Certified Humane® label also sued after Farm Forward’s 2024 findings on inhumane conditions at Alexandre.

Furious consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Alexandre Family Farm and the owners of the Certified Humane® label based on findings released last year in Farm Forward investigation of the farm’s routine animal abuse and neglect and selling of diseased animals for human consumption. The class action lawsuit, filed by Richman Law & Policy (RLP), alleges that Alexandre dairy farm and Humane Farm Animal Care—the entity behind the Certified Humane® label—humanewashed the farm’s practices, misleading consumers and falsely representing Alexandre products as “humane,” all while Alexandre engaged in shocking and systemic acts of animal cruelty.

The lawsuit relies on both Farm Forward’s investigation and new, previously unreleased evidence of cruel treatment to calves. The lawsuit describes how, despite the overwhelming evidence of abuse, Certified Humane allowed Alexandre Family Farm to market their products as “humane.” The suit details how the farm: 

• Poured salt into the eyes of hundreds of cows and glued denim patches to cows’ eyes
• Sawed off horns of more than 800 cows through tissue laced with nerves without any pain management
• Severed a cow’s teat with an unsanitized pocketknife
• Dragged a cow across concrete and gravel for 50 yards using a skid loader
• Failed to provide routine veterinary or hoof care management
• Transported of sick, injured, and lame cows to auction rather than euthanizing them

These allegations underscore Farm Forward’s investigation and report, which was originally featured in The Atlantic. Full details on the lawsuit and additional findings can be found here.

“Consumers are tired of paying more for a lie,” said Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis. “This investigation unfortunately reveals that even a dairy that has been touted as one of the most ethical operations in the country cannot be trusted by consumers to treat its animals humanely. It reveals that there is virtually no way for Americans to know if they are consuming higher welfare dairy, no matter how much extra they pay. And it reveals that voluntary labels like Certified Humane are inadequate for protecting consumers or providing any sort of public accountability for these companies. The USDA needs to set and enforce meaningful standards for terms like ‘humanely raised,’ ‘sustainably raised,’ and ‘antibiotic free.’ Without regulation, consumers can just get conned.

“This lawsuit sends a clear message: consumers will hold companies accountable for making false promises about animal welfare. When a dairy widely considered the industry’s gold standard for ethics fails to meet basic welfare standards—and their certifier fails to enforce them—it exposes a broken system. Today, there’s simply no way to guarantee your dairy purchases support better treatment of animals, regardless of price or certification. The most ethical choice is to opt out of dairy from cows.”

###

Farm Forward is a team of strategists, campaigners, and thought leaders guiding the movement to change the way our world eats and farms. Learn more at https://www.farmforward.com/

The fraud, corruption, and systemic animal abuses of Alexandre Family Farm revealed by Farm Forward have resulted in the filing of a consumer class action lawsuit against the mega-dairy. Humane Farm Animal Care, the group behind the “Certified Humane” label, has also been sued as part of the action. This civil case follows a separate case enforcing California criminal statutes that prohibit animal cruelty, filed against Alexandre in late 2024, which indicts the dairy for serious and pervasive animal abuse.

The new civil case alleges that Alexandre and Certified Humane falsely represented Alexandre products as “humane” while Alexandre engaged in shocking and widespread acts of animal cruelty. For example, Farm Forward’s investigation found that Alexandre staff poured salt into the eyes of hundreds of cows, sawed off the horns of more than 800 cows through tissue laced with nerves without any pain management, cut off a cow’s teat with an unsanitized pocketknife, dragged a cow who was unable to walk across concrete, for years provided no routine veterinary or hoof care management, and transported sick, injured, and lame cows to auction rather than treating or euthanizing them.

If the court finds that Alexandre and/or Certified Humane engaged in false, fraudulent, misleading, unfair, deceptive, and/or unlawful conduct in their representations about the humane status of Alexandre products, the suit could result in Alexandre having to pay affected consumers more than $5,000,000. This lawsuit puts producers everywhere on notice that today’s consumers will hold them accountable for humanewashing—false promises of animal welfare. 

In addition to holding Alexandre accountable, the lawsuit builds on questions our investigative report raised “about whether the Certified Humane program adequately or effectively audits businesses approved to use their label” (“Dairy Deception” page 31). The suit alleges that, based on Certified Humane’s own representations, Certified Humane was aware of the conditions at Alexandre in the years leading up to our report, yet took no action to remove Alexandre from its certification program or prevent Alexandre from using the Certified Humane logo on Alexandre’s products or website.

Consumers in the class action suit will be represented by Richman Law & Policy (RLP), an experienced litigation firm that focuses on consumer protection and the domestic food supply. RLP has represented and/or co-counseled with groups including Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, Global Witness, GC Resolve, and Food and Water Watch. RLP served as lead counsel in Jones v. Monsanto (W.D. Mo.), which resulted in a $39.55 million fund for consumers, along with agreed-upon changes to Roundup weedkiller products labels. RLP was co-lead counsel in Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a $7 million fund for consumers and agreed-upon changes to the marketing of Aveeno personal care products.

Lawsuit includes new findings of Alexandre’s animal abuses and Certified Humane’s complicity

While primarily relying on the evidence uncovered by Farm Forward, the lawsuit also reveals new findings of an independent investigator, previously unknown to Farm Forward, who visited Alexandre during the period covered by our investigation. 

The investigator found calves in barred hutches who were covered in feces, urine, and mud, many of them standing in pools of waste rising above the calves’ hooves, the slurry completely covering the only area where the calves could lie down. 

In clear violation of Certified Humane standards, calves in these hutches could not set one foot outside, had no access to an exercise area, and were left in hutches for a full month longer than the eight week maximum allowed by Certified Humane standards. One calf had an ear tag that appeared to show a birth date four months prior to the investigator’s visit, suggesting that the calf had been hutched for two months beyond Certified Humane’s eight week age limit. 

The investigator, who has observed many calf hutches on many farms, describes the hutches as the least sanitary the investigator had ever seen.

Certified Humane is incriminated by these conditions as much as Alexandre. Certified Humane assures customers that animal products bearing the Certified Humane Raised & Handled logo “come from operations that meet precise, objective standards for farm animal treatment.” Yet Certified Humane took no action to prevent Alexandre from using the Certified Humane logo on Alexandre’s products or website, despite Certified Humane’s standards requiring that the calves must be:

• kept clean
• isolated in individual hutches no later than eight weeks of age
• provided access “at all times” to an area for laying down that is bedded, comfortable, dry, and sloped to provide drainage 
• provided an outdoor exercise area when weather conditions permit 
• able to lie down and rest “without hindrance” 

A turning point for humanewashing

Together, the Farm Forward investigation, the Atlantic article, and now this class action lawsuit are a turning point in holding producers accountable for humanewashing—the common practice of marketing animal products with deceptive packaging, labels, and certifications to promote the illusion of animal well-being, while concealing the extent of animals’ abuse, neglect, illness, and suffering.

Animal agriculture’s worst animal abuses cannot be prevented by simply buying the animal products that farms and certifications themselves dishonestly claim are better. Ultimately, we need federal consumer protection laws that meaningfully define and enforce terms like “humane” and “sustainable” on products. Until we can secure those common sense regulations, we must use the legal system to hold companies and certifications accountable for humanewashing.  Since this case could begin a new chapter for both consumer protection and animal welfare, consumers, law firms, and meat, dairy, and egg companies across the country will watch closely how it unfolds.

Farm Forward is proud to announce the launch of a new nonprofit, the Center for Jewish Food Ethics (CJFE)—the culmination of our eight years of incubation and support for farmed animal advocacy in the Jewish community.

In 2016, Farm Forward launched our in-house program, the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA) as the centerpiece of our religious outreach. Every day since, JIFA has advanced its first-of-its-kind mission to help Jewish communities align their food choices with their Jewish values. 

JIFA supported Jewish communities connecting animal welfare, food, farming, and advocacy with Jewish identity, values, and rituals. It started off with a bang in 2016, by training educators, reviving non-factory-farmed kosher heritage chicken for the first time in decades, and designing the animal welfare audit of the Hazon Seal of Sustainability, a LEED-style certification with animal welfare provisions that were adopted by institutions serving 17,000 individuals and an additional 2,000 families.

With Farm Forward’s help, JIFA continued to accomplish great things over the next eight years, including:

• Leading training programs for Hillel International—representing over 500 Jewish community campus centers globally—on serving plant-based food by default.
• Providing programming for 100+ Jewish camps, synagogues, youth groups, community centers, schools, college programs, affinity groups and conferences to spark inquiry into how Jewish values can influence how we treat animals. 
• Developing educational materials such as the Jewish Animal Ethics Community Study Guide, The Ark Project Service-Learning Workbook, and many Jewish holiday resources. 
• Supporting the first American Jewish organizations, including synagogues, in committing to serve plant-based foods by default at all of their events. 
• Co-organizing yearly interfaith webinars, the most recent drawing more than 400 participants from five countries. 
• Presenting on animal welfare and Jewish food justice to countless conferences, and shifting several of those conferences to serve higher welfare animal products and more plant-based foods.
• Providing educational resources used by 1,500+ educators and students, and delivering educational presentations to 5,000+ people.
• Placing content in leading Jewish publications including The Forward, Jewish Journal, JWeekly, Tablet, and Times of Israel, as well as major media outlets like Religion News Service and The Washington Post, on why kosher shouldn’t be factory farmed, reimagining our food practices, pandemic risk, and sustainable food choices. 
• Launching the Jewish Leadership Circle, supporting and recognizing Jewish institutions (including Yale University’s Hillel) shifting to higher welfare animal products and reducing animal consumption.
• Inspiring more than 250 rabbis and senior Jewish leaders and 20,000 individuals to call out kosher humanewashing of factory farmed animal products and urging institutions to adopt more sustainable food practices.
• Commissioning novel research on consumers’ perceptions of kosher certification, and unearthing new American misconceptions about what a kosher label means for animals, workers, and the planet.
• Posting 11 billboards, and social media reaching hundreds of thousands, directing viewers to JIFA’s “Is this Kosher?” website. 
• Influencing the Rabbinical Assembly to pass a resolution stating that “shifts to our institutional food practices, such as reducing factory-farmed animal product consumption, would help us to better achieve our values.”

The aforementioned resolution tasked the Rabbinical Assembly’s Social Justice Commission with creating a subcommittee that would “revisit [the RA’s] work in the area of ethical food consumption.” This led directly to forming JIFA’s Partnership for Sustainable Dining with the Rabbinical Assembly (RA), which has yielded the first-ever Jewish denominational cohort to establish plant-forward food policies and continues under the direction of CJFE. Not only have the cohort members immediately slashed their buying and serving of meat and dairy, but their commitment to upholding this practice as an expression of their religious moral values has wide-reaching cultural significance. Normalizing plant-based foods as the default among Jewish communities, while intensive work, shows that plant-based eating is, in fact, a resonant way for them to put Jewish values of compassion, justice, and repair into action.

JIFA’s stellar run over the past eight years validates Farm Forward’s commitment to movement building, and our approach to community-centered advocacy. Our theory of change assumes that advocates can be highly influential when they focus their advocacy within their own community, and ground their objectives in the unique cultural, political, economic, and overlapping social justice concerns specific to that community. This strategy is quite distinct from campaigns run by national organizations in which mainstream advocates target particular demographics with the aim of mobilizing that demographic to support the agenda of the larger movement. 

The value of JIFA’s authentically embedded, community-focused advocacy has been recognized as so significant that JIFA and its longstanding partner in this work, Jewish Veg, can now come together to create a new nonprofit to steward this work indefinitely. The new CJFE will continue to transform dining practices, and establish more sustainable and humane food sourcing, as the norm in Jewish spaces. 

Formerly the Director of JIFA, CJFE Executive Director Rabbi Melissa Hoffman writes, “Over the eight years Farm Forward incubated JIFA as one of its programs, culminating as JIFA’s partner and fiscal sponsor in this launch, our close work with Farm Forward made a deep impact both practically and philosophically on JIFA & CJFE. Practically, CJFE would not exist if not for the support and guidance JIFA received from Farm Forward. Philosophically, we continue to be proud to serve as a vehicle to bring Farm Forward’s values and experience transforming the food system to Jewish institutions, as a model for change for other religious communities.”

CJFE will carry on JIFA’s legacy of sparking inquiry into topics of food justice through the lens of long and evolving Jewish traditions and values, while strengthening communities in the process. We celebrate that CJFE’s three inaugural staff members are all former staff of JIFA (under the incubation of Farm Forward), that two of its Board members, Lisa Apfelberg and Ilana Braverman, are similarly former JIFA staff, and that a third Board member, Dr. Aaron Gross, is Farm Forward’s founder and CEO. 

This is not the first time that Farm Forward has spun off a new nonprofit organization. If the wild success of Better Food Foundation and Greener by Default are any guide, CJFE will be a force to reckon with in the years to come.

To learn more about CJFE and stay apprised of their work, head over to their website (check out that logo!) and add your info to the “Stay in the Know” form at the bottom of any page.

Three U.S. Senators, working closely with Farm Forward, have urged the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to strengthen its guidelines on animal welfare and environmental labeling claims, citing widespread deception in food marketing that harms both consumers and independent farmers.

In a letter addressed to USDA Deputy Under Secretary Sandra Eskin, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Cory A. Booker, and Sheldon Whitehouse outlined serious concerns about the current guidelines. The letter notes that the guideline “falls short of what is needed to protect producers and consumers from the unfair misuse of animal welfare and animal-raising claims.” 

Farm Forward, which helped draft the letter, strongly supports these Senators’ efforts to reform labeling practices, and has additionally called for mandatory testing requirements for “antibiotic free” claims.

The Senators emphasized that 78 percent of consumers pay premium prices for products with higher welfare claims, while 85 percent believe the government should establish and enforce clear definitions for animal welfare labels. However, the current guidelines allow major agricultural corporations to exploit these labels without meaningful verification.

The letter quotes an Indiana turkey farmer’s statement to the New York Times of how higher welfare producers like him are disadvantaged by the prevalence of mega-corporations’ misleading labels: “Big Ag has co-opted and bastardized every one of our messages … When they use a fancy label with absolutely meaningless adjectives, there’s just no way we can compete.” Humanewashing labels undermine independent farmers who invest in implementing the actual animal-raising practices they advertise.

The Senators proposed three key recommendations, which Farm Forward endorses:

1. Mandatory third-party certifications for animal welfare claims like “humane” and “humanely raised”
2. Stronger definitions for terms such as “free-range,” “grassfed,” and “pasture-raised”
3. Prohibition of inherently misleading negative claims, such as “hormone-free” labels on poultry products where hormone use is already illegal

In addition, Farm Forward calls for mandatory testing of products labeled as “antibiotic free.” Currently, these labels often rely solely on producers’ unverified claims, which at times blatantly mislead consumers about antibiotic use in meat production. Perdue, which touts their leadership on antibiotic stewardship, vocally opposes both mandatory on-farm testing by the USDA and sensitive testing at slaughterhouses, raising serious questions about their commitment and transparency.

“At a time when our nation is losing independent farms at an alarming rate, we cannot allow mislabeled products to continue tipping the scales in favor of further consolidation,” the Senators wrote, emphasizing that major agricultural corporations cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

With Farm Forward, these senators find self-evident the importance of protecting the integrity of food labelling, ensuring fair competition in the agricultural sector, and providing consumers with accurate information about their food choices.

To supplement the Senators’ letter, Farm Forward—along with Consumer Reports, ASPCA, Compassion in World Farming, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), and George Washington School of Public Health Milken Institute’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center—wrote a letter to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) calling for the following actions, among others:

• FSIS should prohibit use of negative antibiotic use claims on products from animals that test positive for antibiotics
• FSIS should require regular testing for all negative antibiotic use claims, not only for new applications but also for companies already approved for these claims and selling in the marketplace
• FSIS should require producers whose product tests positive for antibiotics to demonstrate how they have adequately addressed the root causes of the problem before they are allowed to resume making the claim
• USDA should conduct and report publicly on its own testing for antibiotics on all food-animal species for all products labeled with negative antibiotic use claims
• Following a public comment period and participation from all relevant stakeholders, FSIS should codify minimum standards for all animal-raising claims, rather than continuing to employ incredibly vague definitions that allow a huge spectrum of systems to use the same raising claims, failing consumers and producers alike
• FSIS should require (not simply recommend) ongoing third-party verification to substantiate label claims concerning antibiotic, environmental/carbon, and animal welfare claims
• FSIS should provide financial and technical assistance to small producers to help them access meaningful third-party certification
• FSIS should set clear definitions of environmental-related claims such as “regeneratively raised”, “raised using regenerative agriculture practices”, “sustainably raised”, “carbon neutral”, “low-carbon” and “environmentally responsible”
• FSIS should prohibit the recently approved “Low-Carbon Beef” claim as inherently misleading, since conventional beef production emits more greenhouse gasses than any other food product

Farm Forward will continue to work alongside legislators and other stakeholders to advocate for essential reforms in food labeling practices. Label integrity for environmental, animal raising, and antibiotics claims will help not only the environment, animal welfare, and public health, but also consumers and independent farmers. Having labels that mean what the public believes they mean will be win-win for everyone—at least, everyone who’s not trying to scam the system. We’ve seen recent progress, with the USDA recommending voluntary verification for some label claims. It’s time for USDA to turn those recommendations into requirements.

A USDA testing program finds that at least 20 percent of tested cattle samples labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “no antibiotics ever” tested positive for antibiotics. USDA buries findings and reports no punitive action.

Last year, the United States Department of Agriculture launched a sampling project, to test food products labeled with USDA-approved voluntary marketing claims like “raised without antibiotics,” “no antibiotics ever.” The results are in, and the USDA has found antibiotics in at least 20 percent of cattle tested for drugs. Unfortunately, even after confirming that many cattle products are fraudulently labeled antibiotic-free, the USDA will not require meat companies to test and prove the accuracy of their claims. The USDA’s negligence allows large meat companies to profit off of consumers who pay a premium for a product they believe is healthier and more humane, all based on a lie. The USDA’s inaction will hurt farmers and ranchers who raise animals in more humane ways, without the routine use of antibiotics, and who can’t compete against meat companies who cheat.

While the USDA’s disappointing announcement is consistent with its long history of prioritizing big ag over the public, allowing this level of deception to persist in beef without even requiring testing surprised even us. Anything short of requiring testing is good for companies that are cheating and provides yet another example of the USDA’s toothless responses to factory farms’ failures to adhere to common sense standards.

“Increasingly, consumers are looking for products that align with their values, but it’s clear the meat industry is unable or unwilling to meet consumer expectations. Meat companies want to skate by on flimsy marketing claims like ‘sustainable,’ ‘humane,’ and ‘antibiotic free,’ without actually doing the work to ensure a product that meets those standards,” said Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis. “Humanewashing this flagrant usually is the domain of industry, but here the USDA is trying to sell us news that the US beef supply is compromised — and a meaningful percentage actually contaminated — as good news, and even evidence of their trustworthiness. Meanwhile, the USDA won’t even disclose which companies’ products tested positive for antibiotics in their study, so the public remains in the dark and doesn’t know who to trust. With no regulatory action in place to stop this harmful trend, the USDA has basically greenlit meat companies deceptively marketing products and continuing to lie to us.”

“Companies advertising RWA or antibiotic-free labels should implement transparent testing procedures with data made easily accessible to consumers. And the USDA must provide regulations for all findings. The government can’t pass that task off to the private sector because these findings reiterate that industries won’t voluntarily check themselves. It’s up to the USDA to decide that meat companies can’t jeopardize public health to turn a profit.”

