The work to make agriculture more sustainable, humane, and efficient is complex. It requires considering some of our most profound problems, including climate change and an increasing human population. During the last decade, regenerative agriculture has received a lot of attention as a form of farming that promises environmental benefits compared to industrial farming systems. While regenerative agriculture can improve soil quality and soil microbiome, it is far from being a silver bullet for climate change—and has its own drawbacks.

What is regenerative agriculture?

Regenerative agriculture is best thought of as a system of related agricultural practices, rather than a single method. There is no formal, scientific, or regulated definition of the term.

While the World Economic Forum defines regenerative agriculture as “a way of farming that focuses on soil health,” a review of 25 practitioner websites and 229 journal articles found definitions ranging from “a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services,” to “a long-term, holistic design that attempts to grow as much food using as few resources as possible in a way that revitalizes the soil rather than depleting it, while offering a solution to carbon sequestration,” to “a form of enterprise that incorporates a community of people engaged in civil labor to produce and consume the food (and land, landscape and amenity) that they, collectively, decide to grow.”

In our 2020 report on regenerative agriculture, we pointed out that regenerative agriculture was not a monolith but spanned groups concerned primarily with conservation agriculture and others with a more holistic view incorporating ecological farming, animal welfare, and labor rights.

Many practices of regenerative agriculture are not new. Indigenous communities have employed a number of them for centuries. While the science of regenerative farming was studied during the twentieth century, it exploded in popularity after a 2013 TED talk by Allan Savory went viral. In the talk, Savory specifically pointed to cattle systems as a regenerative boon, arguing in part that humans should eat more meat to improve the environment. The talk’s major claims have been described as “unfounded” by scientists and heavily criticized by the Sierra Club. Nonetheless, regenerative agriculture remains a compelling concept and a buzzword for many, selling books and headlining conferences.

Unfortunately, the massive hype behind the farming practice, along with the absence of clear definitions or meaningful regulation, has led to greenwashing and deceptive marketing from some food companies and farms. Not all regenerative farms are alike, however, because not all regenerative practices are alike.

What are the types of regenerative agriculture?

Regenerative agriculture’s varied forms are not clearly defined. Some types of regenerative agriculture can be entirely arable (crop-based), but in general most regenerative practices involve raising animals—especially ruminant animals like cows—in a semi-pastoral system that integrates grazing and reduced tilling to maintain soil fertility.

What are the five principles of regenerative agriculture?

It’s common to sort the principles of regenerative agriculture into a few main points, and these lists can reflect very different priorities, though they agree on many of the basics.

Integrate animals into the farm as much as possible

Ecosystems require balance, and a key part of that balance is the relationship between plant and animal species (though not necessarily farmed animals). When domesticated farmed animals are allowed to roam within a farm, they can benefit the farm by interacting with plant species, for example by spreading seeds through their manure, which also serves as fertilizer. Animals raised in these conditions may have significantly higher animal welfare than animals raised on factory farms, though this outcome isn’t always a priority for regenerative farming’s advocates.

Minimizing soil disturbance benefits the soil and the climate

Regenerative farmers do not till the soil and tend to avoid synthetic fertilizers that can damage long-term soil health. This ensures that the soil remains undisturbed and can maintain its structure and nutrients, creating better quality crops.

Year-round plant coverage prevents soil erosion and increases carbon inputs

Regenerative agriculture farmers avoid dead spots in the year, when the fields are devoid of any plant life. By ensuring that plants are growing year-round, farmers can capture a bit more carbon from the atmosphere and benefit soil health, as well as providing cover that keeps soil in place during wind and rain.

Diversifying crops in space and time supports resilience, productivity, and diversity

Another key principle of regenerative agriculture is to diversify crops. Monocultures, such as a field that grows corn and only corn every single year, can sap the soil of vital nutrients. The growth of monoculture farming occurred in tandem with the demand for crop feed for animals in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), but regenerative agriculture prioritizes using a diverse variety of plants in a given field.

Reducing synthetic inputs benefits the soil and the biotic community

Regenerative farmers strive to use a smaller volume of chemical inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers compared to conventional farmers. Reducing synthetics helps some regenerative farmers achieve an ongoing financial benefit, as they decrease their dependence on recurring purchases of chemicals.

Soil armor

An alternative fifth principle is the idea of “soil armor.” Regenerative farmers place a layer of litter on the soil to protect it. This reduces required inputs, and gives the ecosystem within the soil time and space to grow. This also allows the soil to hold more water and helps prevent erosion.

What are the practices of regenerative agriculture?

While regenerative agriculture is a trendy new topic for many farmers, and thus does not have meaningful regulations or clear definitions, it does have some basic common practices. The National Resource Defense Council interviewed 100 regenerative farmers to learn about some of them. Here is what they found.

No-till or reduced-till techniques

Tilling, especially overtilling, can be detrimental to the health of the soil. Most regenerative farms do not till at all, but some will till when they consider it necessary.

