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
An animal activist is speaking out ahead of her trial in May - accused of trespassing, theft and conspiracy after a protest at a poultry slaughterhouse in Northern California.
Zoe Rosenberg, 22, is charged with one felony and four misdemeanors for removing four birds from Perdue's Petaluma Poultry in June 2023, and part of a group of protesters with the Berkeley-based animal rights organization Direct Action Everywhere.
"I believe that the necessity doctrine applies to non-human animals when they are in situations where they're facing life-threatening abuse or neglect, as these chickens were," Rosenberg contended. "And so, I believe that my actions were legal and necessary."
Perdue did not respond to a request for comment. The Sonoma County District Attorney's office says no city or county agencies have referred a case requesting criminal charges against the poultry operation.
Direct Action Everywhere's investigation reported multiple alleged abuses, including chickens found starving, unable to walk to the feeding station.
Rosenberg said she's disappointed that she's facing charges - but not Perdue.
"Rampant routine criminal animal cruelty was documented, including chickens suffering from disease and neglect, being left to slowly die, and evidence at the slaughterhouse was found that birds were being boiled alive," she continued. "Evidence of this misconduct was repeatedly reported to Sonoma County law enforcement and other law enforcement officials in California, and no action was taken."
Rosenberg was ordered to wear a GPS ankle monitor while awaiting trial. She faces up to 5.5 years in prison if convicted on all charges. Charges were dropped against one other activist.
Disclosure: Grace Communications Foundation contributes to our fund for reporting. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Nevada News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
American grocery shoppers say they care about animal welfare at the supermarket, and the food industry is paying attention. Branding meat, dairy and eggs with the “humanely raised” label has become increasingly common, and according to the meat industry’s research, these types of labels are enough to satisfy buyers. A 2024 study found 55 percent of Americans “feel good about animal welfare practices” in the United States — up from 43 percent in 2020. Why the uptick in such labels? Not only do they seem to be working, these labels are shockingly easy to obtain — and largely unregulated.
Who’s in Charge of Labeling Claims?
The claims you encounter on meat labels are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspections Service (FSIS). The agency reviews company claims made on food labels, about how livestock animals are raised.…such as “humanely raised,” “ethically raised,” and the like. But what does a brand have to do in order to get its label approved?
First, the company must fill out a form, and add required documentation, including a sketch, also known as a printer’s proof, of the label, along with written substantiation for any claims. “Processors need to submit documentation explaining what practices were used,” John Bovay, associate professor in food and agricultural policy at Virginia Tech, tells Sentient. The documentation should show “how farms ensured that the practices were used throughout the animal’s life.” The agency reviews the documentation, Bovay says, “and the label is approved or disapproved based on the documentation provided by processors.”
Yet no one actually goes onto farms to inspect that the claims are accurate, Bovay says. “USDA does not send inspectors to farms to verify any label claims, but relies on written substantiation or documentation from processors.”
How is Humane Defined?
Consumers might be surprised to learn there is no legal definition for this marketing claim. “USDA does not define ‘humanely raised’ or other labeling terms related to animal welfare,” Bovay explains, “so processors can create their own definitions.”
“The only thing that the guidelines require is that the company include how it chooses to define humanely raised, either on the package itself or links to where a consumer can find that definition on the company’s website,” Zack Strong, senior attorney and acting director with Animal Welfare Institute’s Farmed Animal program, tells Sentient. In some cases, he says, “humanely raised” might mean not being caged or being fed a vegetarian diet. But it could also refer to what are already standard industry conditions on factory farms.
Bovay concurs. “It appears that ‘humane’ can be used to describe standard farming practices or even concepts unrelated to animal welfare. The current FSIS guidelines on substantiating animal-raising labeling claims provide an example of a product with a ‘humanely raised’ label, where the term ‘humanely raised’ is defined as ‘fed all vegetarian diet with no animal by-products.’” He says “this diet doesn’t strike me as assuring that the animal was humanely raised.”
A 2023 review by the Animal Welfare Institute, which advocates for better labeling oversight, found that for 48 of the 97 the label claims it investigated, “the USDA was unable to provide any application submitted by the producer,” in response to a records request made by the group. In 34 of the claims, the corporate applicant provided either no substantiation at all or insufficient substantiation. In total, AWI found 85 percent of the applications lacked sufficient substantiation.
In the report, AWI researchers provide examples of inefficient substantiation, including documentation showing only minimum industry animal care standards were followed or claims where only one aspect of care, such as diet, was included. The AWI is not aware of any corrective action taken, or penalties imposed by FSIS in response to the findings in the group’s report, Strong says.
In August 2024, the USDA updated its guidelines. It now includes that the FSIS “strongly recommends” substantiating claims by obtaining third-party certification, which is aimed at a range of claims, including antibiotic use and animal welfare. But the new guidelines are a recommendation only, and may not go any further once President-elect Trump heads back to the White House.
The same lack of oversight holds for other marketing materials too, says Strong. “Pamphlets, brochures, website information that might also accompany a product in the store or online — none of that information needs [government] approval,” he says. “The only thing that needs approval is the label itself that’s on the product,” and, as we’ve seen, that approval doesn’t take much to obtain.
The Bottom Line
There are other labeling schemes worth mentioning. Some third party certification programs, such as Animal Welfare Approved, Global Animal Partnership and Certified Humane, do have specific standards around what humane means.
On its website Certified Humane states “Our goal is to ensure that farm animals are raised in humane conditions, free from abnormal distress, and allowed to express their natural behaviors.” Consumers should be aware, however, that unlike Organic, these labels are not defined or regulated by law.
As the market for “humane” food labels continues to grow, a lack of regulation and of clear definitions for humane meat claims leaves consumers vulnerable. The terms “humane” and “humanely raised” can vary widely in meaning, or mean nothing at all. Without more stringent oversight, clearer definitions and on-site verifications, the risk of humane-washing persists, victimizing both consumers and animals.
Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
A dead elk found east of Pinedale tested positive for Chronic Wasting Disease earlier this month, marking the first such death inside a Wyoming feedground.
After a multiyear study of feedgrounds, one wildlife manager said the incident "hits home." Elk feedgrounds were started more than a century ago to provide extra food during tough winters but with increased spread of Chronic Wasting Disease, a fatal neurological condition, the practice has become riskier.
John Lund, regional wildlife supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said the department released an Elk Feedgrounds Management Plan last year to help navigate the evolving situation.
"The primary goal of that plan was to evaluate our feedgrounds," Lund explained. "And look for ways that we can reduce reliance on elk and ultimately figure out how to reduce the potential for disease spread in those feedgrounds."
Today, feedgrounds are used to address modern challenges for elk including habitats fragmented by highways and human development. Lund pointed out they also help ranchers who want to avoid elk eating their cattle feed and disease spread to their herds.
According to the plan, the Scab Creek feedground, where the Chronic Wasting Disease-positive carcass was found, had an average population of 800 elk during winters between 2020 and 2023. That's about 300 more than the state's quota.
"We're taking disease sampling whenever we can on those feed grounds, removing dead carcasses that show any kind of disease symptoms or anything like that, trying to remove them from the landscape," Lund noted.
A 2024 U.S. Geological Survey report modeled population predictions of the state's Jackson Elk Herd 20 years from now, under five different feeding practices. The "continue feeding" option was predicted to have the most severe consequences: a herd at less than half its current size and the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease to 35% of its remaining elk.
get more stories like this via email