Dr. Aaron Gross, founder of Farm Forward and Director of the University of San Diego Center for Food Systems Transformation, added, “Remembering that the USDA has an impossible dual mandate — to both protect consumers and promote Big Ag — helps explain its cowed response to massive deception in the beef industry. The USDA’s data suggests the need for transformation, but instead the agency is helping meat companies continue to deceive the public. Encouraging only voluntary testing amounts to a signal that deceptive labeling is an acceptable business strategy. The USDA’s response is pretending that this highly profitable mislabeling is happening by accident. The pattern suggests the mislabeling is by design.”

###

This piece was written by Farm Forward’s Summer Intern, Molly Mulvaney.

As a result of the widespread use of antibiotics on industrial animal farms antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a pressing global health issue.1 AMR both threatens the effectiveness of modern medicines and creates conditions for the rapid spread of deadly illnesses. The links between industrial animal farming and the antimicrobial resistance crisis, and the connection between deforestation and risk of new zoonotic diseases, are examples of how human health is inextricably linked to the health of nonhuman animals and to the health of the environment. The scientific and public health community have long recognized these connections and now describe the connections as “One Health.” The World Health Organization (WHO) defines One Health as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. In the past decade the One Health framework has grown in prominence and is increasingly accepted by national governments and international bodies.

Antimicrobial Resistance is an increasing threat to human and animal health. Solving the problem requires significant reforms to agricultural policy and industrial animal farming practices. Yet, the largest international One Health programs largely fail to acknowledge industrial animal farming as a key threat to the One Health mission. While governments in low- and middle-income countries take the risk of AMR and zoonoses head on, high-income countries continue to dodge root causes and point their fingers elsewhere. To seriously address the AMR crisis, culpable nations must integrate agricultural reform into their One Health frameworks and public policies.

Today, over a dozen countries and international agencies have published variations of “One Health” policies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, India, the Netherlands, China , and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The foci of One Health vary among countries and international agencies, but most are concerned with AMR, zoonotic diseases, food safety, public health, environmental degradation, and vector-borne illnesses. The growing number of One Health initiatives use the framework as a guide for public policy, but none adequately address any root issues of AMR, particularly industrial animal agriculture. The One Health framework must incorporate both systemic reform of animal agriculture and preventative measures in developed countries. Without both objectives One Health approaches fail to ensure a better future for humans, animals, and the planet.

Antimicrobial Resistance is a Factory Farming Problem

In 2019, AMR indirectly contributed to nearly 5 million deaths and directly caused over a million. Animal agriculture is a large contributor to AMR due to producers’ widespread use of antimicrobials to prevent disease and to promote animal growth. The WHO declared that “approximately 80% of total consumption of medically important antibiotics is in the animal sector” of certain countries.2 The United States is one of the largest contributors to antibiotic overuse, with consumption per kilogram of livestock almost twice as high than that of all of Europe in 2020. Despite the efforts of groups like the US and UN, however, One Health action plans have failed to take seriously the prevention of AMR within animal agriculture.

What Are Countries and International Agencies Doing to Address AMR? Not Enough.

One of the largest One Health programs is the One Health Quadripartite (OHQ), made up of the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the UN Environment Programme, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health (formerly OIE). This consortium of international organizations has communicated strong goals for tackling AMR but misses the mark. The OHQ published a “One Health Joint Plan of Action” that dictates their plans for the years 2022-2026. Although the plan emphasizes preventive measures, it lacks any focus on problems stemming from the animal agriculture sector. The document acknowledges that “livestock and fish production systems are not specifically addressed” despite their importance in both preventing and solving AMR. In the OHQ’s lengthy AMR research agenda, they boast that their focus lies “at the interface between sectors that are most relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs),” even though these countries are doing the least to contribute to the AMR crisis. The OHQ’s attitude resembles US remarks that other countries must work to solve climate change while not doing enough itself to reduce emissions. Mitigation and treatment of AMR in LMICs is important, but entirely overlooks causes of AMR attributable to massive meat companies in countries like the US.

The EU Commission on One Health (“Commission”) has similar goals to OHQ but focuses slightly more on the importance of animal agriculture in solving AMR. Animal agriculture reforms from the Commission are vague or unenforceable, leading to minimal or no changes in the production system. Their guidelines on antimicrobial use on animals read, “training courses and guidance materials given to farmers should include information on preventive measures that promote animal health, in particular, implementation of biosecurity measures, good farming practices and herd health planning.” Training courses and guidance materials are valuable but the Commission lacks specific standards, regulations, and rules to gain meaningful change. The Commission does describe some specific methods for addressing AMR, including supplying quality feed and water, improving housing, and using safe alternatives to antimicrobials. While these changes may begin to address the AMR crisis, they have not yet been translated into legislative policies or other regulatory actions.

In the United States, the One Health Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (OH-FICC), run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is the leading organization for One Health. OH-FICC works with numerous federal regulatory bodies including the USDA and FDA. Despite the extensive network of OH-FICC, the initiative lacks appreciable calls for animal agriculture reform or preventative measures. OH-FICC fails to take accountability for the massive amount of antibiotics used on animals within the food system. The organization contains a National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, yet will not publicly acknowledge that most of the antibiotics used in the United States are on animals raised for food. In the last few years, OH-FICC has focused much of its resources on projects that evaluate livestock farming in LMICs and find alternative practices that reduce disease and AMR. Animal agriculture can surely use reform, but it is hypocritical of the CDC to ask LMICs to change small farming operations when the United States has some of the most unethical, disease-ridden, AMR-causing livestock practices in the world.

Although previous examples demonstrate One Health failures, Rwanda’s lengthy One Health framework displays thorough and promising initiatives against AMR. Rwanda has developed a report on their One Health plans through 2026 in addition to an entire action plan on AMR. Their AMR plan includes a focus on both animal agriculture and prevention and breaks down objectives including increased education, surveillance, sanitation, and hygiene. Perhaps their most important efforts include training for agricultural workers, veterinarians, and agronomists while also implementing biosecurity guidelines for farms, slaughter plants, and aquaculture facilities. Moreover, the Rwandan government seeks to “restrict broad or generalized use of antimicrobials as growth promoters or as feed additives” and “strengthen regulation and oversight for the supply chain and use of antimicrobials in agriculture and veterinary medicine.” Rwanda’s plan for preventing and treating AMR is highly sophisticated compared to other nations. The CDC, for example, includes minimal AMR prevention, despite the US having 72 times the amount of cattle as Rwanda. Rwanda’s work exhibits a strong start for combating AMR that other, more culpable countries must follow and augment.

Conclusion

Climate change and the intensification of animal production will continue to exacerbate AMR, zoonoses, and emerging health threats. Powerful countries and international organizations must take greater responsibility for public health and develop thorough, accountable One Health approaches.

More than 40 dairy herds in nine states have been infected with the latest strain of H5N1 bird flu. The virus has also infected at least two farmworkers, one in Texas and another in Michigan. We’re even seeing outbreaks in domestic cats and house mice.

The USDA and FDA maintain that dairy milk is safe to consume. Government regulators say pasteurization kills off the virus, though new research finds that commercial pasteurization doesn’t kill all live viruses in milk, meaning there may be live viruses in milk on store shelves. As for unpasteurized dairy products like raw milk, the FDA and USDA recommend not consuming them. Despite this warning, sales of raw milk are increasing. State laws on raw milk vary widely, and though the FDA is urging states to ramp up testing and restrictions, few states have limited the sale of raw milk meaning thousands of consumers are at risk of exposure to bird flu in dairy products.

The most upsetting part of the current bird flu outbreak is that it’s not a surprise. Farm Forward has been sounding the alarm for years that factory farms are petri dishes for zoonotic diseases. On factory farms—which account for 99 percent of animals raised for food—animals are overwhelmingly genetically uniform, immunocompromised, and crammed together by the tens of thousands. Following the emergence of COVID-19, Farm Forward board members Jonathan Safran Foer and Aaron Gross warned in an April 2020 op-ed in the Guardian of the need to end the industrial chicken industry as a measure to prevent future bird flu pandemics. Now that bird flu has spread to more than 200 wild animals, including seals, bears, and mountain lions, and has spread to domestic and farmed animals such as cats and dairy cows, further spread of bird flu seems inevitable. If the virus jumps to pigs, the chances of a wider human outbreak increase substantially.

So why isn’t more being done to protect the public from dangerous farming practices? Simple. Factory farm owners are incentivized by profits, and the simple-but-scary fact is that it’s more profitable to raise animals in ways that are dangerous to public health, harm animals, and pollute the environment. And government bodies are mostly unwilling to use their authority to meaningfully regulate industrial animal farming, instead seeing their role as protecting the financial interests of agribusiness.

Take testing. The federal government has mandated testing only of lactating dairy cows traveling across state lines. Funds have been allocated to pay farm owners to test dairy herds, but officials say they can’t mandate broader testing. And farmworkers who get tested are eligible to receive $75 each—but that’s hardly an incentive, as testing positive would require workers to visit a clinic, then stay home from work. Many of them can’t afford to do either.

Instead of getting at the root cause by better regulating farms, the federal government is scrambling to get ready for the now-inevitable spread of bird flu; they’re preparing 4.8 million doses of a bird flu vaccine for humans in case the virus jumps again.

Maddeningly, the federal government is also reimbursing giant farming corporations for cleaning up the mess they themselves caused. Farms kill animals en masse and get paid for it. Our own investigation found the USDA has paid $715 million to companies like Tyson and Jennie-O to compensate for losses from bird flu outbreaks that those very companies largely caused. “These payments are crazy-making and dangerous,” said Andrew deCoriolis, Farm Forward’s executive director. “Not only are we wasting taxpayer money on profitable companies for a problem they created, but we’re not giving them any incentive to make changes.”

The best treatment for a pandemic is preventing it before it starts—by decreasing the size of animal farms, reducing crowding, and improving the genetics of the animals. These steps are critical in addressing the underlying conditions that lead to pandemics like the one we’re now facing.

This was originally a press release sent out on May 23, 2024

UPDATE: Farm Forward’s Investigation into Alexandre Farm Triggers Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department Investigation, Loss of Certified Humane Status, Changes from Organic Retailers; New Videos, Photos Released as Investigation Continues.

Pressure is building on Alexandre Farm a month after the release of Farm Forward’s investigation into their harmful and inhumane dairy farming practices as new alarming photos and videos emerge.

Since the release of an extensive investigation last month revealing Alexandre Family Farm’s animal abuse, selling of diseased animals for human consumption, and polluting farm practices, pressure has been building on the once widely endorsed “organic” dairy farm, with many businesses and organizations moving to withdraw their support:

• Whole Foods Market took down a major marketing campaign (archived here, current link is dead) featuring Alexandre Family Farm as a beacon for “restarting dairy” and referring to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards;”
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, apparently took down and removed the Our Impact page from its website, which claimed that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change;”
• The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department opened an animal abuse investigation into Alexandre Farm, and Farm Forward has offered to provide eyewitness testimony;
• Certified Humane, one of the most widely available humane certifications, has pulled their certification of Alexandre Family Farm;
• Regenerative Organic Alliance suspended Alexandre’s certification after their own investigation found standards violations; and
• Providore Fine Foods in Portland, Oregon, ended their relationship with Alexandre Family Farm as a result of the investigation.

Portions of the report were included in a major story released by The Atlantic that corroborated many of Farm Forward’s findings. The article was one of the top shared stories on The Atlantic’s website for several days.

Today, Farm Forward has also released several new videos and photos that prove abuse and neglect of Alexandre Family Farm continued as recently as March 2024, the same month that Alexandre learned that Farm Forward planned to release a report alleging the farm’s widespread abuse. We hoped that Alexandre might acknowledge the harms it’s caused and make immediate structural changes to address their ongoing animal welfare issues. Instead, Alexandre continues to deflect, deceive, and mistreat cows. If Alexandre insists on moving ahead with no changes, the question becomes, how will other companies, certifiers, and advocates respond to their commitment to abuse and corruption?

Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis stated, “Alexandre Farm responding to our investigation by doubling down on their lies to consumers flies in the face of the values Alexandre claims to stand for. Despite its denials, we’ve received new evidence that Alexandre has continued the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse our report described. And at the same time, Alexandre has knowingly deceived consumers, continuing to market their products with logos claiming Certified Humane and Regenerative Organic Certified — certifications that pulled or suspended Alexandre. Unfortunately, this kind of ongoing humanewashing is both common and tolerated within the industry. While retailers’ quiet changes to marketing may mean fewer consumers purchase Alexandre’s products, we need retailers and food companies to take bolder action to hold companies accountable for abusing animals and misleading consumers. At this point, companies that continue to do business with Alexandre are supporting the mistreatment of animals and knowingly deceiving their own customers.”

Concerned consumers can continue to support Farm Forward’s push for change by signing up to join its campaign. Animal welfare certifications did not prevent these abuses, and most appear to be broken, so Farm Forward also asks conscientious consumers to consider rejecting dairy products altogether.

###

(Photo by Justin Maxon for The Atlantic)

When we released our investigative report Dairy Deception: Corruption and Consumer Fraud at Alexandre Family Farm (Alexandre), and The Atlantic published their own article, we knew that Alexandre would have to respond.

We hoped that Alexandre might acknowledge the harms they’ve caused and make immediate structural changes to address their ongoing animal welfare issues. Instead, Alexandre has continued to deflect and deceive. And despite having been tipped off that the report was coming, new video evidence suggests they continued to mistreat cows.

First the Alexandres tried to undermine the credibility of Annie Lowrey, the journalist who wrote about our investigation in The Atlantic, characterizing her a “self-described radical vegan.” This smear seems to intentionally confuse her public comments critiquing radical vegans with her self-description of being “vegan, if an imperfect and non-strident one.” Along with getting basic facts wrong, the smear fails to address that Lowrey is a prolific journalist with a strong track record of economic and political reporting. Even if you believe the Alexandres’ smear that Lowrey is biased (and we don’t), the Alexandres still haven’t responded to the hard evidence—photographs, videos, affidavits, and whistleblower testimony, all of which point to systemic animal suffering. What does Lowrey’s diet have to do with photos of calves who were left to die isolated in dirty hutches? What does it have to do with the Alexandres gluing a patch over the eye of a cow with eye cancer so they can hide the illness and send her to auction? The answer is nothing.

The Alexandres point to the fact that they offer farm tours to claim that our allegations must be untrue. They fail to mention that they give tours of only one of their five farms, and don’t give people access to the entire farm. They also fail to mention that only one of their farms is certified regenerative, the smallest show farm  holds approximately 220 cows, while their other operations average five times as many.

How do tours of a small show farm disprove the dozens of specific incidents and conditions uncovered in our report? What does giving farm tours have to do with the photo of a cow being dragged on concrete by a skid loader, or the evidence that Alexandre cut off the horns of 800 cows with a Sawzall and no pain management, or any of the dozens of other claims we make about Alexandre’s abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of animals? Again, the answer is nothing.

Immediately upon finding out that Farm Forward planned to publish a report with allegations of abuse, Alexandre had their law firm send us an intimidating letter. So why then didn’t they instruct their law firm to send us a “cease and desist” to stop us from speaking about them? Or even sue us for defamation? Why have they still not, when more than a month has passed since we published the report? Simple—their lawyers have likely told them that to win a defamation case they have to prove that Farm Forward’s allegations are untrue.

Our report contained dozens of images and dozens of allegations of Alexander’s animal abuse and neglect. Tellingly, Alexandre has not publicly stated that any specific image or allegation in our report is staged, doctored, forged, false, untrue or inaccurate. Not one.

When Blake Alexandre was presented with evidence of animal abuse he explained to Annie Lowrey that “stuff happens.” It is dismaying to report that “stuff” at Alexandre—mistreatment that the Alexandres try to downplay or deflect—has continued.

New evidence shows ongoing abuse 

Alexandre’s abuses and deceptions have continued well into 2024, with no sign of abating. Even as we were writing the report, whistleblowers continued to video and photograph Alexandre cows in dismal conditions. These new videos and photographs show cows suffering from many of the same types of welfare issues that our report documents in detail going as far back as 2017. The videos show cows continue to suffer with maladies like:

• cows dehorned by someone cutting through innervated tissue, in one case still actively bleeding, which a large animal veterinarian who works in the dairy industry noted of the “flat faced bloody end” that “the flat face of the severed tip is typical of a horn that has been recently removed incompletely via saw;”
• lameness, sometimes severe;
• poor body condition, which a vet stated “could be due to chronic pain and lameness, malnutrition, or other unknown chronic disease.”

~ The following photos and videos contain material that audiences may find distressful. Viewer discretion is advised ~ 

On April 11th, Farm Forward released the results of a comprehensive investigation into Alexandre Family Farms, a leading certified organic, humane, and “regenerative” dairy company.

The investigation uncovered systematic animal abuse and likely violations of several certification standards. Farm Forward reviewed more than a thousand videos and photos, conducted extensive interviews with whistleblowers, and witnessed conditions on Alexandre farms firsthand. What emerged was a pattern of systematic welfare and environmental issues, driven from the top.

Our report was covered in detail in The Atlantic by political and economic reporter Annie Lowrey.

In the week following our posting the report, much happened, including:

• Annie Lowrey’s tweet about The Atlantic’s article received over 1 million views.
• The Atlantic’s editors selected and publicized the story as the “One Story to Read Today.”
• All Alexandre products had been removed from the ASPCA’s Shop With Your Heart.
• All Alexandre products had been removed from FindHumane.com
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, appeared to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that your eating Alec’s Ice Cream is “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Whole Foods Market appeared to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page, which referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade,” and included a video showing hundreds of calf hutches in which Alexandre admits isolating baby cows for months—with no relief and no ability to set one foot outside—as its standard practice.

Farm Forward is heartened to know that so many in the public, in other advocacy groups, and even among major companies, are already taking our investigation’s extensive, detailed, and highly concerning findings seriously.

Stay tuned in and sign our petition to tell retailers that purchase Alexandre dairy to stop humanewashing.

Our investigation of fraud, deception, and animal welfare abuses at Alexandre Family Farm (Alexandre) revealed that Alexandre’s national reputation for high animal welfare is largely a mirage. It is highly likely that milk sold across the country—including in products like toddler formula and ice cream—came from abused, neglected, and mistreated cows who were allowed to linger in their suffering. Maddeningly, many of these products were sold under humane labels that ideally should signify something meaningful for animals.

This is a clear case of humanewashing: when marketing and certifications create an image of exceptional animal treatment meant to assuage consumers, despite the reality being far more grim.

It’s no secret that “ethical” dairies like Alexandre are used to market the entire industry to consumers, giving a halo of respectability and credibility to the very factory farm corporations that make cruelty and abuse endemic. But the corruption at Alexandre has spread further, as its lies rippled not only through the organic, higher welfare dairy market but beyond.

Alexandre’s “ethical dairy” status has been used to lend a veneer of respectability to natural food retailers like Whole Foods Market, food companies like Alec’s Ice Cream and Cheddies Crackers, and even baby and children’s food companies like Serenity Kids and Once Upon a Farm. All of these companies actively use Alexandre’s halo of respectability to entice conscientious consumers to buy their own products. Alexandre’s humanewashing stains a swath of companies and products that perpetuate Alexandre’s deceptive claims.