Growing cover crops, double cropping

Double-cropping refers to an agricultural practice where two crops are harvested in one year, usually in two different seasons. Cover cropping is when a farmer adds a crop to soil when it would normally lie barren, either between seasons or in between rows of crops. Both of these practices can reduce erosion, improve soil health, and increase water retention of the soil.

Crop rotation, interseeding, relay planting, and agroforestry

Each of these methods is a way of avoiding plant monocultures.

• Crop rotation: Planting different crops on a single tract of land over time
• Interseeding: Planting cover crops in between rows of crops
• Relay cropping: Growing two or more crops in the same area by planting the second crop after the first is developed
• Agroforestry: Incorporating trees into agriculture

Precision agriculture

Precision agriculture is the science of improving farm yields with technology, sensors, and analytical tools. For example, a farmer may test the acidity of the soil throughout the growing season and make adjustments based on which crop is growing at that time. By maximizing crop output, more food can be grown using the same amount of land.

Managed grazing

Sometimes called “intensive rotational grazing” or “holistic grazing,” regenerative farms manage the grazing of animals by confining them to a small section of pasture called a paddock for a period of time, then moving them to a second paddock, and allowing the pasture in the first paddock to recover while the animals are grazing in the second paddock. Farms might have anywhere from two to thirty or more paddocks. Rotational grazing may improve the soil and plant life as compared to continuous grazing systems.

What are the benefits of regenerative agriculture?

Animal welfare benefits

Typically, animals on regenerative farms have more access to the outdoors where they can express natural behaviors like grazing and have more space per animal. Animals are less likely to be crowded into small and unhygienic pens or barns and more likely to enjoy a more natural environment. This is undeniably a benefit for farmed animals, but it comes with a very significant caveat.

Unfortunately, regenerative agriculture is not synonymous with high animal welfare. Farmers are permitted, under the principles of regenerative agriculture, to practice branding, dehorning, debeaking, and other cruel practices. Animals in all forms of farming systems are still killed when they reach “slaughter age,” usually taking years or decades off of their natural lifespans. And regenerative agriculture can still use genetically engineered animal species, like broiler chickens, who grow so fast they often experience poor health due to their “optimized” bodies.

To quote from our report on farmed animal welfare in the regenerative agriculture movement:

Regenerative farmers and ranchers in particular see themselves as advocates for farmed animals because they provide individual care for animals and choose farm practices that are significantly more labor intensive than industrial agriculture. However, the regenerative movement’s commitment to animal welfare is not universally held or applied, and farmers may accept some amount of suffering as necessary for their economic viability. Sometimes farmers and ranchers make compromises they attribute to structures outside of their control, including access to high welfare genetics, consumers’ unwillingness to pay higher prices, proximity to slaughterhouses with higher welfare technology, etc. 

Regenerative agriculture often is a step forward for animals, but should not be confused with an adequate solution to the problem of animal welfare in agriculture.

What are the problems with regenerative agriculture?

Greenwashing and misdirection

Some regenerative agriculture farms may engage in greenwashing and mislead the public about how sustainable their practices actually are.

For example, the claims of regenerative agriculture to actually sequester more carbon than naturally produced by ruminant animals are not supported by the scientific literature. In a meta-analysis of over 300 studies conducted by Food Climate Research Network (the largest known scientific review of regenerative agriculture), grazing animal systems were found to only offset between 20 and 60 percent of their own emissions, depending on the type of system. Further, soil sequestration will peak after a few decades, meaning that regenerative agriculture’s ability to offset the emissions from ruminant animals is only temporary. This casts doubt on the future of the carbon sequestration in regenerative agriculture.

In fact, the original TED Talk that kickstarted the modern regenerative cattle movement has been criticized by scientists, so much so that TED posted an official update on the speech, acknowledging that the scientific claims in the speech are “complicated” at best and should be viewed in the wider context of research. Given this larger scientific literature, claims of “carbon-neutral” or “carbon-negative” beef should be met with extreme skepticism.

Regenerative advocates also claim that regenerative agriculture can stop or even reverse desertification across the world through holistic grazing practices. However, many global ecosystems evolved without large-hoofed mammals like cows. For example, in a scientific critical analysis of regenerative agricultural claims in the International Journal of Biodiversity, the authors summarize:

Western US ecosystems outside the prairies in which bison occurred are not adapted to the impact of large herds of livestock. Recent changes to these grassland ecosystems result from herbivory by domestic livestock which has altered fire cycles and promoted invasive species at the expense of native vegetation. 

More environmentally friendly than a switch from industrial animal farming to regenerative animal farming—both in terms of land use and carbon sequestration—would be a switch to entirely plant-based food systems (or those that include cultured meat products).1 If regenerative agriculture has a place in mitigating climate change, it must go hand-in-hand with a global reduction in meat consumption, thanks to the lower density of regenerative animal farming as well as the need to further reduce emissions. So despite regenerative agriculture’s benefits for soil, it cannot solve agriculture’s contributions to climate change as is sometimes claimed.

