269 of whom died. A subsequent congressional investigation later found that the president and CEO of NAMI had praised the USDA for “representing our industry’s interests” in the weeks leading to the executive order.

Miscellaneous Policies, Initiatives and Actions

The day he took office, Trump suspended all proposed regulations that hadn’t yet been finalized or published, which included withdrawing a rule that would have ended the painful procedure of horse soring. However, the courts later determined that this decision was unlawful, and the rule was eventually implemented under Biden.

In 2019, Trump’s USDA came under fire again after a damning Washington Post report about the agency’s threadbare enforcement of animal welfare laws. In one particularly controversial incident, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture reportedly blocked the agency’s own inspectors from rescuing hundreds of heat-distressed raccoons they’d discovered in a metal shed in Iowa.

In 2020, Trump’s Department of the Interior issued a rule that allows a variety of controversial hunting practices in Alaska’s national reserves, such as shooting hibernating black bears in their dens and hunting swimming caribou from motor boats.

The Bottom Line

It’s worth keeping in mind that the past actions of an elected official aren’t always a perfect indicator of what they’ll do in the future; plenty of politicians have changed, or “evolved,” their stances on various issues over time, and Trump is certainly one of them.

At the same time, Trump’s history of policies on agriculture and factory farms strongly suggests that, if elected to a second term, he would be much more of an ally to agribusiness and factory farmers than to animals, consumers or the environment.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email