Whole Foods Market named Alexandre a “Supplier of the Year” in 2021, and markets its partnership with Alexandre as “Restarting Dairy”—likely an effort to leverage Alexandre’s reputation to improve the public image of dairy, which has been declining over the years. Whole Foods proudly showcases a video with Alexandre co-owner Blake Alexandre, who notes that seeing Alexandre’s products on Whole Foods shelves “gives us a tremendous sense of pride and it also highlights the fact that we’re making a difference. It’s a small difference, but what we’re doing here on the farm is contributing in a positive way to the betterment of our society and humanity.”1

Jarringly, that same flashy video can’t conceal some of Alexandre’s inhumane practices. The video inadvertently documents cows with extremely low body condition scores (suggesting disease and/or malnutrition), as well as hundreds of plastic calf hutches (widely seen as inhumane)2345 where Alexandre isolates calves from their mothers, other cows, and other calves. Alexandre’s hutches do not even include the standard patch of ground in front that would allow calves to go outside; a veterinary expert who reviewed our report noted that hutches were never meant to be used as cages, and “calves not able to step outside their hutches is a horrific perversion of use.” Even Whole Foods Market’s rosy portrayal of Alexandre unintentionally reveals systemic and unnecessary suffering.

Update! Following the release of our report, Whole Foods Market appears to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page that referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade.”

In addition to supplying cows’ milk to Whole Foods, Alexandre sells it to food manufacturers, including baby food and kids’ snack companies and leading organic cheese, cracker, and ice cream companies. Alexandre promotes a partnership with Serenity Kids, which sells baby food and “toddler formula” (and according to the Serenity Kids website its toddler formula “meets FDA nutritional requirements for infant formula”).6 Serenity Kids notes that its formula’s milk ingredients come from Alexandre, “which is known for its quality, ethical practices.” Serenity’s President and Co-Founder Joe Carr glowingly recounts in a video featured on Serenity’s YouTube,

At Serenity Kids we support American family farmers that treat their animals ethically … We are just super excited to have now created a product that proves that you can make formula … created in a way that’s great for the planet and great for the animals. -Joe Carr, President and Co-Founder, Serenity Kids7

Once Upon a Farm was co-founded by actor Jennifer Garner. A recipient of the Clean Label Project’s “Purity Award,” until recently Once Upon a Farm produced only completely plant-based foods for infants, toddlers, and children. In January 2024 it announced that it will incorporate Alexandre’s products into some of its foods marketed to kids 12 months and older,8 noting (correctly) that Alexandre is “the leading regenerative organic certified dairy farm in the U.S.” Once Upon a Farm products are sold at Whole Foods, Target and Costco.

Alexandre also supplies to Rumiano Cheese, which claims “a deep commitment to … animal welfare”9 and sells Organic cheese to thousands of grocery stores nationwide, including grocery giants like Safeway, Vons, Whole Foods, and Costco. Rumiano boasts that their cheese “benefits the animals and consumers by helping produce healthy and humane dairy products.”10 Rumiano Cheese buys milk from milk suppliers like Organic West that process milk from  Alexandre and resell it to a wide variety of outlets.

It doesn’t end there, but continues with prominent relationships with food companies like Alec’s Ice Cream, which markets “the first-ever regenerative organic ice cream—one that’s improving our world through the way it’s created” and that “improves the lives of animals.”11

Update! Following the release of our report, Alec’s Ice Cream appears to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”

Cheddies Crackers, which differentiates its products in large part by marketing them as Certified Humane and Regenerative Organic Certified. In addition to stating “Happy cows make the best milk,” Cheddies notes on its homepage,

Our cheese comes from regenerative farms, like the Alexandre Family Farm in California. These farms are like VIP clubs for cows – they get the royal treatment. -Cheddies Crackers website

All of these suppliers use Alexandre’s certifications and marketing to differentiate their products, trying to convince a public that is increasingly skeptical of cows’ dairy products because of their health, animal welfare, and environmental impacts that it’s acceptable—even beneficial—to eat their products. In the marketing language of one of Alexandre’s buyers, “Every time you enjoy Alec’s ice cream, you’re making a positive impact.”12

In other words, Alexandre’s deception is propagated in the market by the companies that use Alexandre’s products and reputation to hide the ubiquity of the ethically repugnant practices that are virtually unavoidable in dairy, given the present structure of the industry.13

Taking Action

Below is a list of companies that sell Alexandre products or source them for ingredients. Farm Forward asks these companies to cut ties with Alexandre and if possible reformulate to take cows’ milk out of their products. We will update you on how each company responds to our request.

• Whole Foods Market
  • Whole Foods Market stopped marketing Alexandre products.
• Once Upon a Farm
• Serenity Kids
  • A day after receiving our outreach in April, Serenity wrote to note that they had opened their own investigation as a result of our report and would take appropriate action based on what they uncover. Almost four months later, they still claim that their investigation is “ongoing.”
• Alec’s Ice Cream
  • Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, has taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Cheddies Crackers
• Rumiano Cheese
• United Natural Foods (UNFI)
• Providore
  • The natural food store completely has dropped Alexandre as a supplier as a result of our investigation.
• Luke’s Local
  • The premium grocery retailer in San Francisco with three locations has cancelled its orders of all Alexandre Family Farm products.
• Walt’s Wholesale Meats
  • Walt’s, which specializes in slaughtering dairy cows for meat for human consumption, has stopped accepting all cows from Alexandre Family Farm.
• Gus’s Community Market
  • The California grocery with five locations has pulled its Alexandre promos and reduced Alexandre’s product lines and shelf space as a result of the investigation’s findings.

For more updates, including certifications that have delisted or suspended Alexandre, see our Timeline of Alexandre Dairy Investigation.

March 2025:

• A consumer protection law firm files a class action lawsuit against Alexandre Family Farm and Certified Humane (Case #25CV554, US District Court, Southern District of California), seeking damages exceeding $5 million for fraudulent “humane” claims on Alexandre products. Among those submitting the complaint: a law firm known for securing multi-million dollar settlements in consumer protection cases, including a $39.55 million settlement against Monsanto.

September 2024:

• A nonprofit law firm files a suit against Alexandre in Humboldt County, enforcing California criminal statutes that prohibit animal cruelty. The complaint alleges that Alexandre violated California penal code 597, which covers a range of acts considered to be animal abuse, including failing to provide animals with proper food, drink, or shelter, or failing to give animals proper care and attention.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on the Search Engine podcast to talk about her coverage of Alexandre. Search Engine was named “a best podcast of 2023 by Vulture, Time, The Economist, and Vogue.”
• Farm Forward receives notification from National Organic Program (NOP) that NOP has substantiated some of the investigation’s allegations. Farm Forward takes steps to find out more.

August 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that Gus’s Community Market, a California grocery with five locations, has now pulled its Alexandre promos and reduced Alexandre’s product lines and shelf space as a result of the investigation’s findings.
• Farm Forward learns that Walt’s Wholesale Meats, which specializes in slaughtering dairy cows for meat for human consumption, has now stopped accepting all cows from Alexandre Family Farm.
• Farm Forward’s op-ed about Alexandre, greenwashing, the halo effect, and large-scale dairy fraud is published in Modern Farmer and becomes the top article on its homepage.

July 2024:

• Farm Forward informs Andronico’s Community Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Walt’s Wholesale Meats of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on Mark Bittman’s podcast to discuss her coverage of Alexandre. Mark Bittman, a food journalist and author of books including Food Matters, has written for the New York Times.

Week of June 24, 2024:

• Farm Forward files a complaint with Organic Tilth—an organic certifier—regarding the mistreatment of cows observed at a Humboldt Auction Yard property.

Week of June 10, 2024:

• Luke’s Local, a premium grocery retailer in San Francisco with three locations, cancels its orders of all Alexandre Family Farm products.

May 23, 2024:

• Farm Forward releases a follow-up blog revealing that Alexandre’s abuse has continued well into 2024.

Week of May 13, 2024:

• Natural food retailer Providore drops Alexandre as a supplier.

Week of May 6, 2024:

• Farm Forward informs Bi-Rite Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Luke’s Local of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Rainbow Grocery of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• Farm Forward informs Mollie Stone’s Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.

Week of April 29, 2024:

• The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Livestock Division supervisor notifies Farm Forward that the Sheriff’s Office received our report on Alexandre Dairy, takes such reports very seriously, and has opened an investigation.
• Certified Humane appears to have delisted Alexandre Family Farms from its list of “Producers who are Certified Humane.”
• Farm Forward encourages Rabobank—a bank with a commitment to animal welfare—to sever ties with Alexandre Family Farm.
• Farm Forward informs Erewhon of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre’s products.
• A California outlet that covers Del Norte County reports on the investigation, including the opening of a Sheriff’s Office inquiry and the suspension of the Regenerative Organic Certified label.

Week of April 22, 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that Regenerative Organic Certified suspended Alexandre’s regenerative certification in February due to an audit report that indicated violations.
• Farm Forward informs Whole Foods Market of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre Family Farm products.
• Farm Forward informs Alec’s Ice Cream of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
  • Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, has taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Farm Forward informs Serenity Kids of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
  • Serenity Kids responds the next day to say that after receiving our report they launched their own investigation into Alexandre and would take appropriate action based on what they uncover.
• Farm Forward informs Cheddies Crackers of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• Farm Forward informs Rumiano Cheese of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• Farm Forward informs Once Upon a Farm of the investigation’s findings and asks them to drop Alexandre as a supplier.
• The reporter who covered our investigation, Annie Lowrey, appears on the What’s Next: TBD podcast from Slate to talk about her coverage of Alexandre.

April 19, 2024:

• Farm Forward learns that all Alexandre products have been removed from the ASPCA’s Shop With Your Heart list following the publication of our investigation.
• Farm Forward is notified that all Alexandre products have been dropped from FindHumane.com.
• Although Farm Forward submitted a complaint to Humboldt County Farm Bureau on Monday April 15, requesting a timely response, by 5pm PDT Friday April 19 Farm Forward had still received no reply from the Humboldt County Farm Bureau.
• Alec’s Ice Cream, which relies on Alexandre dairy, appears to have taken down and removed from its site navigation its Our Impact page, which claimed that regenerative farming “improves the lives of animals,” that its products are “positively changing our planet for a better future,” and that Alexandre is “proving that cows actually help reverse climate change.”
• Whole Foods Market appears to have taken down its Restarting Dairy page, which referred to the Alexandres as “environmental stewards,” proudly noted that “Whole Foods Market has been working with the Alexandres for over a decade,” and included a video showing hundreds of calf hutches in which Alexandre admits isolating baby cows for months—with no relief and no ability to set one foot outside—as its standard practice.

April 15, 2024:

• Farm Forward files a standards complaint about Alexandre Family Farm with California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF).
• Farm Forward submits a complaint about Alexandre to the Humboldt County Farm Bureau.
• Farm Forward reaches out to Certified Humane to discuss abuse and neglect of cows managed by Alexandre.
• Farm Forward submits a complaint to California Veterinary Medical Association about animal mistreatment and allegations that Alexandre staff routinely practiced veterinary medicine without a license, including sawing fully grown horns off cows without pain management.
• Farm Forward asks the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) to revoke Blake Alexandre’s membership in CDFA’s Regenerative Organic Work Group.
• Farm Forward requests that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) investigate Alexandre’s violations of organic standards, and whether CDFA investigated Alexandre adequately after NOP received a whistleblower complaint about organic dairy cows who were “sick, could barely walk, were extremely thin, mistreated, and full of lungworm.”

April 12, 2024:

• The Atlantic publishes a comprehensive investigative piece of Alexandre’s operations, citing Farm Forward’s report throughout
• Farm Forward asks Alexandre Dairy to acknowledge problems in the dairy industry and work for change.
• Farm Forward files a cruelty complaint with the Humboldt County Sheriff.
• Farm Forward files a water quality complaint with the California Coastal Commission.

April 11, 2024:

• Farm Forward releases report, “Dairy Deception: Corruption and Consumer Fraud at Alexandre Family Farm.”

March 12, 2024:

• Farm Forward receives an email from Alexandre Dairy, likely attempting to delay the publishing of the report.

March 8, 2024:

• Late morning: Farm Forward receives an intimidating “lawyer letter” from Alexandre’s legal counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine, a law firm that regularly represents big dairy.
• Early morning: Farm Forward is informed that information was accidentally leaked to Alexandre, tipping them off to the pending report.

January–March, 2024:

• Multiple whistleblowers continually provide Farm Forward evidence of ongoing systematic nontreatment of sick and injured animals at Alexandre Dairy.

December, 2023:

• Farm Forward staff verify at a California cattle auction that sick, emaciated cattle with egregious untreated or inadequately treated conditions are being sold at auction by Alexandre Dairy.

June–Dec 2023:

• Multiple whistleblowers provide hundreds of videos, hundreds of photos, and more than a dozen affidavits.

January–May 2023:

• Multiple whistleblowers come forth verifying and expanding original allegations.

December 2022:

• First whistleblower approaches Farm Forward with uncorroborated complaints about Alexandre Family Farm (Alexandre Dairy). At first Farm Forward doubts the credibility of the complaint.

Jewish institutions–like Hillels, synagogues, and summer camps–often serve as hubs of community life. Within these spaces, we practice and celebrate our shared values and traditions. Central to these communal experiences is the food we share, which nourishes both body and soul.

An organizational food policy serves as a guide that outlines how food is sourced, prepared, and served within institutions. Some Jewish organizations already have established food practices, such as preferred kashrut standards or accommodations for dietary requests on an as-needed basis. Formalizing best practices into an organizational food policy can improve kitchen and food operations while expressing a community’s values.

Why Develop an Organizational Food Policy?

Developing an organizational food policy is an opportunity to embody Jewish values through the lens of communal dietary choices. It reflects a community’s commitment to sustainability, justice, compassion, and inclusivity. By creating an official food policy we turn these values into long-term commitments to be implemented across all of an organization’s activities.

Moreover, plant-forward food policies ensure that everyone feels welcome and valued within our communal spaces. By reducing or eliminating ingredients with common allergens–like milk and eggs–from menus, we can create inherently more inclusive dining experiences. Accommodating diverse dietary preferences and needs promotes a sense of belonging for all members of the community.

DefaultVeg: A Plant-Based Nudge Strategy

DefaultVeg, also called “greener by default” or “plant-based by default,” is a simple yet powerful nudge strategy that promotes plant-forward eating. Essentially, it involves making plant-based options the default choice in communal settings.

Making plant-based food the default can help reshape what people in our communities think of as a “normal” meal. Whether at a conference or a Shabbat dinner, this approach recognizes that individuals are influenced by the choices presented to them and that their choices have a huge impact.

By serving plant-based meals by default, your organization offers the chance for community members to easily make more humane and sustainable food choices. With a DefaultVeg food policy, everyone can choose the meal that’s right for them.

Bring Jewish Values to the Table 

For centuries, the question of what’s kosher, or “fit” for Jewish communities has guided our daily actions, religious identities, and moral values. Today, industrialized animal agricultural practices like factory farming, are the norm for 99% of animals in our food system. Kosher-certified animal products are no exception. Along with the lives of farmed animals, intensive farming practices have dire consequences for our world.

Reducing the animal products our community serves and choosing higher-welfare meat, when possible, embodies the Jewish value of tza’ar ba’alei chayim–preventing unnecessary suffering to living creatures. By embracing sustainable practices such as sourcing local ingredients, prioritizing plant-based foods, and minimizing food waste, organizations exemplify the Jewish values of bal tashchit–avoiding wasteful destruction–and sh’mirat ha’adamah–protecting the Earth.

From animal welfare to environmental justice to public health, there are many Jewish values-based reasons to commit to alternatives to industrial animal agriculture. Through plant-forward organizational food policies, we turn these commitments into action.

Take Action for Your Community

Jewish tradition offers a rich tapestry of values and teachings that emphasize ethical eating. Developing an organizational food policy rooted in this tradition allows institutions to authentically embody their core beliefs through their food practices.

JIFA works with Jewish institutions to build a more humane and sustainable future, starting with the food we buy and serve to our communities. We offer resources, education, and a free consultation to help your community establish a values-based food policy. Together, we will create a more humane, sustainable, and compassionate future for all beings.

Contact JIFA to schedule your free consultation.

Update: December 5, 2023: The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act has been assigned bill numbers: S.3390 in the Senate and H.R.6569 in the House of Representatives.

—

In anticipation of the 2024 Farm Bill, we are proud to play a part in introducing new federal legislation that would leverage billions of dollars of food spending by USDA to help build a more just, healthy, and sustainable food system. 

Introduced by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) and Congresswoman Alma Adams (NC-12), the Enabling Farmer, Food worker, Environmental, and Climate Targets through Innovative, Values-aligned, and Equitable (EFFECTIVE) Food Procurement Act would direct and support USDA to shift toward values-aligned food procurement. The legislation would benefit workers, farmed animals, and the environment alike, and has been endorsed by more than 200 organizations.  

The vast majority of USDA’s food purchases are not congruent with its own values-based goals and policy objectives like mitigating climate change, conserving natural resources, building resilient supply chains, supporting socially disadvantaged producers and worker well-being, and expanding healthy choices for schools and its other program beneficiaries. 

The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would change that. The Act was inspired by a new Federal Good Food Purchasing Coalition (FGFP Coalition), of which Farm Forward is a founding member. The FGFP Coalition grew out of the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), a flexible metric-based framework that encourages large institutions to direct their buying power toward six core values including equity, nutrition, valued workforce, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and community-based economies. For years, we have led the team that updates GFPP’s animal welfare value area. As GFPP has been implemented by dozens of cities, municipalities, and school districts across the country, we have seen the outsized role that the federal government plays in food purchasing. This year we joined with other GFPP leaders in a concerted effort to redirect those federal food dollars, almost 40 percent of which in 2022 was spent on animal products. In 2022, The biggest food purchaser in the federal government, USDA, spent more than four billion dollars on commodity foods for school districts, food banks, low-income seniors, foreign aid, and Indian reservations. 

The USDA primarily purchases from a handful of agricultural megacorporations, many of which have repeatedly violated labor, environmental, and animal welfare laws. For example, Tyson Foods accounted for 43 percent of USDA poultry spending in 2022, despite incurring more than 30 workplace and environmental violations within three years of receiving their contract, and USDA suspending program personnel at Tyson due to what USDA termed “egregious violation of the humane handling requirements” that very year. 

The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would shift USDA away from evaluating bids based only on cost to evaluating bids based on multiple values, including equity, worker well-being, climate mitigation, animal welfare, resilient supply chains, and nutrition. While increasing transparency in USDA spending, the Act would (among other things) measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with USDA’s procurement, provide grants and technical assistance to small and socially disadvantaged producers and businesses, and shift USDA’s purchases of animal products from the lowest common denominator to more pasture-raised livestock, more farms participating in independent animal welfare certification programs, and more plant-based proteins.

The social and environmental benefit of such shifts would be staggering. Earlier this year the FGFP Coalition produced a report on federal food purchasing with findings including: 

• The USDA is the largest direct food purchaser in the federal government, and combined with the Department of Defense accounts for 90 percent of direct federal food purchases, which totaled more than $9 billion in 2022.
• The USDA Foods Program had a carbon footprint of more than 19 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent between the school year of 2018 and 2019, equal to the annual emissions from 4.1 million cars.
• Replacing 25 percent of federal animal product purchases with plant-based sources of protein would spare 26,736,641 animal lives, make available 9.3 million acres of land (equal to the size of Maryland), save $248 million, and reduce 1.6 million tons of Co2e annually—more than the equivalent of taking every passenger vehicle in Washington, D.C. and Alaska out of commission, all year, every year.

On November 7, Farm Forward and other representatives of the FGFP Coalition met with Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) office, and we’re pleased that Senator Blumenthal has now signed on as the bill’s Senate cosponsor. 

You may be interested to review the FGFP Coalition’s report on how we could better leverage federal food purchasing for climate, environmental, and social benefits, and the Civil Eats article about the Act. But most importantly: all U.S. residents can contact their senators and representatives to ask that they support the EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act. Just look up their phone numbers on the Senate and House directory, and call them to ask your Senators to support S. 3390, Senator Edward Markey’s EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act, and your Representative to support H.R. 6569, Congresswoman Alma Adams’s EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act.