Humanewashing

Farm Forward’s 2024 investigation of the nation’s premiere regenerative organic dairy, Alexandre Family Farm, demonstrates that the regenerative labels can function not only as forms of greenwashing, but also humanewashing. Despite the positive animal welfare associations under the halo of the “regenerative” label, and despite Alexandre’s awards, accolades, celebrity endorsements, and two official regenerative certifications, for years this regenerative mega-dairy routinely and systemically abused cows, engaged various forms of cruelty to animals, and littered its landscape with decomposing bodies in ways that may have violated state water protection regulations. For more details, see our investigative report on Alexandre, Dairy Deception, or its accompanying article in The Atlantic.

Pandemic risk

All forms of animal agriculture can increase the chances of pandemics, including regenerative agriculture. Because holistic grazing demands high land use, it often encroaches on native species and can raise the risk of disease by increasing human-wildlife interactions. A 2022 study on how different farm practices contribute to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) found that “less ‘intensive’ systems are liable to be low-yielding. This means they require both a larger livestock population and more land and hence greater habitat loss and degradation, increasing the risk of zoonotic EID emergence.”2.

Frequently asked questions

Can regenerative agriculture reverse climate change?

No, regenerative agriculture is not a climate solution on its own. Because regenerative animal-based agriculture requires massive amounts of land and cannot sequester as much carbon as it emits, it would need to be paired with dramatic reductions in meat consumption to significantly lower the emissions from agriculture.

Can regenerative agriculture feed the world?

No. Regenerative agriculture is not efficient, especially with regard to land use. Further, regenerative animal-based farming requires more land than industrial farming systems, at least 2.5 times more land according to a report funded by regenerative farmers. Meat production already takes up about three billion hectares of land globally; if we expand that land 2.5 times as required by a regenerative system, we would use over 60 percent of the Earth’s land—with just the current population.

We will need to increase food system efficiency by 50 percent by 2050 to feed the growing population. There is not enough land in the world to feed enough people if our agricultural systems were switched entirely to regenerative animal-based agriculture.

Can regenerative agriculture restore lost biodiversity?

Regenerative agriculture’s potential for restoring biodiversity depends on the location and type of regenerative agriculture. Farmed animals are now widespread across the world, but most did not naturally co-evolve naturally with any ecosystem. When animals graze on land far removed from their ancestors’ natural habitats, it may not benefit local biodiversity.

One study that examined 29 years of land use in different grazing systems found that grazing cattle improved biodiversity by 30 percent, but native grazers (in this case, bison) improved biodiversity by 86 percent. Another study that analyzed livestock in the United States argued that “cessation of grazing would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil and water resources, and would enhance/sustain native species biodiversity.” So holistic grazing may improve biodiversity in certain areas, but not nearly as much as allowing native fauna to thrive and/or rewilding land from animal agriculture.

What is needed to accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture?

In our report on regenerative agriculture, we outline that large-scale shifts to regenerative agriculture would require financial incentives such as “philanthropic grants, pension funds, real estate investment trusts, and private investment in climate change mitigation strategies.” Further research, increased consumer interest, and improved regulation of the industry would also be needed to accelerate a hypothetical transition.

Are regenerative agriculture and soil health the same thing?

Regenerative agriculture is a system of practices that prioritize, among other things, soil health. But the terms are not interchangeable.

How to support regenerative agriculture

The easiest way to support regenerative agriculture on an individual level is straightforward: patronize local regenerative farms.

How is regenerative agriculture different from sustainable agriculture?

While many aspects of regenerative agriculture are more sustainable than industrial agriculture, such as reduced tilling, reduced pesticide use, and diversifying crops, regenerative agriculture is not inherently sustainable, especially because ruminant animals emit more greenhouse gases than can be stored by the soil. Plant-based agriculture is more sustainable from an emissions standpoint than any animal-based regenerative system.

Further, regenerative agriculture uses massive amounts of land, and thus cannot be scaled up to feed the global population. Regenerative agriculture can play a role in climate harm mitigation, but only if paired with substantial shifts in diets toward plant based foods.

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.

Factory farming isn’t inevitable. Giant, filthy, cramped animal farms are not simply the consequence of technological advancement in agriculture. Industrial farming is a system built by companies with the help of friendly governments; public policies and taxpayer subsidies play a critical role in propping up factory farming. Farm Forward opposes public funding of factory farms and greenwashing technologies like biogas, which serve to entrench and expand factory farming. Earlier this year, Farm Forward joined a coalition, the Michiganders for a Just Farming System, opposing a proposed bill (Senate Bill 275) in the Michigan legislature that would enrich industrial animal agriculture at the expense of smaller-scale farmers, Michigan communities, and truly clean energy solutions.

