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.

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

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