Good food purchasing at the federal level is the next step in how we are building a better future for American workers, communities, ecosystems, and farmed animals. Together, we are building a future free of factory farms.

Farm Forward welcomed the federal government’s recent request for public guidance on its new “National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States” (NOHF-Zoonoses), spearheaded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

We submitted a comment we consider critical for addressing zoonotic disease and public health preparedness: factory farming creates perfect petri dishes for endemic and emergent zoonotic diseases. Deintensifying existing poultry and pig farming—while placing a moratorium on new factory farm construction—is the public health measure that would most dramatically reduce the risk of the next pandemic virus. 

With the CDC itself reporting that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, and that bird flu has broken out more than 800 times in 47 states since January 2022, mostly affecting birds in factory farms, it’s critical that the One Health Framework include attention on the issue that will most materially reduce future risk of zoonotic diseases—namely industrial animal agriculture. 

We call on world leaders to bring the age of factory farming to an end.

Here’s the bulk of our comment as submitted to the CDC and HHS:

—

Given that the NOHF-Zoonoses draft’s Appendix A, the “Prioritized Zoonotic Diseases of National Concern in the United States,” prioritizes “Zoonotic -Influenza” as number one zoonotic disease of concern and “Salmonellosis” as the number two zoonotic disease of concern, any national effort to address zoonotic diseases and advance public health preparedness must include focus on reforming industrial animal agriculture. So including the word “agricultural” in Objective 2.4 and the phrase “animal agriculture” in Objective 5.2 is essential.

Industrial pig and poultry farms are the United States’ top breeding grounds for zoonotic diseases, due to the crowded conditions of thousands of immunocompromised animals. Influenza viruses such as H1N1 (swine flu) and H5N1 (bird flu) evolved on pig and chicken farms. Genetic analyses have shown that crucial components of H1N1 emerged from a virus circulating in North American pigs, and an analysis of 39 antigenic shifts that played a key role in the emergence of particularly dangerous influenzas showed that “all but two of these events were reported in commercial poultry production systems.” Since Appendix A of NOHF-Zoonoses lists zoonotic influenzas as the first priority, animal agriculture must be specifically mentioned in the document. 

Farmed animals today are overwhelmingly genetically uniform, immunocompromised, lodged together by the tens of thousands, and routinely administered subclinical antibiotics—a perfect petri dish for cultivating antibiotic resistance, as well as endemic and emerging zoonotic disease threats. 

Addressing industrial animal agriculture is not optional but essential. The adoption of the One Health framework presents a critical opportunity to nudge our country’s animal agriculture toward higher welfare, more sustainable farming practices that enhance rather than imperil public health.

The Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) recently released Version 3.0 of its standards for food service institutions. Used by more than 70 institutions throughout the country, the Good Food Purchasing standards are transforming our food system, including by reducing meat consumption and shifting purchasing toward more humane methods of raising farmed animals.

Animal welfare represents one of five key categories in GFPP’s values-based purchasing standards. “For years we’ve worked with the GFPP to shift food consumption patterns by leveraging the purchasing power of public institutions like schools, jails, and hospitals,” Farm Forward Executive Director Andrew deCoriolis said. He added, “The improvements made in Version 3.0 will increase that shift, representing a ‘much less and better’ approach to buying meat and other animal products — one we’re proud to support.”

Included in the updated standards are two important changes for animal welfare and meat reduction, championed by Farm Forward.

The updated food purchasing standards will:

1. Ensure that institutions’ efforts to reduce meat consumption have the effect of decreasing the total number of animals raised for food. The new standards aim to prevent a situation wherein the decreased purchase of, say, beef, leads to an increase in the purchase of chicken.
2. Increase the available opportunities to meet animal welfare standards by reducing meat, for example by offering plant-based dishes as the default option. The standards incentivize organizations to reduce over time the amount of meat they serve per meal.

Other changes reflected in Version 3.0 include animal welfare certification standards that represent higher welfare animal products. Read about other updates included in this newest version.

By advocating for values-based food purchasing, Farm Forward is able to make an impact on a large scale. Since 2016 we have helped lead the creation of GFPP’s animal welfare standards and provided free consulting and technical support to help institutions meet them.

Beyond our work with GFPP, we have long championed institutional policy work to change how the country eats and farms, including through programs like the Leadership Circle and DefaultVeg.

We are proud to have played an integral role in developing the latest version of the Good Food Purchasing Standards, and we will continue to fight to shape food policy that moves us away from factory farming and toward more humane and plant-forward food.

Humanewashing—the collection of marketing tools employed by meat companies that lead to widespread and foundational misunderstandings about animal welfare in animal agriculture—is an existential threat to efforts to move beyond factory farming. For the last few years, Farm Forward has commissioned large-scale surveys of American residents focused on consumer deception and its consequences. Consistently, the surveys’ results show that the expectations that consumers have about what certain labels signify—whether it be about animal welfare, antibiotic use, or environmental sustainability—are not aligned with the facts on the ground.

This year, we partnered with the research firm Data for Progress to test some of our hypotheses about consumer understandings of everything from “pasture raised” to Global Animal Partnership’s “Animal Welfare Certified” label. The results of our 1,100-person survey of American adults indicate that consumers have baseline expectations for meat companies and retailers that aren’t being met, and that companies risk eroding the trust of their consumers if they continue to humanewash.

Humanewashing

To get a deeper understanding of how Americans view animal product labels, we tested the appeal of different animal raising claims and certifications, including but not limited to “humanely raised,” “antibiotic free,” and “pasture raised.” Americans, by and large, viewed such labels favorably, often with at least 3 in 4 viewing them positively. This would be a fine result if such labels actually meant what they claim to; instead, they often lack meaningful substantiation and regulation. Third-party animal welfare labels that are also deeply flawed, like Animal Welfare Certified and One Health Certified, were perceived less favorably (likely due to less familiarity) but were still viewed positively by around 50 percent of American adults.

For another question, respondents were presented with an image of an actual Animal Welfare Certified (GAP Step 2) poultry farm: half said that the image matched their expectations either “not very well” (30 percent) or “not at all” (20 percent). This result aligns with the conclusion from our 2021 survey that significant numbers of consumers were incorrect about what labels like “cage-free” and American Humane Certified actually mean. For example, in that survey, nearly 40 percent of respondents thought that a cage-free label signifies that a chicken was raised continuously on pasture; it signifies nothing close to that.

These results exemplify one of the most common manifestations of humanewashing: the tendency of the reality behind animal welfare labels to clash sharply with consumer expectations.

Consumer Trust

Meat companies and grocery stores should take note of these results. We also directly tested levels of trust in response to the humanewashing phenomena: After reading the definition of humanewashing, a majority of adults (57 percent) said that learning that a company engaged in humanewashing would make them much or somewhat less likely to support their brand. Misleading consumers might work for a time, but it is unlikely to continue to succeed as consumers become more aware of standard industry factory farm practices.

We also thought it was important to test a specific, identifiable instance of humanewashing: Whole Foods’ “raised without antibiotics” marketing, the subject of a class action lawsuit. After learning that beef sold at Whole Foods and marketed as “raised without antibiotics,” Animal Welfare Certified and USDA Organic tested positive for an antibiotic, 71 percent of respondents said it would make them lose trust in their grocery store if they were discovered to be selling products treated with antibiotic drugs marketed as “raised without antibiotics.”

After being exposed throughout the survey to information about misleading labeling, respondents became increasingly skeptical about the accuracy of animal product labels with regard to their animal welfare claims; the percentage of respondents who were skeptical of these labels—and thought they were often misleading—sharply increased from 49 percent at the beginning of the survey to 65 percent by its end. Put another way, when consumers learn more about what meat labeling and marketing actually mean, they are less supportive of companies that humanewash. Consumer distrust may create pressure advocates can use to push companies to better meet consumer expectations.

Transparency and Accountability

As mentioned above, the USDA requires little, if any, verification or substantiation of the animal-raising claims it approves for use. (The USDA’s recent move to rethink labeling guidelines is a step in the right direction). Currently, someone purchasing a meat product—say, one labeled “raised without antibiotics”—can never be certain that this is actually the case.

Accordingly, we also wanted to test Americans’ support for increased accountability in the meat industry. An overwhelming majority would support stronger regulations on this front: 88 percent of respondents said that it is either very important (57 percent) or somewhat important (31 percent) for companies to provide independently verified information about how they treat animals. Additionally, 81 percent of Americans support increasing the rigor of regulations for animal product labeling; the survey also found that there is widespread support for increasing the transparency and rigor of antibiotic labeling on meat products in particular, with 87 percent of Americans in favor. These popular changes would likely both reduce animal suffering and weaken the profitability and stability of the factory farm model, which relies on weak regulation.

Conclusion

Our partnership with Data for Progress has provided further evidence for something we’ve suspected for a while: there is a significant disconnect between consumer expectations and the reality of animal treatment in the meat industry. Beyond that, our results also showed that the revelation of this deception erodes the consumers’ trust in some of their favored grocery stores. This fact, alongside widespread support for stronger transparency and accountability within the meat industry, should be a wake-up call for retailers and meat producers that humanewashing can backfire and damage consumer trust in not only products but in the producers and retailers themselves.

Farm Forward’s online survey was conducted by Data For Progress from June 23 to 25, 2023. The total sample size was 1,149 U.S. adults. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults (aged 18+).

Why has Costco kept its price for rotisserie chickens at $4.99 since they were first sold in 2009, despite inflation? Costco knows that cheap chicken helps to bring customers through the door, who then spend money on other products with greater profit margins. Costco capitalizes on this trend by selling rotisserie chickens in the back of the store. However, the low price point comes at a high cost for the welfare of the chickens, the environment, and public health.

Is Costco chicken good for you?

Costco chickens are raised on factory farms by the tens of thousands. These industrial farms have a profound impact on the environment and public health at large, and have severe implications for the communities directly surrounding the farms.

Some of these effects are far-reaching. Intensive farming operations result in the production of large amounts of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane. These emissions drive climate change, degrade soil, and pollute air and waterways. The sheer number of chickens raised on factory farms also requires that feed be brought in from other locations, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. Antibiotics are likely to be emitted in the waste that is produced by the farms, driving the antibiotic resistance crisis.

On a more local scale, the dust produced by factory farms is likely to contain various harmful chemicals, feces, and even bits of feathers and flesh. Exposure to this dust has been linked to the development of respiratory diseases. The ammonia-laden odors produced by factory farms also impact on the health and well-being of the workers at the farms and can even affect health in settlements in the near vicinity.1

Why are Costco chickens so cheap?

Costco has consistently sought ways to reduce the cost of producing their rotisserie chickens, and has succeeded primarily by doubling down on factory farming chickens, which externalize costs on the environment, workers, and farmed animals. Costco has also by vertically integrated its supply chain to gain more control and keep costs low, all while resisting calls for higher animal welfare that could increase production costs. In 2018, Costco broke ground on a new poultry processing facility in Nebraska designed to process more than two million chickens per week. Many local farmers, land owners, and advocates united to oppose the multinational company’s “cradle-to-grave” vertical integration, but Costco proceeded over their objections.

The poultry processing facility is part of a larger complex that allows Costco to control the chicken supply chain from the factory all the way to store. The complex cost the company $450 million to construct and is expected to save it up to $0.35 a bird. Though this may seem like a small amount, the chain sells more than a hundred million rotisserie chickens every year, so that adds up to more than 35 million per year in increased profits or potential savings.

Though Costco stands to save money by vertically integrating its chicken supply chain, the cost to local farmers is likely to be high. Before the chickens are slaughtered and processed, most live in warehouses operated by farmers with nearby land. However, the specifications of how the birds are raised remain under Costco’s control. Though Costco markets their business to farmers by suggesting they can expect to pocket upwards of $90,000 a year through these contracts, experts argue that their true income is closer to $60,000.

When it comes to chickens raised for meat, the birds have been bred over generations to grow very quickly. Motivated by reducing costs and increasing profits, this genetic abuse has resulted in severe health conditions and poor welfare. Costco has shown no inclination to use birds with higher welfare genetics. In 2021, Costco announced an updated animal welfare policy following pressure from farmed animal advocates, yet critics have continued to pressure the company to do better, citing environmental and welfare concerns related to their farms.

What’s in a Costco rotisserie chicken?

You might expect the only ingredients in a rotisserie chicken to be chicken and spices, but this isn’t the case. Costco rotisserie chicken lists 11 ingredients on its labels. They are: chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates, hydrolyzed casein, modified corn starch, sugar, dextrose, chicken broth, isolated soy protein, monoglycerides, and diglycerides.

What are Costco rotisserie chickens injected with?

Many of the ingredients found on the label of a Costco rotisserie chicken are injected into the flesh of the bird. This is typically done to add flavor.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain antibiotics?

As part of its animal welfare policy, Costco has signaled that it intends to reduce antibiotic use. A survey it sent to its chicken suppliers found that 97 percent of its Kirkland Signature products (including rotisserie chickens) were raised without the “routine use” of antibiotics that are also used to treat people. However, “routine use” is undefined. If no routine use means that antibiotics are only administered once per flock, that would still mean all birds in the flock received antibiotics. Costco has resisted requests from their shareholders to publish quantitative data showing progress away from the overall use of antibiotics in their chickens. Costco has not released an analysis of their chicken products to support the survey’s results.

Does Costco rotisserie chicken contain hormones?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits the use of hormones in raising any poultry in the United States. Therefore, the chickens that are slaughtered to become Costco’s rotisserie chickens do not contain any added hormones.

Why are Costco chickens so big?

The average Costco rotisserie chicken weighs three pounds fully cooked. The birds raised for Costco are broiler chickens who have been genetically modified through breeding to grow very large, very quickly. About 100 years ago in 1925, chickens lived for 112 days before being slaughtered at 2.5 pounds. Modern chickens, such as those raised by Costco, are slaughtered at only 47 days but at 5 pounds weigh more than double what their ancestors weighed at slaughter.

Costco rotisserie chickens are what the industry calls “small birds.” Hybrid breeding techniques have also produced “heavy birds,” who are 8-9 pounds when alive and are usually sold cut up as chicken products. All of these birds, large and small, are raised by the tens of thousands on modern chicken farms better known as “factory farms.”

Photo: Andrew Skowron / We Animals Media

People who consume dairy may believe they are not encouraging the slaughter of any animals by doing so. But industrial dairy production requires that cows must repeatedly be made pregnant to produce milk, bringing many calves into the world who the industry must either use productively or dispose of. One of the ways to use the male calves born as a “byproduct” of dairy production is to turn them into meat known as veal.

What is veal?

Veal is the meat from young cows, who are usually the unwanted male calves of the dairy industry. The calves tend to be around four months old when they are slaughtered. Around 390,000 calves were commercially slaughtered in the U.S. in 2021.

Veal has mainly been produced and consumed in a handful of European countries, but its consumption in Europe has declined over the past 20 years. Animal advocates and veterinarians consider veal production to be particularly cruel and have successfully campaigned to have its worst aspects—notably keeping the calves in tiny crates—banned in some countries.

What animal is veal?

Veal comes from young cows, but is given different names depending on how young they were at slaughter and the conditions they were raised in.

Bob veal

“Bob veal” is meat from newborn calves, often sold directly from dairy farms. The calves haven’t had time to use their muscles, which makes the meat more tender. About 15 percent of veal sold in the U.S. is classified as bob veal, being from calves up to three weeks old or 150 pounds in weight.

Slink veal

“Slink veal” is made from stillborn calves or unborn calves removed from slaughtered pregnant cows. It is illegal to produce veal this way in the U.S. and Canada, and slink veal has not been widely eaten since the Victorian era.

Rose veal

“Rose veal” (or “rosé veal”) comes from cows who are over six months old at slaughter. The name comes from the color of the meat, which is darker than other veal meat because the calves are older when they are killed and they are fed a diet that includes fiber, as opposed to only milk. Rose veal is largely a product of the U.K., developed in response to changing laws around veal production. It may also be marketed under other names or referred to as “humanely raised.”  

Is veal just baby cow?

Veal comes from baby cows and very young cows. Cows have a natural lifespan of 15 to 20 years, so being slaughtered at a year or younger means they have lived for less than 5 percent of their natural life. The age equivalent for a human would be about four years old or under.

Why is veal cruel?

Not only are the calves used for veal very young, but they have historically been housed in a way that animal welfare groups consider particularly cruel, in order to ensure the veal meat is as tender as possible.     

How are veal calves housed?

Veal crates

Calves are kept in individual veal crates so small that they stop calves from moving around. This prevents their muscles from developing and makes the meat more tender. Sometimes the calves are also chained inside the crates to further restrict movement. Public pressure and campaigning resulted in the U.K. banning the use of veal crates in 1990, with the European Union following suit in 2006.1 In the U.S., some states have banned veal crates, and some veal producers have also been voluntarily phasing them out under pressure from campaigning groups.

Restricted space

Calves raised for veal are now more commonly kept in group pens, though in the U.S. they still spend the first two months of their lives housed individually, purportedly to make it easier to monitor their health. Images from the American Veal Association show that though group pens are an improvement on veal crates they are nonetheless still small, with slatted floors inside barren sheds.

Abnormal behaviors

Calves can exhibit abnormal, repetitive behaviors, known as stereotypies, when their natural instincts are frustrated. Being fed on liquid diets in particular can lead to such frustration, since it provides little opportunity for the calves to chew. As a result, many will engage in rolling and unrolling their tongues inside and outside of their mouths, as well as licking and nibbling other objects. Not having their mothers’ teat to suckle on may also contribute to these behaviors.2

Increased disease susceptibility

Calves are born without much natural immunity. To develop healthy immune systems, they need to ingest enough good colostrum (the milk produced by mother mammals, including humans, right after they give birth) in their first 24 hours to receive maternal antibodies. Due to changes in their feeding systems and exposure to a large number of infectious agents soon after birth, calves are at very high risk of becoming ill, particularly with digestive disorders due to infection or through compromised digestive development.

How are veal calves raised?

Separated at birth

Calves used for veal come from the dairy industry, so they are not allowed to stay with their mothers for longer than a day or two, to maximize the amount of the mother’s milk that can be sold. There is debate over whether it is better for the cows’ welfare to remove the calves immediately, before they’ve had a chance to bond with their mothers, or to let them stay with them for a few days, but it is clear that separating them at all goes against the cows’ natural behavior. Calves will naturally wean at around eight months but may maintain a bond with their mothers for years. Disrupting their bond is distressing for both.3

If the calves were allowed to grow to adulthood, long-term effects of early maternal separation would become more apparent, as research has found that calves who are allowed to stay with their mothers for longer are more sociable and able to cope better with changes in circumstances later in life.4

Abnormal gut development

Veal calves are traditionally raised on milk substitutes, and are still often raised this way in Europe and the U.S. In the U.K., calves raised for veal are required to be fed a diet that includes a daily minimum of roughage and fiber from the age of two weeks to help their digestive systems develop normally. Milk substitute diets intentionally omit iron, which makes the meat lighter in color so that it can be marketed as white veal. This practice both causes anemia and can be damaging to the intestinal health of calves. Underdeveloped digestive systems make it harder for them to obtain nutrients, and leave them susceptible to infectious diseases and gut problems.5 Diarrhea is the most common illness among calves under three months old because they are born without much of an immune system, and it is even more of a problem for calves on an artificial diet.

Cruel transportation

While meat from very young “bob” calves might be sold directly from dairy farms, most calves are transported to veal farms or auction houses, sometimes traveling long distances. The experience is highly stressful and bad for their health. One study found that in the Netherlands, one of the major veal producers in Europe, calves are collected from different dairy farms, including some in other countries, and transported together to veal farms. Transporting them when they are only a few weeks old leaves them susceptible to illness, while the restriction on feed and water before and during transportation leaves many with diarrhea, dehydration, serious weight loss, and lameness. Respiratory illnesses are also associated with transportation.6 Conditions are so harsh that some calves die during transport, but not so many that it makes economic sense for farmers to improve transport conditions.