This proposed legislation is another case of public policy being used to calcify the status quo of large-scale, confinement agriculture. SB 275 would classify farm-derived biogas as a clean fuel source, which would allow it to qualify for participation in a lucrative carbon credit market. Factory-farmed animals, particularly cows and pigs, produce vast volumes of waste that emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, along with other pollutants. Biodigesters (also called anaerobic digesters) can capture some of the methane produced by manure waste, which can be burned to produce modest amounts of electricity. While biodigesters may reduce some methane emissions, the purpose of the technology is not primarily to solve climate change. The technology is used by the meat and dairy industry as well as the fossil fuel industry to create government programs to profit from their polluting practices. The pattern is so clear that it’s commonly referred to as “brown gold” by dairy producers.

Michiganders Oppose Propping Up Factory Farms

According to a recent survey conducted by Data for Progress for Farm Forward, a plurality of Michiganders (47 percent) have an unfavorable view of large-scale factory farms, whereas 89 percent have a positive view of small family farms. What’s more, Michiganders are supportive of climate legislation, but with a catch: they are less likely to support climate legislation like factory farm biogas when they learn that it’s a boon for industry.

If SB 275 is passed by the Democratic House and Senate and signed by Governor Whitmer, Michigan factory farms may be eligible for tens of millions of dollars in lucrative credits, enriching an industry that most Michiganders have a negative view of.

In the poll, Democrats’ support for SB 275 dropped by 22 points after respondents learned that industry heavily influenced the bill. The prime backer of SB 275 is a group called Clean Fuels Michigan, which represents numerous companies and interests, from Amazon to BP to Delta. Conversely, SB 275 has virtually no support from environmental groups within the state.

Those survey results should be no surprise. Good climate legislation should leverage public investment in the technologies and industries that stand to make a meaningful impact on climate change and improve local environments. Enriching factory farms does neither of those things. Michiganders want to invest in climate solutions to reduce greenhouse gasses, improve air and water quality, support sustainable farmers, and benefit rural communities. So do we. That’s why we oppose SB 275 and efforts to greenwash factory farms.

Instead, we should push for legislation like the Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act, which moves the US closer to a more sustainable and humane food system.

 

While we applaud recent investments from the federal government that have finally begun to tackle the climate crisis, the Biden Administration’s hallmark climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), massively missed the mark when it comes to bad incentives for agriculture. Instead of prioritizing truly low-carbon regenerative and plant-based agriculture, the IRA includes hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives that giant meat and dairy companies are using to entrench animal factories across rural America.

Today in Washington DC, legislators introduced a new bill that would help address the harms of massive confinement factory farms and invest in sustainable food systems. The Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act (IACA), introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) offers a positive vision for a future of American farming without massive CAFOs. Farm Forward strongly endorses the IACA and we join more than 100 environmental, public health, family farmer, consumer, and animal protection organizations in doing so.

At a high level, the bill directs the United States Department of Agriculture to provide grants to carry out genuinely climate-smart conservation projects. Specifically, the IACA will create a slate of new tools to enable farmers to build a more sustainable and humane agriculture system. This is a common sense bill that is supported by a significant majority of Americans—according to a survey commissioned by the ASPCA, 82 percent of Americans support the government offering CAFO farmers money to help cover the costs of transitions to more humane systems of agriculture. In that same survey, there was little support for the government’s current policy of reimbursing profitable corporations for mass culling their flocks after bird flu outbreaks (38 percent).

And according to recent polling conducted by Data for Progress on Farm Forward’s behalf, large numbers of Michigan voters reject the idea that state climate policy should be influenced by factory farms and fossil fuel interests.

And that’s what the IACA is about—moving away from financing that helps the factory farming industry.

Among other provisions, the bill:

• Supports converting CAFOs to specialty crop production;
• Supports improvements related to farm animal welfare like access to the outdoors and access to pasture;
• Prevents conservation grants from going to methane digesters and other entrenching technologies.

The Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act is the latest in a series of proposed legislation aimed at building a saner, more sustainable, and humane food system. Bills like the Farm Systems Reform Act and the Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act both, in different ways, would take important steps toward regulating factory farming and reducing its harm. Together these bills offer a bold vision for the future of American agriculture that puts factory farms where they belong—in the rearview mirror.

 

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.

When our team talks about helping communities align their food practices with their Jewish values, we often skirt past the second part of that mission: strengthening Jewish American communities in the process.

Food plays an integral symbolic and visceral role in strengthening our communities. When we source our meals from places and practices that are consonant with our Jewish values (however they are prioritized from community to community), the members of our communities are also cared for more deeply. And perhaps the fabric of our communal connection is strengthened in knowing that the larger living community–farmed animals, farm and food workers, rural communities, wildlife, and ecosystems–are given the opportunity to flourish. Perhaps we as Jewish eaters gain strength when we bring intention and attention to the chain of transmission that brings food to our plates and to one another.

Our ability to support and strengthen communities multiplies exponentially when we collaborate with a broader village of members. This is why we are thrilled to formally partner with the Rabbinical Assembly and the Conservative Jewish Movement on a groundbreaking cohort program to support up to 7 denomination-affiliated organizations in adopting sustainable kosher food policies. We expect each participating institution to achieve, at a minimum, a 20% reduction in the volume of animal products served.

Why is this cohort program unique?