Some countries mainly export male dairy calves, such as Ireland, which has a huge surplus of unwanted calves due to a government-driven expansion of the dairy industry in the last decade. Around 200,000 of the 750,000 male calves born there are exported to the European veal market, enduring grueling journeys by ship for as long as 27 hours without food or water. In response to criticisms from the European Parliament, the Irish government has been trying to export the calves by plane to cut journey times—a plan called “horrific” by Ethical Farming Ireland.

Cruelty to calves

There have been a number of documented instances of calves born into the dairy industry in the U.S. and elsewhere being treated brutally by farm staff, who have been recorded kicking, throwing, and dragging calves.

Drug use

As calves are highly susceptible to illness, it is often necessary for them to be treated with a number of medications, particularly in the first weeks after they arrive at veal farms when they are most likely to be suffering from respiratory and gastrointestinal disorders.7

Calves are “stunned” before slaughter

In the U.S., U.K., and other countries, with some exceptions, cattle must be stunned before slaughter so that they do not feel pain when they are killed, often by having their throats cut. Calves and other cattle are usually stunned with a captive bolt gun, which shoots a bolt through their skulls. But stunning is not always effective; one study of 998 cattle stunned and killed in a Swedish slaughterhouse found that 14 percent of calves, or about one out of seven calves, were not accurately shot.8 This means that a large number of calves are still conscious when they are shackled and hoisted into the air by their back legs, before and during the cutting of their throats.

How is veal legal?

Veal exists because

• the dairy industry requires that cows must be regularly impregnated and give birth in order to produce milk,
• the dairy industry has no use for male calves, and
• as long as farmed animals are treated as commodities, slaughtering them for food will be legal.

Veal facts and statistics

Are hormones and antibiotics used in veal raising?

Antibiotics are permitted for calves to prevent or treat disease, and are frequently required in the first weeks that a calf spends on a veal farm. While growth hormones can be used in beef cattle in the U.S., they are not approved for use in veal calves.

How much veal do people consume?

Americans consume relatively little veal, at one- to two-tenths of a pound per person each year. By contrast, French per capita consumption of veal is around 9 pounds, and Italian consumption around 8 pounds. While the Netherlands is a major veal producer, only a small portion is served in hotels and restaurants domestically; most Dutch veal is consumed in Germany, Italy, and France.

Is veal healthy?

Veal is considered a nutrient-dense source of protein, but eating too much red meat is not recommended by health experts. Consumption of red meat has been linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, colon polyps, and pneumonia.

Is there such a thing as humane veal?

Proponents of veal have tried to make the case that where veal crates have been banned and phased out, the meat is humane. Changes to the calves’ housing represent a welfare improvement, but the issue remains that the veal industry exists as a way to use otherwise “useless” calves who are born into an industry that depends on the repeated pregnancies of female cows, usually in industrial systems. For some, higher welfare veal is preferable to the calves being killed just after birth, but for many others neither option can be considered humane.

What happens to bull calves of dairy cows that aren’t reared for veal?

Many male calves born on dairy farms are shot, since they do not tend to be economically valuable. In the U.K., new rules against this practice and the rise in the use of sexed semen to avoid dairy cows giving birth to males have reduced the number of calves killed on farms significantly, with about 60,000 (15 percent) killed per year in the last few years.

Conclusion

The lives of calves in the veal industry in the United States are generally better than they used to be, now that veal crates have largely become a thing of the past. But veal, like all forms of industrial animal agriculture, remains problematic in many of its practices. Knowing the cruelties that permeate the veal industry, conventional dairies, and other forms of industrial animal agriculture, you can see why Farm Forward’s advice is to eat conscientiously, as few animals as possible, ideally none.

To call foie gras controversial would be an understatement. To produce foie gras, male ducks and geese are force-fed by poorly paid farm workers several times a day until their livers become fatty and diseased. The resulting pale white meat of the liver is then sold to high-end restaurants for a few wealthy people to enjoy. Few food items are so widely viewed as cruel, or so succinctly capture the dynamics of an inequitable food industry. Even King Charles III of England has taken a stand, banning its consumption in all his residences.

What is foie gras?

The term “foie gras” is the French for “fatty liver,” and foie gras is literally the deliberately fattened liver of a duck or goose. The fattiness is accomplished via force-feeding, leading the product to be banned in many places. In 2021, almost 118 million tons of foie gras were produced in the European Union alone. European Union countries account for about 90 percent of foie gras production, with the remaining 10 percent produced primarily in China, Canada, and the United States. In Europe, France produces almost 70 percent of the foie gras while Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, and Belgium produce the rest. In the United States, domestic foie gras comes primarily from just two farms.

What is foie gras made of?

Though traditionally foie gras is the fattened liver of a goose, more than 90 percent of the foie gras now produced comes from ducks. This shift is due to the fact that force-feeding ducks is easier than force-feeding geese.

Geese

Fattened goose livers account for only 5 percent of foie gras currently being produced. Despite this, or perhaps due in part to its rarity, goose foie gras is perceived as a superior foie gras to some fans and can be more prized than duck foie gras. The breed of goose most commonly raised and force-fed to produce foie gras is the grey Landes goose. Different species of geese gain weight and store fat differently. While Polish geese tend to gain weight around their muscles and body, grey Landes geese gain weight in their livers.

Ducks

Most foie gras comes from ducks. The two breeds of duck most frequently raised for foie gras are Muscovy (or Barbary) ducks and mulard ducks. Ducks are favored for foie gras production over geese because they are behaviorally easier to handle. All the foie gras produced in the United States comes from ducks.

What is the origin of foie gras?

Despite France being where most foie gras is produced and consumed, French farmers have little to do with the food’s origin story. Geese were first force-fed by Egyptians who were likely interested in the process as a means of creating oil rather than to fatten the birds’ livers for eating. The force-feeding can be seen in paintings dating back to 2500 BCE. Romans were the first to force-feed geese for foie gras. They would feed the geese dried figs to give a sweet taste to the fattened, diseased livers. Recipes on how to prepare foie gras started appearing in books during the eighteenth century.

What is the difference between pâté and foie gras?

Pâté and foie gras are not necessarily the same thing, though they are easily confused. Pâté is a concoction made by blending meat and fat with other ingredients, whereas foie gras is the fattened liver of a goose or duck. Foie gras can be made into a pâté but it is not always eaten as such.

How is foie gras made?

In order to produce foie gras, ducks and geese are subjected to two phases: pre-feeding and feeding.

Pre-feeding phase

During the pre-feeding phase the birds are allowed to consume food freely. Generally this phase of their lives lasts until they have developed their feathers at around 12 weeks of age.

Feeding phase

Once birds are 12 weeks old, they are moved to either small individual cages or group pens where they are housed during the force-feeding phase.1 During the force-feeding phase, birds have an increasing amount of food administered to them through a tube placed down the throat in a process called gavage. The birds are force-fed several times a day. This period usually lasts two to three weeks before the birds are slaughtered and their livers harvested.

Why is foie gras cruel?

Suitability of breeds and species

The breeds of duck and goose raised for foie gras are chosen primarily because of their temperament and their physiology. In order to be force-fed birds must be easily handled. This is a big reason why ducks have become more commonly raised for foie gras than geese. The duck most commonly used for foie gras is the mulard duck, a cross between a Peking duck and a Muscovy duck. These ducks are favored by the foie gras industry because their livers tend to get fattier as the birds gain weight, instead of the fat being added to other places on their bodies.

Force-feeding procedure

The process of forcing a tube down a bird’s esophagus and then shoving up to 450 grams of food down it two or three times a day for weeks exposes the birds to the possibility of injury due to rough handling. The force-feeding is also in excess of what the bird would normally consume. If the force-feeding process were to be paused, birds would then be likely to fast for up to three days, suggesting that the force-feeding goes beyond the limits of the birds’ satiety and comfort.

Fear

The breed of duck that is most often raised for foie gras is more fearful of people than most other breeds. This means that they are likely to experience a greater amount of fear during feedings.

Injury

Injury can result from a variety of different factors. During feedings, a bird’s esophagus and throat could be injured due to poor handling. They are also more susceptible to heat stress than birds that are not fattened.

Stress

In order to be force-fed, ducks and geese must be captured by handlers. Being captured and held leads to stress for the ducks.

Housing and husbandry

To provide opportunities for ducks to socialize, they tend to be housed in small pens. This means that catching the birds for force-feeding can be more effort and lead to greater stress for the ducks. The force-feeding also increases their susceptibility to heat stress and bone breakages during transport.

Enlarged liver

During the fattening process, a bird’s liver can increase in size by up to 10 times, and will end up being more than 50 percent fat. Due to its condition, the organ is no longer able to function at full capacity and blood flow is reduced.

Mortality rates

Mortality rates for birds that are being force-fed are significantly higher than birds of the same age that are not undergoing the process. Studies in Belgium, France, and Spain have seen mortality rates between 2 and 4 percent for birds being force-fed, that is, one bird in 25 or 50 dying during the period of being force-fed. The mortality rate for birds not experiencing gavage sits at around 0.2 percent, or one bird in 500. So the mortality rate for birds being force fed is 10 to 20 times higher than that of birds not being force-fed.

Is foie gras healthy?

Whether foie gras is healthy has been a topic of debate. One recent study based on results in mice notably showed that consumption of foie gras may be linked to amyloidosis, the build up of a particular protein that can impact the functioning of organs.2

Is foie gras banned in the U.S.?

Efforts have been made to ban the sale of foie gras in the United States. However, these efforts have failed and most of the country still allows the sale of these diseased livers.

What states and countries have banned foie gras?

Several jurisdictions around the world, including in the U.S., have banned the sale of foie gras. Some of these include:

New York City

The ban was approved by voters in 2019 and was supposed to go into effect in 2022. However, the ban was challenged in court and the legal battle is ongoing.

California

California originally banned foie gras in 2004 though legal challenges pushed the effective date of the ban out to 2012.

Turkey

Turkey banned the production of foie gras in their animal protection law which prevents the force-feeding of animals for any purpose other than the health of the animal.

India

India banned the import of foie gras in 2014 making it the first country to ban the import and not just the production of the product.

Australia

Australia has banned the production of foie gras within its borders but not its consumption, sale, or import.

Argentina

Argentina has banned the production of foie gras since 2003.

Israel

Force-feeding geese has been illegal in Israel since 2003.

United Kingdom

In the U.K. the production of foie gras is banned but there is nothing stopping the import of the product.

Why is foie gras banned?

Foie gras has been banned primarily on grounds of animal welfare. The Humane Society of the United States and other entities asked the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the sale of foie gras for human food on the basis of health in 2007. However, the petition was unsuccessful.

What is so controversial about foie gras?

The reasons why foie gras should be banned are many: birds are overfed, mortality rates are higher, and the handling is stressful for the birds, among other animal welfare issues. Those who support foie gras may argue that the farms in the United States support hundreds of jobs and are helping to maintain their local communities. However, the farms in the U.S. are only able to make a profit by taking advantage of and underpaying their workers, most of whom are immigrants from Mexico and Central America, many of them undocumented. Often workers are only paid a few hundred dollars a week despite living, and working, in upstate New York. Despite the fact that she is processing birds with livers that will likely sell for $150 or more, one worker at a foie gras farm makes only $380 a week, which comes to less than $20,000 annually.

Why is foie gras unethical?

Question around the ethics of foie gras stem from the treatment of the ducks and geese who are raised and overfed to produce the fatty, diseased livers considered a delicacy.

Why is foie gras so expensive?

Foie gras is labor intensive to produce. Birds are force-fed by hand several times a day. This, combined with the small number of producers of foie gras and the small amount obtained from each bird, plus the tradition of the food being a delicacy, result in an expensive item.

Are there vegan alternatives to foie gras?

Vegan foie gras can be made at home using a combination of cashews, cocoa butter, nutritional yeast, cognac and other ingredients, resulting in a savory and rich final product with a texture very similar to its animal-derived inspiration. Depending on where you live, you may also be able to purchase vegan foie gras at the grocery store.

Conclusion

Foie gras is considered to be a delicacy by many. It’s a delicacy that most of us will never try, however, whether due to its astronomical price point or our moral compass. In order to produce the food, ducks and geese are repeatedly force-fed past the point of satiety. There are alternative products that do not require the suffering of animals.

Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Media

Chicken meat is a dietary staple for many millions of people worldwide, and eggs are a standard breakfast for many of us. However, the true cost of these proteins includes the suffering of billions of living beings. This suffering is largely due to intensive breeding programs that prioritize profit over the welfare of chickens, leading to genetic predispositions that plague birds with ill health and short lives.

How long do chickens live on farms?

Chickens raised for meat, known within the industry as broilers, have been bred to grow extremely quickly. They the result of intensive hybrid breeding programs that use industrial-scale operations to isolate specific genetic markers to emphasize characteristics that are desirable for factory farming.  Chickens raised to produce eggs, known within the industry as laying hens, have been bred to lay an excessive number of eggs.

Chickens raised for meat

The lifespan of a chicken raised for meat can vary depending on his or her intended purpose. Yet the vast majority of chickens are slaughtered at less than 10 weeks, and sometimes as little as 5 weeks of age, weighing between 4.5 and 7 pounds. These fast-growing chickens are genetically engineered to prevent them from feeling sated, and many develop severe health problems by the time they are slaughtered as a result of overeating.

Laying hens

The lifespan of a laying hen is tied directly to their rate of egg production. Laying hens are most productive in the first two to three years of life. On commercial farms, hens are slaughtered when their productivity begins to decline, and often only after just one year.

How long do chickens live in the wild?

Chickens raised to produce food on factory farms are very different from wild fowl who are genetic predecessors or feral chickens that live in some countries.

Undomesticated chickens

Undomesticated chickens live from four to seven years on average. Undomesticated chickens enjoy other advantages over their domesticated cousins: wild individuals get to express their natural behaviors throughout their lifespan, roam free outdoors among family and friends, and raise their own young.

Junglefowl

Junglefowl, native to Southeast Asia, are a group of four species of wild birds in the same family as chickens. They tend to be much smaller than chickens and are naturally shy of human interaction. The red jungle fowl, the best-known species, tends to live for around 10 to 14 years.

How long do backyard chickens live?

The lifespan of backyard chickens varies according to a variety of factors, such as whether their keeper plans to slaughter them once their egg production drops, whether they are receiving proper medical care and nutrition, whether they have access to safe and sufficient housing, and above all the breed of the chicken. Different breeds can have wildly differing lifespans—with breeds that have been more modified for factory farming dying earlier—but backyard chickens kept to lay eggs who receive adequate care and are allowed to live out their full life can mostly be expected to live six to eight years or more.

How long do chickens live as pets?

Choosing to keep a chicken as a beloved household companion can provide over a decade of love and affection. Some chickens have been recorded as living into their teens or even twenties with appropriate care and attention. Chickens are intelligent creatures who are able to grasp the concept of time, for example, and are also extremely social with unique and complicated communication patterns. Each chicken has their own personality and when cared for as pets they tend to be very affectionate.

What do chickens usually die from?

The vast majority of chickens—those raised on factory farms as food—are killed when they are still extremely young, usually only a few weeks old. If an industrial hybrid bird were raised outside of a factory farm most would fall victim to their own genetics, as they are the result of decades of intensive breeding geared toward increasing their productivity with little regard for their welfare. In the case of chickens raised for meat, they have been bred to grow so quickly that their bodies are putting on up to 100 grams of weight every single day—that would be like a human baby gaining weight so quickly that they’d weigh as much as an adult male before their first birthday.

This exceptional growth means that while chickens are slaughtered younger than in the past, they grow to larger sizes. The speed at which they grow places the birds at greater risk of developing health problems, as their skeletal systems and organs are not adapted for them to grow so quickly. In fact, 57 percent of such chickens have severe walking problems due to their growth,1 causing them to live in excruciating pain in the days leading up to their slaughter.

Laying hens also experience suffering due to their genetics, as they have been bred to produce a greater number of larger eggs than their bodies are capable of handling. A modern laying hen can produce 300 eggs during an extended laying cycle, generally between 20 and 72 weeks of age. The eggs require calcium for the formation of the shell. Due to the sheer number of eggs being produced, calcium is taken from the bones of the mother hen resulting in bone loss and weakening. This increases the likelihood that a hen experiences fractures, specifically to her keel, the flexible wedge of cartilage connecting her breast muscles.

In addition to the suffering experienced by mother hens, male chicks also fall victim to the egg industry. Considered a byproduct by commercial hatcheries, male chicks are slaughtered soon after hatching. Because they have not been selectively bred to grow as quickly or to become as fat as chickens raised for meat, it is simply not economical for the farmers to feed them to slaughter later for food. Every year in the United States roughly 300 million chicks are killed by the commercial egg industry.

How long do chickens live before slaughter?

Chickens raised for meat, or broiler chickens, are generally slaughtered by the time they reach 5 weeks of age, and almost all by 10 weeks of age. In the United States alone, over nine billion chickens fall victim to the industry, accounting for 9 out of every 10 land animals killed for food in the country. The average young chicken slaughtered in 2019 had grown to be 6.39 pounds prior to their slaughter, due to the intensive breeding that prioritizes profit over the birds’ welfare.

What is a heritage chicken?

The genetics of chickens on factory farms have been selected for fast growth, leading to terrible animal suffering. Healthier genetics are found in heritage chicken breeds, which existed before the hybrid birds found on factory farms. To be classed as heritage, a bird must come from a breed recognized by the American Poultry Association, mate naturally instead of relying on artificially insemination, have the genetic ability to live a long life outdoors, and not reach slaughter weight before 16 weeks, allowing birds the time to develop strong skeletal systems capable of supporting their mass.

What factors affect a chicken’s lifespan?

Chickens’ lifespans are impacted by a number of factors relating to both them as individuals and the environment in which they are housed. Below we discuss the lifespan for modern hybrid chickens raised to industry standards for meat and eggs.

Sex

The sex of a chicken plays a role in determining their lifespan. A hen being raised to produce eggs is likely to be kept alive for one lay cycle, then killed when her productivity declines at around one year of age. Male chicks of the same breed are likely to be killed shortly after hatching due to their inability to lay eggs.

Disease

Diseases often cut down the life expectancy of a chicken dramatically. The ongoing 2022 highly pathogenic avian flu outbreak has affected more than 40 million chickens in the U.S. The USDA guidance for handling infected chickens is to “eradicate the disease,” a goal that is frequently accomplished through mass slaughter. Other diseases, such as coccidiosis, are endemic in industrial poultry production and often shorten the lives of birds.

Housing

Housing is likely to play a role in the life expectancy of birds. Birds that have ample space to move around, are protected from predators, and have a clean environment are likely to live longer than chickens that do not.

Breed

Chickens in commercial production systems today are hybrids that are only able to survive for a very short amount of time due to the strain their genetics place on their bodies. There are specific breeds known as heritage chickens that are able to live longer, healthier lives due to their slower growth rate and better genetics, but these birds are not used in industrial animal agriculture.

Environment

The environment a bird grows up in has an impact on his or her life expectancy. Though the mortality rate for chickens on factory farms is always high, it can be affected by the season, for example, with deaths more common in periods of heat stress or cold weather.

Diet and nutrition

Diet and nutrition play an important role in the health and life expectancy of chickens. If chickens are offered a well-balanced diet rich in nutrients they are likely to live longer than birds offered diets high in calories intended to help them grow larger.

Veterinary care

Providing proper veterinary care for chickens is an essential part of helping them live a full and happy life.

Genetics

The vast majority of chickens being raised in the United States today would fall victim to their own genetics if they were not slaughtered at a very young age. Chickens raised specifically for meat grow so quickly that their bodies are not able to support them. Their genetic predisposition for rapid growth leads to conditions such as ascites, an inability of their heart and lungs to supply enough oxygen for their body. This condition leads to heart attacks as the chickens’ hearts attempt to work overtime to pump oxygenated blood through the overgrown body of the birds.

Slaughter

Slaughter is the definitive end to life for billions of birds in the U.S. alone every year. For chickens raised for meat, slaughter takes place at around 7 weeks of age. For hens raised to lay eggs, slaughter usually happens after the first laying cycle, around the time the birds turn one year old..

How old is the oldest chicken?

The first chicken to receive the designation of World’s Oldest Living Chicken by Guinness World Records was Matilda, who lived to be 16 years old. It was speculated that she lived so long because she was kept indoors and never laid eggs. She was dethroned by Muffy from Maryland who died in 2011 after reaching 22 years old.

Conclusion

Chicken breeding, not only in the United States but around the world, is primarily controlled by just two companies: Aviagen and Cobb. These companies breed chickens to maximize their profit with little regard to the welfare of the birds themselves. As a result, the chickens often endure horrendous suffering during their short lives. By choosing to raise heritage breeds instead of hybrids, these companies could improve the welfare and lifespan of billions of chickens every year.

Choosing to reduce our consumption of meat as far as possible is essential if we are to reduce the massive suffering that farmed chickens experience and the negative effects that large-scale animal agriculture has on society and the environment. If we do choose to consume chicken, it’s best to purchase from farms that raise heritage chickens with meaningful welfare certifications, and to be aware of the humanewashing that risks giving unsustainable industrial chicken farming a new lease of life.

People commonly believe that kosher production is different from the rest of conventional industrial farming, and that animals raised and slaughtered for the kosher market are treated better than those destined for non-kosher markets. In reality, virtually all kosher products, including all those sold in grocery stores, come from factory farms with abysmal conditions. How do we know?

First, it’s important to understand that kosher certifications lack purview over how animals are bred, treated, and handled prior to slaughter. Second, kosher certification is a modern invention, created to respond to technological advancement in food production. Third, traditional kosher law existed in a different context with fundamentally different agricultural practices–kosher production today is part and parcel of the United States’ mainstream animal farming model, or CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Most Animals Used in the Kosher Industry Live on CAFOs

Calculations from the USDA suggest that more than 99 percent of animals raised for food in the United States are raised on factory farms.((Percentage of confinement farms was calculated by the Sentience Institute.)) Broiler chickens, or birds raised specifically for meat production rather than egg-laying, account for over 90% of the land animals raised for food in the US.((The United States is the world’s leading chicken producer.)) Like the rest of the country, Jewish and kosher-keeping households that consume meat are mostly eating chickens—in quantities more than one hundred times what Americans ate per capita a century ago.((Striffler, Chicken: The Dangerous Transformation of America’s Favorite Food))

These are not your grandparents’ chickens; instead of breeding animals for resiliency outdoors, healthy immune systems, and strong bones and muscles, the trademark of factory-farmed chickens today is their highly manipulated genetics which cause them to grow unnaturally fast and so large that they struggle to support their own weight. There are no meaningful genetic differences between poultry raised for kosher and non-kosher markets. With the help of drugs, corporate-owned operations keep most birds alive long enough to reach market weight at 6-8 weeks–twice as fast as in the 1950s.

Kosher operations rely on industrial confinement systems that keep hundreds of thousands of birds indoors in filthy, crowded conditions—this is the only way companies can churn out the volume of meat they purvey on a regular basis. A steady supply of kosher chicken is made possible by companies like KJ Poultry, which slaughters 40,000 birds a day, Agri Star (formerly Agriprocessors), which slaughters 50,000 birds a day, and Empire Kosher, which slaughters 65,000 birds a day. And while the scale and speed at which workers process animals has real human health((For example, Iowa OSHA recently fined Agri Star for safety violations found after a February 2021 explosion injured two employees. Related hazards were cited in a reported worker injury just days before. )) and animal welfare costs, processing plants only represent a fraction of the production process. The jarring pace and scale of production begins with day-to-day operations at breeding houses and confined feeding facilities, over which kosher slaughter authorities have no direct supervision.

While kosher certification regulates slaughter, ultimately, it’s not how animals die that qualifies their lives as “factory farmed” but rather the conditions they lived in. The federal government defines a factory farm or CAFO based on the number of animal “units” living in a confined space for more than 45 days out of the year. Stocking density varies by species, but the cramped quarters of all CAFOs severely restricts animals’ freedom. While only 1,000 heads of cattle qualify as a CAFO, broiler chicken operations begin at 125,000—the human population of Hartford, Connecticut—and grow however large animal agriculture can manage, creeping ever closer to the one million mark. As dystopian as a poultry metropolis feels, the number of animals raised in densely populated cages, lots, and pens is only one troubling aspect of industrial animal agriculture.

Photo: Lukas Vincour / Zvířata Nejíme / We Animals Media

Modern-day chickens raised for meat, called “broilers,” are a far cry from chickens just a few decades ago. They consume less food, grow more quickly, and reach a much larger size. The way that chickens are farmed  for their meat today is the result of intense breeding programs that were kickstarted with a contest run by a grocery store in the mid-20th century. As a result of all the ingenuity and invention that has gone into their genetics, chickens suffer immensely during their short lives, and today’s massive scale of chicken production wreaks havoc on the environment.

Broiler chicken history

Up to the early 20th century, chickens were “dual purpose” and raised primarily in backyards to supply both eggs and meat to their caretakers and communities. Unlike today, there were not two separate types of chickens, one for laying eggs and one for meat. This differentiation started in the 1920s but really took off in 1945 due to the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest organized by the USDA and sponsored by the grocer A&P, which awarded prizes to the flocks that were judged as having the best meat, most efficient feed conversion ratio, and highest growth rate. In order to win, farmers started breeding the largest male and female chickens together, to increase the size of their offspring. The contest enabled the broiler breeder companies that we know today, such as Cobb, Vantress (now collectively Cobb-Vantress), and Hubbard to establish themselves.

By the 1980s and early 1990s, producers were using ever more sophisticated techniques to breed the fast-growing chickens found on farms today—chickens that consume less food but grow larger and faster than birds just 40 years ago. Within less than two generations, chickens raised for meat went from birds pecking around in a neighbor’s backyard to being packed into warehouses by the thousands, unable to naturally breed without being starved.

What birds are considered broiler chickens?

Broiler chickens are those which are raised for their meat. Today there are two companies that control the genetics of most broiler chickens: Aviagen and Cobb-Vantress. Aviagen has bred the Ross line of chickens, which they boast “is the world’s number one broiler breeder brand.” Meanwhile, Cobb-Vantress boasts that their premier line of broiler chickens, the Cobb, is “the world’s most efficient broiler.” Regardless of which line an individual chicken is born from, they experience great suffering that is directly caused by the intense breeding that has taken place in the very recent history of their family tree.

Broiler chicken characteristics

Broiler chickens share a variety of common characteristics. Visually they sport almost universally white feathers. Looking past their physical appearance, however, you can also find a number of similarities in their health and even genetics. When it comes to the actual genetic makeup of broiler chickens, they are all very similar, placing them at a greater risk of disease transmission. On the health front, because of their swift growth rate, broiler chickens are likely to develop a range of issues such as ascites and sudden death syndrome.

What’s the difference between broiler and layer chickens?

Though just a few decades ago chickens were raised for both their meat and the eggs they would lay, today there are specific breeds intended for each purpose. Broiler chickens, those raised to be slaughtered for their meat, grow very large, very quickly. These chickens are usually slaughtered at about seven weeks old in the United States, by which time they have already grown to be about 6.5 pounds. Laying hens, on the other hand, typically live for about 72 weeks before their production drops and they are slaughtered. During peak production they may lay 300 eggs or more a year.

Why are they called broiler chickens?

Broiler chickens, also called “broiler-fryers,” originally got their name from a preparation method common for their meat due to their young age and their more tender flesh. When chickens are slaughtered at an older age, they may be called a “roaster.”

Broiler chicken farming

The reality for Modern broiler chicken farmers are often locked into predatory contracts with large corporations, competing against other farmers to produce the heaviest chickens with the least amount of feed. The farmers that don’t come out on top often struggle to get by, as the corporations require increasingly expensive upgrades to the farm facilities. Much of the poultry industry is run as a “tournament system,” where producers compete against their neighbors and pay is based in part on how much you produce compared to others in your area. This system has left many chicken farmers deeply in debt and has been widely criticized by farmers as predatory.

Will broiler chickens lay eggs?

Historically, chickens eaten for their meat were often from the same dual-purpose breed as laying hens. Even breeds raised primarily for meat, like the Barred Rock, produced edible eggs. Yet if left to their own devices, modern broiler chickens would quickly cease to exist because they are not able to breed without human intervention. Broiler chickens have been bred to rapidly grow to sizes far beyond the range of the chickens raised for food even a generation ago. Birds bred for fast growth lead to medical complications that make breeding, laying eggs, and even living long enough to reach maturity difficult. The birds used to breed broiler chickens need to have their feed restricted to avoid growing to a size that would stop them mating and laying, which means that they live in a state of constant hunger induced by their genetics.1

How long does it take to raise a broiler chicken?

According to the National Chicken Council, modern broiler chickens are slaughtered at an average of 47 days old, having already reached a weight of about 6.5 pounds. They consume about 1.8 pounds of feed for each pound of weight they gain. The modern rate of growth is much faster than it was in 1940, prior to the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest that launched the genetic modification of chickens via breeding into full swing. In 1940, chickens were slaughtered at an average age of 85 days, having reached about 2.9 pounds, and after consuming approximately 4 pounds of feed for every pound of weight gained.

How long does it take for a broiler chicken to mature?

Broiler chickens are not mature when they are slaughtered at an average age of just 47 days, or less than 7 weeks old. In fact, for Cobb chickens puberty doesn’t even start until they are 12 weeks old. Between 16 and 20 weeks they are in their “grower phase” in which hens increase their weight by a third and reach maturity.

How long do broiler chickens live?

The average broiler chicken is slaughtered at 47 days old. Without very particular care and feed withholding, the likelihood of mortality due to health problems related to their growth or genetics increases from that point onward.

Broiler chicken side effects

Modern broiler chickens are touted by the industry as being extremely efficient “products” within the food system. This level of efficiency comes at great cost, for the birds themselves and the environment as well.

Welfare issues

Crowding

Overcrowding is a huge difficulty for many broiler chicken barns. Such a living situation leads to an increase in inflammation and a decrease in macrophage activity, making the birds more susceptible to disease.2

Transport

For transport to the slaughterhouse, birds are routinely stuffed into crates alongside other birds before the crate is loaded onto a truck. This practice leads to painful bruising, dehydration, and even death.

Slaughter

Once chickens have reached the slaughterhouse, they are killed. Often this process is rushed and rough due to workers being required to move through the process quickly. As a result, birds endure immense suffering, such as not being stunned before slaughter, or even not being slaughtered before they are drowned in scalding hot water.

Bird health issues

Cardiovascular dysfunction

Due to their fast growth, broiler birds often experience heart problems, because their hearts are unable to meet the demands of their bodies.

Integument lesions

Overcrowding is one of the main causes of skin lesions in broiler chickens. This is due to a greater incidence of trampling when seeking food and water. Another source of skin lesions is aggression between chickens.

Ocular dysfunction

Chickens have very sensitive eyes and rely heavily on their sight. The high levels of ammonia in chicken barns can lead to painful conditions such as conjunctivitis, damage to the cornea, and swelling of their eyelids.3

Skeletal dysfunction

A number of different skeletal disorders can be found in broiler chickens, including leg deformities and deformities of the spinal column. Many of these conditions are caused by the swift growth of the birds.

Environmental issues

Ammonia

Ammonia, which contains nitrogen, is released in the droppings of the thousands of chickens housed in broiler factory farms. This nitrogen can ultimately enter waterways and have serious effects on the health of aquatic ecosystems, causing algal blooms and creating dead zones with depleted oxygen levels.

Greenhouse gas emissions

The chicken production sector, including both eggs and meat, releases 0.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases every year. This accounts for 8 percent of emissions from the entire animal agriculture sector.

Manure

Estimates suggest that the poultry farms in North Carolina alone produce five million tons of waste every year, threatening the air and water quality of the surrounding area due to the high levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus the manure contains.

Updated February 23, 2023: A federal court ruled that undercover investigations and whistleblowing activities are protected under the First Amendment—effectively rejecting North Carolina’s “Anti-Sunshine” ag-gag law. This ruling marks a turning point in the nationwide movement to overturn unconstitutional ag-gag laws. Read more here.

Updated June 16, 2020: MAJOR VICTORY! On Friday, in a stunning decision, a federal judge struck down North Carolina’s “Ag-gag” law, ruling that several of its provisions are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. See the full decision here.

Donate now to help us strike down another unconstitutional ag-gag law!

Updated September 3, 2019: Today Public Justice on behalf of Farm Forward and a coalition of other plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement asking the Court to enjoin North Carolina from enforcing the “Anti-Sunshine Law” and declare it unconstitutional. This “Ag-gag” law is meant to punishes anyone—employees, journalists, and even individual community members—who investigate the practices of a property owner or employer to bring illegal or dangerous behavior to light. This Ag-gag law is especially egregious because of the all encompassing nature of the language used preventing any kind of whistleblowing about federal, state or private industry.

Updated June 5, 2018: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on June 5, 2018 that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina anti-sunshine law can move forward, reversing the decision of the federal district court.

Updated July 20, 2016: Earlier this month in an attempt to fight an ag-gag lawsuit, North Carolina’s Attorney General and the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina opposed the filing of an Amicus Brief by a coalition of plaintiffs including Farm Forward. They are attempting to prevent the court from considering the expert opinion of two scholars in constitutional law and federal procedure.

Around the nation law professors seeking to provide an academic perspective on a legal question before the court routinely make such contributions. In the Idaho ag-gag case, the state recently accepted an Amicus Brief submitted with expert opinion. This news highlights the dangerous and unparalleled nature of North Carolina’s opposition.

Farm Forward reached out to Professor Jack Preis, one of the constitutional law experts to provide an opinion in the North Carolina Amicus Brief, to ask him about the opposition. He stated, “UNC seems to believe that I am an apologist for the animal rights movement. But the reality is that I have no dog in this fight. My job is to tell the truth about matters of federal jurisdiction, and whether I write an amicus brief depends chiefly on what the truth is, not on who it will help.”

Our fight in North Carolina is just beginning.

For immediate release: February 25, 2016

Greensboro, NC  — Today Farm Forward joined a federal lawsuit to strike down North Carolina’s ag-gag law, which went into effect January 1 despite Governor McCrory’s veto. The law punishes whistleblowers for exposing animal abuse, human rights violations, and anything else that employers wish to hide from the public.

After defeating a similar law in Idaho, which violated both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, Farm Forward’s General Counsel Michael McFadden says the group is ready to take on another challenge.

“This is the kind of law you’d expect in North Korea, not North Carolina,” says McFadden. “Ag-gag protects abusers and punishes citizens for exercising their right to free speech. These laws have no place in America.”

Farm Forward has long been a watchdog of the American food system, from its new project BuyingPoultry, which lets consumers find higher-welfare poultry products and plant-based alternatives, to its in-depth assistance on the book and upcoming documentary film Eating Animals, which is being produced by Academy Award Winner Natalie Portman. Farm Forward also hosts a petition at ag-gag.org that has been signed by tens of thousands of people nationwide and remains a cornerstone of the movement to overturn ag-gag laws.

Farm Forward is part of a coalition of plaintiffs in this lawsuit that includes the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Food Safety, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, Government Accountability Project, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The plaintiffs’ joint statement is as follows:

North Carolina’s Anti-Sunshine Law seriously hinders North Carolinians’ ability to know the truth about misconduct, mistreatment and corruption happening in virtually every industry, including nursing homes, factory farms, financial institutions, daycare centers and more. It’s an extreme law forced on citizens over a governor’s veto by lawmakers who bowed to pressure from corporate lobbyists. This law blatantly violates citizens’ rights to free speech, a free press, and to petition their government, and violates the Equal Protection Clause. It places the safety of our families, our food supply, and animals at risk, and it attempts to bully and threaten those working for transparency, free speech and the public good. Our lawsuit is being brought for the sake of the health and safety of all citizens of North Carolina. We are confident the law will be found unconstitutional and that a victory in North Carolina will deter other state legislatures from repeating North Carolina’s mistake.

Donate now and help us strike down another unconstitutional ag-gag law!

Full Press Release PDF available here

In the children’s story Charlotte’s Web, the main character is a pig named Wilbur who enjoys a large pen surrounded by his animal friends on a quaint farm outside a small town in Maine. When we picture pigs on a farm, many of us likely imagine an idyllic scene similar to those fed to us when we were young. Yet this image of how pigs are housed and raised on farms couldn’t be further from the truth today.

Although pigs are recognized as one of the most intelligent species, most pigs are housed by the thousands in crowded conditions with very little to stimulate them mentally. Mother pigs are often locked in crates that prevent them from caring for their young in line with their natural inclinations, forcing them to act as little more than a milk-producing machine until the piglets are old enough to be removed.

What are pigs used for on a farm?

Despite their emotional and intellectual intelligence, pigs on farms have been bred for a single purpose: to serve people and, most commonly, to be served to people as a side of bacon or ham.

Pigs for meat

The primary reason that pigs are raised on farms is to be slaughtered and have their bodies processed into meat. In 2020, over 1.5 billion pigs were slaughtered around the world. This number has been consistently trending upwards as populations around the world grow in size and wealth.1 Most pigs raised for their meat spend their lives within the confines of an indoor intensive agriculture system in a series of large warehouses. The pigs living in these systems often become inactive and unresponsive, as a result of a lack of mental stimulation.

Pigs for breeding

Pigs that are used for breeding on factory farms often find themselves locked in small cages called gestation crates. These crates are so small that mother pigs are unable to turn around and must spend their lives facing in the same direction. They are also prone to developing sores and abscesses. These conditions lead to frustration, with pigs biting at the doors of their cages looking for a release from their suffering.

Are pigs easy to farm?

Farming pigs is not easy and can take a huge toll on the physical and mental health of those that work with them directly. Exposure to particulate matter, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide can cause respiratory issues, with an elevated risk of disease from bacterial infections, and a near-constant risk of injury, whether from machinery, waste lagoons, or the maltreated pigs themselves.

This physical danger is one reason why farming animals correlates with worse mental health than farming crops. Pigs are also highly intelligent creatures with unique personalities and the ability to empathize with one another. People who have to work in close proximity to their suffering, notably in slaughterhouses, also frequently experience poor mental health.

What do pigs eat on a farm?

The food given to pigs on factory farms is made up primarily of a combination of soy and corn. Corn accounts for about 62 percent of the average pig’s diet on a factory farm in the United States while soy makes up over 13 percent of their diet.2 A common additive in pig feed is fish meal which provides protein to young pigs. Researchers suggest that 90 percent of the fish ground into meal are fit for human consumption. Because it is more profitable to sell these fish to be turned into meal, the communities that once depended upon them as a staple, as is the case in Peru, have less access to them.3

In an alarming turn of events following the 2013 porcine epidemic diarrhea virus outbreak that killed about one-tenth of pigs being raised for pork, the deceased bodies of piglets and the feces of infected pigs were fed to pigs as a means of combating the virus and preventing its return.