Many Jewish communities care about the impact of the food they choose to serve and are seeking ways to improve the sustainability of their food choices. While some organizations recognize the crucial role that food sourcing and serving plays in our quest for climate health, harm reduction to people and other animals, and even broader food security, sustainable food practices are not yet the norm in our communities, nor are they widely understood as an necessary step toward achieving minimal greenhouse gas emissions, water, and land use with which Jewish institutions are increasingly concerned.

This program provides a way for institutions to achieve these goals with the practical and educational support from JIFA’s team and the leadership support of the Conservative Movement. While the pilot program will run for one year, each community will come away with a lasting and implementable sustainable food policy.

What is the potential impact of sustainable food policies?

JIFA helps communities adjust food programs where the most positive change is possible. We work creatively on changing their “choice architecture” to help incorporate more sustainable, plant-rich foods instead of  foods that come from harmful industrial practices. To implement these changes we help communities design menus, events, and even dining halls to make the sustainable choice the easy choice.

Changing the meals we serve to community members has a much greater potential to decrease our collective greenhouse gas emissions than other sustainability initiatives, like upgrading our light bulbs or installing low-flow toilets. Making our meals plant-based by default drastically decreases our contribution to climate change and drought, cutting our meals’ greenhouse gas emissions by half and water footprint by up to two-thirds.

If this were scaled to the broader population, we could see unprecedented preservation of our natural resources and consequently a more livable planet: research has shown that without our current levels of meat and dairy consumption, we could reduce global farmland use by more than 75% and still feed all people–an opportunity that our Jewish values of preserving life beckon us to consider.

Why is The Rabbinical Assembly leading this charge?

The Conservative Movement has passionately addressed the ethical implications of our food choices and production practices for decades. RA clergy have advocated for values-aligned practices that extend to every level in the food production chain, including advocating for kosher practices in animal agriculture that better reflect Jewish values.

Just last year, the RA passed 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 resolution also tasked the Social Justice Commission with creating a subcommittee that would “revisit [the RA’s] work in the area of ethical food consumption.” Rav Natan Freller, head of the aforementioned Ethically Sourced Food Subcommittee, is enthusiastic about achieving these goals with JIFA’s support:

“The Rabbinical Assembly has been looking for a partner, with knowledge and resources, to help us educate our communities about the important ethical challenges posed by industrial farming and the potential for plant-forward foods to better align our food choices with our values. This unique partnership between JIFA and the RA is exactly what we needed to get started on this long-term cultural change process, raising awareness about how we make better choices regarding the food we serve and eat. I’m very excited to see this pilot project in action soon and hopeful to see all the good it will disseminate in our communities.”

We are so pleased that the RA has chosen JIFA as a primary partner for this work.

Eating together is an opportunity for connection, fellowship, and significant conversations. We are excited to support this upcoming cohort in strengthening their connection to food, to Jewish life, and to one another as we work on aligning communal food practices with Jewish values.

In the Vatican Gardens after a private audience with the Pope, author and Farm Forward founding board member Jonathan Safran Foer gave a keynote address in response to Pope Francis’s new Apostolic Exhortation, Laudaute Deum. Foer argued that food systems reform and eating fewer animal products are important and necessary modes of addressing climate change. He also discussed the necessity for policy change and individual action in meeting the moment. Below is the text from Foer’s speech.

It is a tremendous honor to participate today. Before having the opportunity to read the text of Pope Francis’s “Laudate Deum,” I had no intention of bringing my one-year-old daughter to this event. But I was so profoundly moved by the wisdom, courage and moral urgency of the Pope’s words, that I wanted her—a representative of my, and our, future—to be present.

In 1942, a twenty-eight-year-old Catholic in the Polish underground, Jan Karski, embarked on a mission to travel from Nazi-occupied Poland to London, and ultimately America, to inform world leaders of what the Germans were perpetrating. In preparation for his journey, he met with several resistance groups, accumulating information and testimonies to bring to the West. In his memoir, he recounts a meeting with the head of the Jewish Socialist Alliance:

The leader gripped my arm with such violence that it ached. I looked into his wild, staring eyes with awe, moved by the deep, unbearable pain in them. “Tell the leaders that this is no case for politics or tactics. Tell them that the Earth must be shaken to its foundation, the world must be aroused. Perhaps then it will wake up, understand, perceive…”

After surviving as perilous a journey as could be imagined, Karski arrived in Washington, D.C., in June 1943. There, he met with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of the great legal minds in American history, and himself a Jew. After hearing Karski’s accounts of the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto and of exterminations in the concentration camps, after asking him a series of increasingly specific questions (“What is the height of the wall that separates the ghetto from the rest of the city?”), Frankfurter paced the room in silence, then took his seat and said, “Mr. Karski, a man like me talking to a man like you must be totally frank. So I must say I am unable to believe what you told me.” When Karski’s colleague pleaded with Frankfurter to accept Karski’s account, Frankfurter responded, “I didn’t say that this young man is lying. I said I am unable to believe him. My mind, my heart, they are made in such a way that I cannot accept it.”