Why is pig farming a problem?

A number of issues are associated with farming pigs including environmental, public health, and welfare concerns involving both the animals and surrounding communities.

Environmental and health impacts

Industrial-scale pig farming causes water and air pollution, and like all intensive animal farming it contributes to climate change thanks to direct emissions from waste and its inefficient use of land, water, and other resources when compared with arable farming.

The expansion and continued operation of industrial pig farms contributes to the degradation of natural resources and habitats in some of the most biologically diverse places on earth, including in the Yucatán Peninsula. Here the expansion of pig farming is driving biodiversity loss. The area is home to over 250 registered pig farms, Mexico’s largest carbon sink, and its most important reserve of groundwater. The pig farms in the area are causing pollution and degradation of valuable natural resources. The people in the Yucatán and throughout Mexico depend upon the health and well-being of the natural resources within the peninsula to continue to thrive.

Genetic manipulation

Genetically manipulating the animals we raise for food is nothing new. Chickens raised for meat have been engineered to grow at astonishing speeds, laying hens have been bred to produce an overwhelming number of eggs, cows have been manipulated to make vast quantities of milk, and pigs too have been genetically modified to maximize their profitability. Often the genetic modifications taking place, whether through breeding or gene-editing, are solving problems that exist due to poor animal welfare. For example, efforts to create “super muscly” pigs would not be as necessary were pigs provided with better enrichment and nutrition.

Animal cruelty

Perhaps the most glaring reason that pig farming is problematic is that the industry causes vast animal suffering. This suffering includes mother pigs being confined in crates, unable to care for their young, and lives spent in barren concrete pens. The lack of mental stimulation leads to boredom and destructive behaviors such as tail biting.4

Geopolitical issues

The corporations behind factory farms are massive and have no qualms about getting involved in politics to benefit themselves. Through their efforts, numerous initiatives seeking to improve the welfare of pigs on factory farms have been challenged and shot down. The ongoing debate concerning California’s Prop 12 is just one example.

Drugs

The use of drugs in pigs is detrimental to public health for several reasons.

Growth promoters

The primary growth promoter given to pigs is ractopamine. This drug causes pigs to develop more muscle than they otherwise would, given their diet and lack of exercise. Though research on human impacts is slim, some suggests that in humans the drug can cause an increased heart rate. There are also reports of people being poisoned following their consumption of pork from pigs fed the substance.5

Antibiotics

Tetracycline is one of the most widely used antibiotics in pigs around the world. Analyses have shown that genes resistant to the drug are some of the most abundant antibiotic-resistant genes in bacteria found in pigs.

Parasites

Pigs host parasites that are capable of being passed on to people. One example of this is ascariasis, a parasite that causes difficulty breathing and weight loss in infected individuals. The parasite can be contracted by eating vegetables and fruits that have been fertilized with pig manure or by not washing one’s hands thoroughly following handling pigs.

Hygiene

Because pigs carry some parasites and diseases that can be easily transmitted to other pigs or even people, hygiene is of the utmost importance to facilities raising thousands of pigs. In an effort to increase hygiene, these facilities often choose to reduce animal welfare by keeping pigs in barren concrete pens instead of offering bedding such as straw that would provide the opportunity for pigs to engage in natural behaviors like rooting and nesting.6

Labor issues

The issues faced by the employees and staff of pig farms are numerous. Farmworkers tend to be responsible for carrying out procedures such as clipping teeth, neutering, and docking the tails of screaming piglets. Working on a pig farm leads to workers being exposed to large amounts of noise and ammonia from the thousands of pigs being housed in the sheds, both of which can cause long-term health problems.

Pig intelligence

Pigs are recognized as one of the most intelligent species. They are skilled at simple video games, and form tight-knit groups with complex social relationships. When not being factory farmed, they take pride in their surroundings and maintain a clean environment. Some pigs have even been documented decorating their enclosures.7 This is in direct contradiction to the widely held belief that pigs are dirty and unintelligent creatures.

Is it profitable to farm pigs?

The question of whether pig farming is profitable is irrelevant given the detrimental impacts of pig farming on the environment, public health, and worker and animal welfare. The only reason that pig farming is profitable as we know it is because it is propped up by subsidies funded by taxpayers, by a lack of effective oversight to ensure workers’ rights are respected, and by the crowding and suffering of millions of pigs.

How much does a pig cost?

The relatively low cost of buying the products produced from farmed pigs is due to the many corners the industry is allowed to cut. To stay inexpensive, the industry depends upon government subsidies, poor working conditions, and horrendous animal welfare.

Conclusion

Raising pigs for food causes harm to the environment, public health, and animal welfare. Yet many new and innovative replacement products are being brought to the market every year that provide the taste of our favorite animal-derived foods without requiring that the animals die for our enjoyment. There has never been a better time to cut back on, or eliminate, pig products in our diets.

This content was originally published by the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA), a project of Farm Forward from 2016 through 2024. JIFA is now the Center for Jewish Food Ethics.

Jewish tradition has long regarded dairy as intrinsic to the definition of kosher law.

Dairy is symbolic of ethnogeographic roots (“a land flowing with milk and honey”) and connected to ritual on holidays such as Shavu’ot and Hanukkah. While the dairy source of our shepherd ancestors came primarily from small-scale herds of goats and sheep, most Jews now consume the most widely available commercial products from industrial dairies.

Like other farmed species, today most dairy cows do not become pregnant through natural mating; they’re forcibly impregnated through artificial insemination. After they give birth, they produce more milk than ever before due to intensive artificial selection enabled by DNA sequencing. Per capita milk production has doubled in the past forty years and continues to climb. If a dairy cow was producing just enough to feed her calf, she would only produce about one gallon of milk per day. Instead, the average American dairy cow now produces over 24,000 pounds of milk every year and averages more than 7.5 gallons of milk per day.

This unnaturally high milk load has created the dairy industry’s two biggest welfare issues, decade after decade: mastitis and lameness. These painful conditions are exacerbated by the living conditions inside factory farms where most American dairy cows live. Contrary to the happy pastoral scenes used in dairy advertising, over 90 percent of cows live almost exclusively inside barns on concrete floors slick with sewage, where their joints and hooves bear the weight of a full udder most of their adult lives. Mastitis is an udder infection, and factory farms’ high-humidity, low-ventilation environment promotes bacterial growth. Cows live in tie-stalls where they are tethered by the neck except when they are milked. This confinement severely limits opportunities for natural behaviors like exploring, socializing, and grooming. Industrial dairies are an animal welfare nightmare.

Convenience comes at a cost, both to cows and to the planet. Whether raised for meat or dairy, cows are leading greenhouse gas emitters. The processes required to raise them (e.g., alfalfa production for their feed) are very carbon-intensive, and the animals themselves generate methane and nitrous oxide in massive quantities. Milk’s water footprint hovers around 50 gallons for every cup, contributing heavily to droughts and dry-ups in the American West. Consider also that many gallons of milk are required to produce a finished dairy product such as cheese. Cheese consistently ranks as one of the worst foods for the climate, generating more GHGs than fish, poultry, or eggs.

In keeping up with our appetite for ice cream and asiago, dairy production shows no signs of slowing down. Just four months after giving birth, dairy cows are reimpregnated and will go through 4-5 pregnancies before being slaughtered, usually for ground beef around age four, though their lifespans would normally reach twenty years. Male calves are also sent to slaughter, as are about a quarter of female calves and any cows who exhibit infertility or whose milk production has declined. Given the stress, disease, and generally poor body condition of the average dairy cow, it’s little wonder that one in ten cows struggles to conceive. Those who do conceive don’t wean their young naturally because standard industry practice separates calves from their mothers within 24 hours of birth. Calves naturally wean at an average age of about eight months. Female calves become replacements, growing up to become the next generation of milk-producers.

From caring for animals’ well-being to protecting the Earth’s ecological balance, water resources, and climate, there are many Jewish values-based reasons to commit to alternatives to industrial dairy.

This content was originally published by the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA), a project of Farm Forward from 2016 through 2024. JIFA is now the Center for Jewish Food Ethics.

From schnitzel to matzo ball soup, Jewish culinary tradition makes frequent use of chicken.

The birds have lived with Jewish communities for millennia, domesticated 4,000–10,000 years ago. Historically, however, chicken was never consumed in the quantities most people in the industrialized world eat today.

In 1948, the USDA and the US’s largest supermarket chain put on the ‘Chicken of Tomorrow’ contest. Their primary aim was to breed a chicken that grows faster while eating less feed, and they succeeded more than anyone expected. The winners of that contest went on to develop complex new “hybrid” breeding techniques never before used in the history of poultry production. Thus began an explosion in chicken production and popularity: the USDA calculates that chicken consumption has increased by 540 percent between 1910 and 2021.

Today, chickens raised for their meat are referred to as “broiler chickens” while those who produce eggs are “laying hens.” Although the two animals are technically the same—both G. gallus domesticus—each have different bodies with different issues due to bifurcation of the industries. Over the past 50+ years, factory farms have bred hundreds of generations of broiler chickens and laying hens, selecting genes so that the birds produce more meat or eggs, respectively.

Broilers have been aggressively bred for rapid muscle growth (“meat” being muscle), resulting in rampant lameness. Chickens have more than doubled in size over the past few decades, and deliberately breeding for high muscle-to-bone ratio means that chickens today are too heavy for their own skeletons to support. Organ stress is common, their hearts struggling to pump blood throughout such massive bodies. Birds normally suffer from degenerative joint disease, so they spend most of their time sitting or lying on waste-soaked litter. Factory farms don’t provide enrichment opportunities for the birds—let alone outdoor access—denying chickens the chance to perch or investigate as they naturally would. Broiler chickens are slaughtered around 7 weeks of age. Genetically healthy chickens, by contrast, can live out a natural lifespan of 10 or more years.

An estimated 10 billion broilers are killed in the US every year, and 70 billion worldwide. There is no legal limit to how large American chicken farms can be, and since agriculture favors economies of scale, a typical shed “houses” thousands of birds. With factory farms preferring to set up shop in rural areas, chicken populations normally outnumber neighboring human communities more than ten-to-one, leaving neighbors feeling powerless against industry interests. It’s not just birds who suffer from massive farms but nearby communities, waterways, and wildlife too. Moreover, the industry is rife with labor justice issues—from farmers who are coerced into indentured servitude to impoverished, primarily BIPOC and immigrant workers who endure some of the most dangerous jobs in slaughter and processing plants.

Factory farmed poultry also poses a public health threat to people everywhere, even though these chickens are produced far from the urban centers where they’re purchased by the millions. With hundreds of thousands of immunocompromised, genetically manipulated birds housed in filthy, crowded barns, industrial poultry farms are uniquely suited for generating new pathogens and potential pandemics. In fact, most of the influenza viruses with pandemic potential deemed “of special concern” by the CDC arose from commercial poultry operations. Scientists are keeping close watch on the current highly contagious H5N1 bird flu that has decimated egg production and hen populations (58 million birds have died or been euthanized to try to stop its spread.) Scientists are even developing vaccines for a potential human outbreak. Complicating health matters further, the chicken industry’s perpetual overuse of drugs, including antibiotics, is driving widespread antimicrobial resistance. As journalist Maryn McKenna reports, we may be turning back the clock on the pharmacological breakthroughs that revolutionized medicine and human health.

From animal welfare to labor justice to public health, there are many Jewish values-based reasons to commit to alternatives to industrial poultry.

This content was originally published by the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA), a project of Farm Forward from 2016 through 2024. JIFA is now the Center for Jewish Food Ethics.

For centuries, the question of what’s “fit” for Jewish communities has guided our daily actions and reflected our religious identities and moral values.

In a fraction of that time, industrial animal agriculture has transformed our food system and made intensive farming the norm for 99% of animals–even for animal products that certifiers label as kosher, or “fit to eat.” Jewish foods–as diverse as the community itself–are meant to help us celebrate holidays, mark important life events, nurture our bodies each day, and exemplify our values. Yet, many of the foods that embody Jewish comfort now come with uncomfortable truths.

A new norm is attainable; all that’s needed is our communal will to learn and take action. As a community, it’s time to reckon with the impacts of our food choices–on farmed animals, on people, and on the planet–and ask: is this way of farming and eating truly kosher?

Is This Kosher explores modern chicken, fish, and dairy farming practices

Major corporations cash in on so-called “humane” labels like “antibiotic free”, “natural”, and “organic”, even though their corresponding husbandry practices almost never match consumers’ expectations for animal welfare. To further uncover the impacts that this humanewashing has on our food system, we teamed up with the organization Farm Action and interviewed Colorado rancher Mike Callicrate, who sheds light on how today’s most popular industry certifications and labels affect small farmers.

Op-ed: Thanks to USDA, “No Antibiotics, Ever” meat actually means “Antibiotics, Sometimes”

Even as prices for other goods drop, Americans are still grappling with soaring grocery prices: A $100 cart of groceries last year now costs about 10 percent more, so shoppers could have a harder time spending a little more to bring home food that aligns with their values and support the farmers who produce it. As if this weren’t enough, farmers and consumers alike are contending with another growing problem: humanewashing. Consolidated corporations like Tyson and Smithfield use misleading labels and claims to sell generic factory-farmed products at a premium while retail conglomerates and the USDA look the other way. As a result, products from independent farms disappear in a sea of meaningless food labels, and shoppers with the means to spend a little more for higher quality meat may not get what they’re paying for.

I wasn’t surprised when recent research by Farm Forward, as well as a peer-reviewed study in Science, uncovered antibiotic residues in a significant percentage of beef labeled “raised without antibiotics” and Animal Welfare Certified by Global Animal Partnership (GAP), including meat sold at Whole Foods Market. Meat with GAP’s label can sell for 40 percent more than “conventional” meat—without upholding the promises it makes to consumers, who are now holding the grocer accountable in court.

Together with Farm Action and the American Grassfed Association, farmers like me are calling on the USDA to investigate and recall beef with these labels because of the widespread mislabeling documented by these investigations. Americans rely on our government to protect our food supply, but the USDA itself only tests a small number of meat products for drug residue (in 2019, that figure was 0.003 percent of U.S. beef cattle), and only at levels that they deem dangerous—levels that have been called into question by the Environmental Protection Agency and many others. No federal agency enforces the accuracy of claims we see on store shelves. According to a recent survey, nearly half of Americans believe that welfare labels mean animals spend their whole lives on pasture, not on factory farms where drug use is the norm. Independent farmers work to meet these expectations, but it’s nearly impossible for us to break through the proliferation of deceptive labels when the deck is stacked against us.

The stakes of failing to fix our broken meat labels are high: shoppers can’t support independent farms that align with their values if they can’t distinguish between products. If we want a food system that raises animals according to our values, creates good jobs, reduces the risk of future pandemics, and promotes the flourishing of agricultural communities, accurate and transparent labeling is vital.

Author: Mike Callicrate is a Colorado rancher, rural advocate, and the owner of Ranch Foods Direct

In response to the New York Times’ recent deep dive into the harmful realities of the modern poultry industry, Farm Forward’s executive director, Andrew deCoriolis, penned a letter applauding the video series for “laying bare the nightmare that is the U.S. chicken industry.” And in a historic first, the letter introduced the word “humanewashing” to the Times’ readers, spotlighting how, for years, the poultry industry has systematically exploited the goodwill of consumers with misleading labels and claims including “all natural” and “humanely raised.”

Sandwiched between Farm Forward’s response and another thoughtful letter calling for change was a brief diatribe from the National Chicken Council (NCC)—the largest trade association for the chicken industry and one of the most notorious humanewashers out there. The NCC complained that the Times piece was merely propaganda intended to increase the price of chicken, offering the rebuttal: “The proper care of our chickens is not only an ethical obligation, but also makes good business sense.”

That is a rather stunning claim, given the NCC’s track record of deceiving consumers: In 2017, it rolled out the “Chicken Guarantees,” a set of industry-wide standards meant to assure consumers that meat chickens raised in the U.S. are not confined to cages and have not been given steroids or hormones. While likely true, these claims are deceptive: cages are not used to raise chickens for meat in the U.S., and federal law prohibits administering steroids or hormones to chickens raised for meat. The Chicken Guarantees add a bold check-mark to meat packaging offering consumers a false sense that standard practices have been certified as humane. This is akin to a hypothetical paint company stamping a “verified lead-free” label on its cans to paint them as somehow cleaner and greener, despite lead having been banned in paints since the 1970s.

And then there’s the NCC’s connection to One Health Certified (OHC)—one of the most egregiously misleading labels found on grocery shelves today. OHC trumpets a holistic set of standards, but in reality, the label can adorn poultry products that merely meet the standards established by NCC—which are essentially bottom-of-the-barrel practices. And given that NCC’s members constitute 95 percent of all chicken produced in the United States, these practices are nearly universal. The mastermind behind OHC, Mountaire Farms—whose CEO is the current vice chairman of the NCC—uses the label to obfuscate its abysmal environmental record, like its recent $200 million settlement for polluting the water of thousands of Delaware residents. Further, Mountaire has faced ongoing fines and violations for its abhorrent and dangerous working conditions.

Not even Earth Day is off-limits for the NCC, which co-opted the holiday this year with a webpage and a slew of infographics proclaiming that chicken is “climatarian diet-friendly.” Big Poultry’s myriad ills, from its enormous water usage and pollution to its public health nightmares like antibiotic misuse and pandemic potential, were apparently not worth mentioning.

The NCC’s business isn’t in sustainability or animal welfare; it’s in marketing products to consumers who care about sustainability and animal welfare. So when NCC leaders assert that treating chickens humanely makes “good business sense,” closer scrutiny reveals that what they mean is that making us believe chickens were treated humanely makes good business sense. After all, poultry companies get to rake in the profits without changing factory farming practices.

According to Farm Forward’s recent findings, they have largely been successful in that endeavor. American consumers are widely confused about the true meaning of welfare labels; for example, 30 percent of Americans incorrectly believe that OHC indicates that the animal was raised continuously on pasture. The reality, however, is that today’s certifications and marketing claims largely mask factory farmed products. Yet consumers expect otherwise—45 percent of Americans believe that OHC should mean the animal was raised on pasture.

We’re working to unmask the deception and create a more transparent food system. Join the movement to end humanewashing by signing up for our newsletter below.

In 2020, Farm Forward began testing for antibiotic residues in samples of Global Animal Partnership (GAP) Animal Welfare Certified meat from Whole Foods Market. Our testing is ongoing, but the early findings are troubling: despite their claims, GAP and Whole Foods have failed to prevent animals treated with drugs from entering their supply chains, raising questions about all of the claims they make about their meat products. Our results were confirmed by the findings of an extensive antibiotic testing program, which revealed that a significant percentage of GAP-certified, “antibiotic free” cattle came from feedlots where animals tested positive for antibiotics. In this post we offer details about the nature of our testing program, the results of our investigation, and the implications of our findings.

Background

Due to their poor genetic health and the crowded conditions in which they’re confined, animals on factory farms are often given drugs in subtherapeutic doses to promote growth and keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise stunt their growth and even kill them. Consumers pay more for products bearing the Animal Welfare Certified mark in part because GAP prohibits the use of antibiotics for animals within its program, and for good reason—antibiotics are used to treat sick animals, and sick animals suffer.

After serving on GAP’s board of directors since its inception, Farm Forward resigned in April 2020 because of concerns that the vast majority of meat products certified by GAP still come from factory farms. Because GAP has shown a pattern of catering to the industry by welcoming modified factory farms into its program, we suspected that drugs may be present in the meat it certifies. In 2017, Farm Forward used its position on GAP’s board to push for antibiotic testing, but GAP’s leadership refused. Because nobody is testing meat to verify claims made by meat producers, the only way to determine whether GAP is living up to its promises was to begin testing products ourselves.