Frankfurter didn’t question the truthfulness of Karski’s story. He didn’t dispute that the Germans were systematically murdering the Jews of Europe—his own relatives. And he didn’t respond that while he was persuaded and horrified, there was nothing he could do. Rather, he admitted not only his inability to believe the truth, but his awareness of that inability. Frankfurter was unable to wake up, understand, perceive.

Our minds and hearts are well built to perform certain tasks, and poorly designed for others. We are good at things like calculating the path of a hurricane, and bad at things like deciding to get out of its way. We excel at taking care of ourselves, and struggle to make the leaps of empathy required to take care of others. The further those “others” are—geographically, in time, and between species—the greater we struggle.

Although many of climate change’s accompanying calamities—extreme weather events, floods and wildfires, displacement and resource scarcity—are vivid, personal, and suggestive of a worsening situation, they often don’t feel that way in aggregate. They often feel abstract, distant, and isolated, rather than like beams of an ever-strengthening narrative. The earth is telling us a story that we seem unable to believe.

So-called climate change deniers reject the conclusion that science has reached: the planet is warming because of human activities. But what about those of us who say we accept the reality of human-caused climate change? We may not think the scientists are lying, but do we have the will to believe what they tell us? Such a belief would surely awaken us to the urgent ethical imperative attached to it, shake our collective conscience, and render us willing to make small sacrifices in the present to avoid cataclysmic ones in the future.

Intellectually accepting the truth isn’t virtuous in and of itself. And it won’t save us. As a child, I was often told “you know better” when I did something I shouldn’t have done. Knowing was the difference between a mistake and an offense.

If we accept the factual reality that we are destroying the planet and dooming future generations, but are unable to believe it and change our behaviors in meaningful ways, we reveal ourselves to be just another variety of denier. When the future distinguishes between these two kinds of denial, which will appear to be a grave error and which a sin?

Perhaps the most courageous feature of Pope Francis’s paper is that he pointedly calls us “to move beyond the mentality of appearing to be concerned but not having the courage needed to produce substantial changes.” It is more comfortable to speak about these changes in abstract terms—the kind that make us feel good when advertised on t-shirts or cheered in rallies—than the practical ones that require us to alter our lives. Yes, there are constraints on how quickly and how much we can change, there are conventions and economic realities that limit the parameters of the possible. Yet we remain free to choose among possible options—and there are many within reach that could alter the trajectory of existence.

The most influential decisions will be at the policy level, shaping the practices of nations, but we also can make decisions in our own lives and local institutions that matter more than crude math might suggest. As Pope Francis emphasizes, “Efforts by households to reduce pollution and waste, and to consume with prudence, are creating a new culture”—a culture that is already playing, and will play, a decisive role in rallying larger collective actions. Choosing a form of transportation with lower carbon emissions, or reducing the consumption of animal products, especially meat, are actions that can matter at the individual and the policy level. The power of food system change to alter the climate is particularly noteworthy and only just beginning to be realized.

We need structural change, yes. We need a global shift away from fossil fuels. We need to enforce something akin to a carbon tax, build walkable cities, and rapidly electrify homes and communities from increasingly renewable energy sources. We need to acknowledge the disproportionate obligations of countries, like my own, that have been disproportionately responsible for climate change. We will likely need a political revolution. These changes will require shifts that individuals alone cannot realize. But putting aside the fact that collective revolutions are made up of individuals, led by individuals, and reinforced by individual revolutions, we would have no chance of achieving our goal of limiting environmental destruction if individuals don’t make the very individual decision to live differently: to drive and fly less, to eat less meat, and to do the hard work of believing in both the catastrophe we are creating and our capacity to avert it. Of course it’s true that one person’s decisions will not change the world, but of course it’s true that the sum of hundreds of millions of such decisions will.

This is not to understate the challenge of changing one’s life. I have written two books about ethical eating and still regularly struggle to make choices that reflect my beliefs. It is now clear that this will be a lifelong struggle for me. I began these remarks by mentioning that my daughter is joining me today. We flew here. I made the decision that the carbon expense of this particular trip was worth it. These are the kinds of choices each of us must face, and we won’t arrive at the same answers. What’s needed is not complete agreement, much less purity, but our belief, expressed through our best and most thoughtful efforts.

Also needed is hope. There is an understandable tendency among those who care to catastrophize. I often wrestle with despair in my own thinking about climate change. We need not despair, and we cannot despair. If we can acknowledge in our hearts what our heads have already concluded about the struggle before us, the courage to change will follow.

Pope Francis addresses his Laudate Deum to “all people of good will,” and this sentiment presides over the document. What does it mean to be a person of good will if not to make ethical choices? What is ecological grace if not the sum of daily, hourly decisions to take a bit less than our hands can hold, to eat other than what we might crave in any given moment, to create limits for ourselves so that we all might be able to share in the bounty? Surely we can now see that the sum of these changes will not be the deprivation some have told us to fear, but the overcoming of a global catastrophe and our most valuable gift to the future.

The Talmud tells of a sage who encountered a man planting a carob tree by the side of the road. He asked the man how long it would take to bear fruit. “Seventy years,” the man replied. “And do you think you will live another seventy years to eat the fruit of this tree?” “Perhaps not,” the man answered. “However, when I was born into this world, I found many carob trees planted by my father and grandfather. Just as they planted trees for me, I am planting trees for my children and grandchildren so they will be able to eat their fruit.”

We often think of our legacy as passing along the things we amass in life, but this must change. The most profound inheritance we bestow is not what we acquire, but the beliefs with which we struggle, the efforts we make to live by them, and perhaps above all, what we are ready to let go of. As St. Francis reminds us: “when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received–only what you have given.”

 

 

A key goal of the project to move beyond factory farming in the U.S. should be to accelerate the enactment of state and local policy to hold the meat industry accountable for the harm it inflicts on people, animals, and the environment. To further this goal, Farm Forward is collaborating with Yale Law School’s CAFE Law and Policy Lab and other NGOs to develop innovative policy approaches that can be enacted at the state and municipal level to challenge factory farming practices. A coalition of nonprofits will work collaboratively with Yale law and other graduate students to research and understand modern legal and policy challenges for those working to challenge factory farming. The insights and findings generated by the students will complement and support existing policy efforts, providing valuable resources for activists, citizens, and policymakers at the state and local levels.

A critical feature of this work is the theory of change under which we’re operating: the complex problem of industrial animal farming will require a collective, diverse, and intersectional method of policy decision-making and reform, and no single justice area (e.g., environmental justice, labor rights, animal protection, or farmer advocacy) should be advanced at the sacrifice of another.

Like climate change and wealth inequality, factory farming is a wicked problem; its harms to people, animals, the climate and environment are varied, mutually reinforcing, and resistant to change; it doesn’t have a singular, let alone an easily identifiable solution. It’s a unique phenomenon that manifests itself politically, economically, and culturally and therefore requires a nuanced approach that isn’t reducible to only one framework or mode of understanding.

Moving beyond factory farming with public policy

Over the past ten years, the farmed animal protection movement has invested heavily in two strategies—alternative protein and corporate welfare campaigns. While these strategies have significant merit and should be pursued, they are not the only strategies available to the animal advocacy movement. An axiom of our collaboration with Yale Law School is that state and local policy specifically should be explored to meaningfully address the social costs of industrial animal agriculture. This is consistent with Farm Forward’s goal: to build the will, including political will, to end factory farming. To that end, numerous promising efforts across the U.S. should inspire optimism.

For example, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act late last year, which introduced a swath of new protections and regulations for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). More recently, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced the Transparency in Depopulation Act, which would “prevent federal funding from being used for some of the most inhumane methods of animal slaughter.” While policies of this sort are unlikely to become law in the near term, they galvanize meaningful attention to the issue at the highest level of government.

And in a surprising—and uplifting—move, the Supreme Court decided to uphold California’s Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale of pork from farming operations that use gestation crates for sows regardless of where in the U.S. the pork was produced.

Several promising policy proposals introduced or implemented outside of Washington DC also challenge the institutional power of CAFOs. One particularly exciting multi-state effort is the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), which pushes large institutions, like municipalities, to filter their food procurement through five domains: local economies, health, valued workforce, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. Values-based procurement policies of this type have been adopted by a number of cities across the U.S., from Los Angeles to Chicago to Boston.

Many other promising initiatives and developments are taking root across the country. Citizen activists and state lawmakers have proposed statewide CAFO moratoriums; controversial ag-gag laws have been struck down in a number of states; the US’ only octopus farm had the most controversial components of its operation halted; cities have proposed comprehensive plant-based procurement policies. In addition, consider all of the work being done by environmental justice groups and labor organizations (among many others) to oppose the political and economic power of CAFOs throughout the U.S.

Conclusion

Among the great number of diverse approaches and strategies employed by the farm animal protection movement today, advocating for robust social policy addressing the different dimensions of harm caused by CAFOs is undoubtedly among the most promising.

The harms of factory farming are not isolated to one group but rather are inflicted upon workers, farmers, animals, neighboring communities, the environment, the climate, and public health. This collaboration between Farm Forward, Yale, and other NGOs signifies a commitment to an intersectional approach to ending factory farming, which centers the importance of building diverse coalitions for the broader effort of building political will.

Over the last several years controversy surrounding lab-grown, or cultured, meat has exploded. Ranchers have argued over whether or not it should be considered meat, while vegans have argued about whether or not it should be considered vegan. One thing is clear: lab-grown meat has the capacity to dramatically change the way we eat, and the impacts that our diets have on the world around us.

What is lab-grown meat?