In 2020, Farm Forward began purchasing GAP-certified meat from Whole Foods locations in Chicago, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco for testing by Trilogy Analytical Laboratory and Health Research Institute, two state-of-the-art, ISO-accredited testing facilities. Meat samples are frozen immediately after purchase and shipped overnight to the laboratory, where they’re stored in lab-grade refrigerators until they can be tested, typically within days. To ensure samples aren’t contaminated, we follow strict operating procedures for our tissue sampling and shipping, and we keep detailed records along the way to guarantee the provenance of each product. Samples are tested using mass spectrometry, the same technique used by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other food safety agencies.1

Results

Our first positive result, for an antibiotic called monensin, came from a sample of ground beef purchased from a Whole Foods store in San Francisco. Monensin, which is in a class of drugs called ionophores, is a feed additive used widely as a growth promoter and prophylactic antibiotic for cattle raised for meat. Because it serves the dual purpose of increasing yield while also preventing illness, monensin is known to offer a return on investment of roughly $20 per animal.2 As a result, meat producers have a tremendous incentive to use drugs like monensin as widely as possible. The product that tested positive was USDA Certified Organic and Animal Welfare Certified by GAP—and monensin is prohibited by both certifications.

Our testing also discovered residues of two antiparasitic drugs, fenbendazole and clopidol, in multiple products. These and other antiparasitics are used routinely on factory farms, and while they are technically permitted within GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, their widespread use is worrisome.

The term “antibiotic” includes but obscures antiparasitic drugs as a discrete category of medication used within animal agriculture. The overuse of antiparasitics like fenbendazole and clopidol creates drug-resistant parasites in the same way the overuse of antibacterial antibiotics creates drug-resistant bacteria.3 The products we purchased from Whole Foods that tested positive for fenbendazole and clopidol were not Certified Organic, but the Certified Organic program has a blanket prohibition on synthetic antimicrobial drugs. GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, on the other hand, only prohibits a narrow range of specific drugs, which means producers have a great deal of freedom to administer a variety of medications on farms. As a result, these drugs are often used prophylactically to prevent densely packed animals on factory farms from falling ill instead of finding husbandry solutions to ongoing health and welfare problems. Nearly half (45 percent) of the cattle livers we tested contained traces of these compounds.

Implications

Without antibiotic and antiparasitic drugs, it would be less profitable to house cattle on feedlots, where they suffer in cramped, filthy conditions while being fed an unnatural diet that causes them discomfort.4 The stress of life on a feedlot compromises cows’ immune systems, making them even more susceptible to diseases that are abundant in crowded environments.5

GAP and other welfare certifications prohibit the use of drugs like monensin in part because they recognize that it is inhumane to use medications to address problems caused by the conditions in which animals are raised. The best way to address these issues is through husbandry techniques that have been used for centuries to keep cattle healthy, and by allowing them to spend their lives on pasture.

Although GAP and Whole Foods rightly prohibit the use of antibiotics (apart from animals who are diagnosed with an illness) within their supply chains, testing has revealed that they have failed to meet their promises. Unlike Whole Foods, conventional grocery chains like Kroger, Trader Joes, and Walmart do not prohibit the use of drugs within their supply chains, so they are used openly and abundantly. Whole Foods is supposed to be different. If premium retailers like Whole Foods won’t take steps to keep these drugs out of products on their shelves, no one will.

It’s time for GAP and Whole Foods to commit to phase out all factory farm practices for all of the operations they certify and sell, and to do more to promote plant-based alternatives until they can live up to their promises to shoppers. Sign our petition to stop Whole Foods’ humanewashing today.

Earlier today, the Washington Post published an explosive article reporting that beef certified by Global Animal Partnership (GAP), the animal welfare certification used primarily by Whole Foods Market, was found to contain antibiotic residue despite GAP’s and Whole Foods’ claims that their meat is “antibiotic-free.” While this news will come as a surprise to many, it simply confirms what our testing has revealed.

Prior to the release of this troubling new information, Farm Forward launched our own antibiotic testing program, purchasing Animal Welfare Certified meat from Whole Foods for analysis by two accredited, third-party laboratories. Farm Forward found residues of an antibiotic and other drugs in meat samples from Whole Foods, including one sample labeled “antibiotic-free,” GAP Animal Welfare Certified, and USDA Organic. The antibiotic, monensin sodium, is used to promote growth.1

We chose to investigate Animal Welfare Certified meat sold by Whole Foods because it is viewed by consumers as the gold standard. Whole Foods shoppers pay up to 20 percent more for products they believe are healthy and natural, so the retailer has a greater incentive than other grocers to ensure that its supply chain aligns with the claims it makes about its products. If shoppers can’t trust “no antibiotics, ever” meat sold by Whole Foods, who can they trust?

Farm Forward’s test results are a smoking gun affirming our suspicions that the presence of drugs in meat is an industry-wide problem. The peer-reviewed data released in Science provides confirmation: 15 percent of the total sample size, which represents 12 percent of all “antibiotic-free” beef produced in the United States, came from feedlots where at least one animal tested positive for antibiotics.2 Animal Welfare Certified products fared particularly poorly: 22 percent of the Animal Welfare Certified cattle tested came from lots where 100 percent of animals sampled tested positive. In other words, these were not isolated incidents affecting only individual animals but entire herds.

Farm Forward has long been concerned about the overuse of antibiotics in animal production because these drugs are often used to compensate for filthy conditions and unhealthy animals, or to accelerate animals’ growth to increase profits. The impact of these antibiotics on human health is also a serious concern. Most of the antibiotics identified by the study, primarily tetracycline, are medically important for use in humans. Tetracycline is used to treat illnesses like pneumonia and urinary tract infections, and its overuse on factory farms contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant infections, known as superbugs. A recent study suggests that in 2019 alone superbugs killed 1.3M people.

Despite our long-running concerns about GAP and Whole Foods falling short of consumers’ expectations about animal welfare, their failure to prevent the misuse of antibiotics within their supply chain calls into question their ability to make guarantees about animal welfare. Whole Foods continues to use labels like GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified to humanewash, obscuring the truth that the vast majority of products on their shelves come from factory farms.

Join us in calling on Whole Foods to label their products truthfully. If it’s factory farmed, call it factory farmed. And if the truth is too troubling for shoppers to stomach, take factory farmed products off your shelves.

Be the first to get breaking results from Farm Forward’s antibiotic testing program when you sign up for our newsletter below.

Image Credit: Jo-Anne McArthur / Israel Against Live Shipments / We Animals Media

Farm Forward has found a variety of drugs, including an antibiotic, in meat certified as having “no antibiotics, ever” taken from products purchased from Whole Foods store shelves. The drugs, including fenbendazole, clopidol, and monensin, are used widely in conventional animal agriculture. The use of monensin is prohibited within the USDA Organic program and by Global Animal Partnership’s (GAP’s) Animal Welfare Certified program, which certifies all meat sold in Whole Foods stores.

“Sophisticated testing can reveal the truth about prohibited drugs fed to animals on factory farms, but these tests cannot reveal the extent to which these animals have suffered,” said Farm Forward executive director Andrew deCoriolis. “Whole Foods and GAP say that their products are humane and hope we’ll take their word for it; our test results should give consumers pause.”

Whole Foods relies on GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program, one of the largest animal welfare certifications in the world, to ensure that the meat sold in its 511 stores is “humane” and contains “no antibiotics, ever.” GAP’s Executive Director is an employee of Whole Foods and, alarmingly, one of the products that tested positive for Clopidol, a drug prohibited by USDA Organic but allowed by GAP, was produced by a company whose CEO is a member of GAP’s board of directors, raising questions about GAP’s motivations for permitting specific drugs within its program. Clopidol is commonly used to treat parasitic infections found primarily on industrial farms.

Farm Forward served on GAP’s board of directors for 12 years but resigned in 2020 over concerns that the certifier was failing to live up to its promises to shoppers. GAP’s inability to enforce its standards was only one among several concerns. Another was its complicity in humanewashing: GAP and Whole Foods use confusing labels and images of animals on bucolic pastures that, a recent Farm Forward survey shows, trick customers into believing products may be better than they truly are. In reality, factory farmed products dominate Whole Foods’ supply chain despite charging customers up to 40 percent more for Animal Welfare Certified products.

Antibiotics and other drugs are used widely on factory farms to keep animals alive in cruel and filthy conditions that may otherwise kill them. Farm Forward’s findings should raise serious doubts in the minds of consumers about Whole Foods’ and GAP’s ability to prevent animals from suffering on factory farms and to keep products with drug residues from ending up on store shelves.

“Factory farms use antibiotics and other drugs extensively to ‘manage’ infectious diseases and parasites in crowded conditions,” said Dr. Jim Keen, a veterinary infectious disease epidemiologist with 30 years of research and field experience. “The conditions under which  animals are raised in factory farms make them easy breeding grounds for antimicrobial resistance and even future pandemics.”

Testing

The testing was conducted by two independent, accredited laboratories using industry standard mass spectrometry, which is capable of identifying compounds at low levels.

End Factory Farming

Demanding that retailers and third-party certifications test for drugs in products labeled “all natural” and “no antibiotics, ever” won’t eliminate the need for these drugs on factory farms. It’s time for GAP’s Animal Welfare Certified program and Whole Foods to commit to stop selling factory farmed products all together. Until they stop selling factory farmed products, the best way for consumers to avoid unwanted drugs in their food is to avoid animal products whenever possible. Sign our petition to tell Whole Foods to take factory farmed products off their shelves.

This content was originally published by the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA), a project of Farm Forward from 2016 through 2024. JIFA is now the Center for Jewish Food Ethics.

Many American consumers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, purchase kosher animal products because they erroneously believe the label guarantees better animal treatment. According to the results of two national surveys released by Farm Forward, both the general population and Jewish Americans believe a kosher certification means products such as chicken, beef, dairy, eggs, and fish come from animals who were treated better over the course of their lives than non-kosher. Additionally, Jewish Americans are more likely to hold false beliefs about kosher-certified animal products than the general population of Americans.

The data confirms what JIFA has inferred from previous research that shows people think kosher food is inherently better: consumers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, extend this belief to the way farmed animals are bred and raised, despite the fact virtually all kosher and non-kosher meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs come from animal raised on factory farms. This phenomenon is called kosher humanewashing.

The two identical surveys asked people about their purchasing behaviors and understanding of kosher labels on animal products. Below is a summary of the key findings, including comparative findings of the two populations (1,500 adults in the general population and 500 Jewish adults).

Key findings:

• Nearly half of Jewish Americans falsely believe that animals in kosher production are better treated than non-kosher: 48% of Jewish adults nationwide said a kosher label on an animal product such as beef, chicken, fish, dairy products, or eggs means that over the course of an animal’s life, it was better treated than an animal raised for non-kosher products. In reality, nearly all animals used in kosher farming are bred and raised on factory farms.
• In some cases, Jewish consumers are more likely than the general population to believe untruths about kosher certification: In contrast to 48% of Jewish adults, identical research conducted of 1,500 US adults showed 34%, roughly two-thirds as many, said a kosher label meant an animal had been better treated. 53% of Jewish respondents agreed that a kosher label on an animal product guarantees that the animal “did not suffer much in its life,” and in the general population, 39% agreed with the same statement. Similarly, 48% of Jewish adults agreed that a kosher label guarantees an animal “was treated humanely during its life,” compared to 40% of all adults. Kosher certification does not ensure any of these claims.
• Many Americans have faulty notions about what kosher means for specific aspects of farmed animal welfare: For example, many shoppers think a kosher label on an animal product means the animal used was not treated with antibiotics except for therapeutic purposes (41% Jewish pop.; 44% general pop.), had healthy genetics (38% Jewish pop.; 40% general pop.), was not confined for much of its life, and lived its entire life on an outdoor pasture (36% Jewish pop.; 37% general pop). Jewish and general population respondents displayed similar beliefs about these topics, except that considerably fewer Jewish adults (26%) believe a kosher certification means animals lived their entire lives on pasture than the general population (34%). Kosher certification has no relationship to antibiotic use, healthy genetics, confinement, or access to pasture.
• 74% of Americans purchase kosher out of concern for food safety: Of the general population that buys kosher products, the majority of shoppers cite food safety as a key concern (previous research has shown that 34% of Americans believe kosher food is safer). A kosher certification in actuality does nothing to safeguard public health from the effects of common factory farming practices such as overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotics are often used in conventionally raised poultry, beef, and farmed fish to prevent rather than treat illness, and can give rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria. A 2013 study found that kosher chicken had the highest rate of antibiotic resistant E. coli, compared with organic and conventional chicken. Some people’s food safety concerns may pertain to allergens—kosher certification ensures, for example, no cross-contamination with non-kosher allergens such as shellfish, and also ensures no cross-contamination with dairy when a product is labeled Pareve or contains meat such as chicken or beef—while other people may associate a lower risk for food-borne illnesses from consuming kosher products. The health risks associated with the unregulated use of antibiotics and their virus-producing potential in intensively farmed animals is receiving increasing attention, particularly given their role in pandemic outbreaks in humans.
• There may be widespread misconceptions about what a kosher label means beyond animal welfare: In addition to animal welfare and food safety, consumers were asked how often they buy kosher products out of a concern for other values such as environmental protection, workers’ rights, and public health. More than half of all adult shoppers for kosher food are concerned about at least one of these three issues, with 66% saying they buy kosher animal products out of concern for the environment (compared with 58% in Jewish pop.), 65% out of concern for public health (59% Jewish pop.), and 54% out of concern for workers’ rights (48% Jewish pop.). Given shoppers’ high level of concern for practices around labor, environment, and health, it is possible that many Americans are confused or misinformed about what a kosher label guarantees, as a kosher certification does not dictate standards for these areas.

Kosher certifications in and of themselves wield significant humanewashing and healthwashing power among both Jewish and non-Jewish adults, whether or not companies intend to deceive consumers. Just as a high percentage of Americans trust kosher to mean that a product is of superior quality, many Jewish and non-Jewish Americans associate kosher certification with better overall treatment of farmed animals compared to non-kosher. Previous survey work demonstrates the majority of Americans are committed to broad anti-cruelty principles. Kosher-certified animal products, like ones that bear other humanewashing labels and claims, often fall short of consumer expectations such as regular access to outdoor pasture. Significantly, the Jewish community—which is best positioned to influence kosher production and educate consumers about the realities of the industry—is even more likely to hold false beliefs around whether a kosher certification ensures better animal treatment and prevents suffering during an animal’s life.

Over 200 Jewish clergy are already responding to the issue of kosher humanewashing by calling on Jewish institutions to adopt more sustainable and ethical food policies. View the full list of signatories and here.

Many American consumers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, purchase kosher animal products because they erroneously believe the label guarantees better animal treatment. According to the results of two national surveys released by Farm Forward, both the general population and Jewish Americans believe a kosher certification means products such as chicken, beef, dairy, eggs, and fish come from animals who were treated better over the course of their lives than non-kosher. Additionally, Jewish Americans are more likely to hold false beliefs about kosher-certified animal products than the general population of Americans.

The data confirms what JIFA has inferred from previous research that shows people think kosher food is inherently better: consumers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, extend this belief to the way farmed animals are bred and raised, despite the fact virtually all kosher and non-kosher meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs come from animal raised on factory farms. This phenomenon is called kosher humanewashing.

The two identical surveys asked people about their purchasing behaviors and understanding of kosher labels on animal products. Below is a summary of the key findings, including comparative findings of the two populations (1,500 adults in the general population and 500 Jewish adults).

Key findings:

• Nearly half of Jewish Americans falsely believe that animals in kosher production are better treated than non-kosher: 48% of Jewish adults nationwide said a kosher label on an animal product such as beef, chicken, fish, dairy products, or eggs means that over the course of an animal’s life, it was better treated than an animal raised for non-kosher products. In reality, nearly all animals used in kosher farming are bred and raised on factory farms.
• In some cases, Jewish consumers are more likely than the general population to believe untruths about kosher certification: In contrast to 48% of Jewish adults, identical research conducted of 1,500 US adults showed 34%, roughly two-thirds as many, said a kosher label meant an animal had been better treated. 53% of Jewish respondents agreed that a kosher label on an animal product guarantees that the animal “did not suffer much in its life,” and in the general population, 39% agreed with the same statement. Similarly, 48% of Jewish adults agreed that a kosher label guarantees an animal “was treated humanely during its life,” compared to 40% of all adults. Kosher certification does not ensure any of these claims.
• Many Americans have faulty notions about what kosher means for specific aspects of farmed animal welfare: For example, many shoppers think a kosher label on an animal product means the animal used was not treated with antibiotics except for therapeutic purposes (41% Jewish pop.; 44% general pop.), had healthy genetics (38% Jewish pop.; 40% general pop.), was not confined for much of its life, and lived its entire life on an outdoor pasture (36% Jewish pop.; 37% general pop). Jewish and general population respondents displayed similar beliefs about these topics, except that considerably fewer Jewish adults (26%) believe a kosher certification means animals lived their entire lives on pasture than the general population (34%). Kosher certification has no relationship to antibiotic use, healthy genetics, confinement, or access to pasture.
• 74% of Americans purchase kosher out of concern for food safety: Of the general population that buys kosher products, the majority of shoppers cite food safety as a key concern (previous research has shown that 34% of Americans believe kosher food is safer). A kosher certification in actuality does nothing to safeguard public health from the effects of common factory farming practices such as overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotics are often used in conventionally raised poultry, beef, and farmed fish to prevent rather than treat illness, and can give rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria. A 2013 study found that kosher chicken had the highest rate of antibiotic resistant E. coli, compared with organic and conventional chicken. Some people’s food safety concerns may pertain to allergens—kosher certification ensures, for example, no cross-contamination with non-kosher allergens such as shellfish, and also ensures no cross-contamination with dairy when a product is labeled Pareve or contains meat such as chicken or beef—while other people may associate a lower risk for food-borne illnesses from consuming kosher products. The health risks associated with the unregulated use of antibiotics and their virus-producing potential in intensively farmed animals is receiving increasing attention, particularly given their role in pandemic outbreaks in humans.
• There may be widespread misconceptions about what a kosher label means beyond animal welfare: In addition to animal welfare and food safety, consumers were asked how often they buy kosher products out of a concern for other values such as environmental protection, workers’ rights, and public health. More than half of all adult shoppers for kosher food are concerned about at least one of these three issues, with 66% saying they buy kosher animal products out of concern for the environment (compared with 58% in Jewish pop.), 65% out of concern for public health (59% Jewish pop.), and 54% out of concern for workers’ rights (48% Jewish pop.). Given shoppers’ high level of concern for practices around labor, environment, and health, it is possible that many Americans are confused or misinformed about what a kosher label guarantees, as a kosher certification does not dictate standards for these areas.

Kosher certifications in and of themselves wield significant humanewashing and healthwashing power among both Jewish and non-Jewish adults, whether or not companies intend to deceive consumers. Just as a high percentage of Americans trust kosher to mean that a product is of superior quality, many Jewish and non-Jewish Americans associate kosher certification with better overall treatment of farmed animals compared to non-kosher. Previous survey work demonstrates the majority of Americans are committed to broad anti-cruelty principles. Kosher-certified animal products, like ones that bear other humanewashing labels and claims, often fall short of consumer expectations such as regular access to outdoor pasture. Significantly, the Jewish community—which is best positioned to influence kosher production and educate consumers about the realities of the industry—is even more likely to hold false beliefs around whether a kosher certification ensures better animal treatment and prevents suffering during an animal’s life.

Over 200 Jewish clergy are already responding to the issue of kosher humanewashing by calling on Jewish institutions to adopt more sustainable and ethical food policies. View the full list of signatories and here.