Lab-grown meat, also called cultured or cultivated meat, is grown from the cells of an animal, without any need to slaughter an animal to obtain the meat. The animal’s cells are cultivated in stainless steel drums called bioreactors, which are engineered to encourage replication of cells or growth of biological mass. The products that result from this process have been met with excitement due to their potential to replace the millions of animals being raised on factory farms around the world. Because cultured meat is produced in laboratory environments, it does not suffer from some of the contamination and health issues that plague traditional meat producers, such as antibiotic resistance and foodborne and zoonotic illnesses.

What is lab-grown meat made of?

Lab-grown meat is made of the same cells that make up meat from slaughtered animals. The only difference is that cultured meat is produced in labs, whereas traditional meat requires the slaughter of animals.1

Lab-grown meat production process

The process of growing meat in a lab starts with animal cells. If the cells are collected directly from an animal, the animals do not need to be slaughtered. Once the cells have been gathered, they are placed into cultivators where they are provided with a growth medium to encourage them to multiply. Alterations to the medium and the use of a scaffolding structure trigger cells to differentiate into fat, sinew, and other elements that help to recreate the textures that occur in farm-raised meat.

Why are people growing meat in labs?

The appeal of lab-grown meat stems from the impact that it could have on the environment, public health, and animal welfare. If it can be brought to scale, cell-cultured meat could be a key step toward more sustainable diets, fewer animals being raised for slaughter, the eventual phasing out of factory farms, and improved public health.

Is meat grown in a lab healthy?

Cultured meat is cellularly indistinguishable from the flesh of animals raised on a factory farm. However, there are several aspects of health in which cultured meat surpasses traditionally farmed meat. For example, animal agriculture is already one of the major contributors to antibiotic resistance worldwide, and the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in animal farming is set to increase further in the coming years. Cellular meat does not require the heavy use of antibiotics, so its production does not contribute to this ongoing public health crisis.

Another aspect of cultured meat that makes it healthier than its farm-raised equivalent is its lower likelihood of causing zoonotic diseases. While animal agriculture is likely to be a source of future pandemics caused by illnesses that jump from animals to people, this risk is minimized in cell-cultured agriculture, because there are no animals involved once the cells have been collected.

Is lab-grown meat bad?

One potential issue with lab-grown meat over the long term is that its production on a large scale may encourage people to continue to overconsume meat products. Consuming red meat, particularly, has been linked to a variety of health issues including heart disease. Given that cellular methods are able to produce red meat without the massive environmental and animal welfare tolls of raising cattle, it is possible that individual consumption could go up, helping to perpetuate poor health outcomes in the United States.

Other issues with lab-grown meat have to do with people’s uncertainty about its relation to meat from slaughtered animals. Cell-cultured meat has been the subject of some discussion in religious communities, for example, concerning whether it meets religious dietary restrictions.

Lab-grown meat pros and cons

Any consideration of lab-grown meat must include discussion of its pros and cons.

Pros:

• Animal welfare. Lab-grown meat does not require that animals suffer like they do on a tremendous scale in industrial farming, which produces more than 99 percent of our current meat supply.
• Environment. Lab-grown meat requires less land and water than traditional meat, and produces fewer greenhouse gasses.
• Worker welfare. Industrial animal agriculture contributes to many health problems for its workers. Slaughterhouses are one of the most dangerous industries for workers in America today.
• Public health. The pandemic and antibiotic resistance risks of lab-grown meat are minimal compared to those of factory farms.

Cons:

• Cultural acceptance. Farm Forward’s most recent consumer survey shows that two-thirds (67 percent) of Americans say that they would eat lab-grown meat. That leaves about one-third (33 percent) who currently would not.
• Regulatory challenges. At the moment, lab-grown meat is prohibited from commercial availability in all countries except for Singapore.
• Economics. Conventional meat benefits from government subsidies. Whether or not lab grown meat could ever receive comparable subsidies, it would have to achieve a much larger scale of production to compete with conventional meat on price.
• Technical challenges. Some skeptics believe that the technical and biological challenges that would be involved in producing mammalian cells at a large scale are impossible to overcome.

Lab-grown meat versus real meat

Lab-grown meat and “real” meat from farm-raised animals are indistinguishable on a cellular level. The major differences between them stem from their methods of production. For example, farm-raised meat is a major contributor to climate change. If adopted on a large scale, lab-grown meat would contribute less to global warming and air pollution while using less water and land, particularly in conjunction with the use of renewable energy.

Is lab-grown meat vegetarian?

Vegetarians have traditionally excluded meat from their diets, usually for ethical, environmental, health, or religious reasons. Because lab-grown meat is the same substance as meat that has been produced conventionally, some might not consider lab-grown meat vegetarian. However, because lab-grown meat has a much lower environmental footprint than traditional meat, and can be produced without harming an animal, some might consider lab-grown meat vegetarian.

The nutritional profile of lab-grown meat appears to be identical to traditional meat, so people who eat a vegetarian diet for individual health reasons would likely not eat lab-grown meat.

Some religious communities with doctrines related to eating meat are debating whether lab-grown meat should be treated the same as traditional meat, since, for example, there is no animal slaughtered to produce lab-grown meat, so religious rules pertaining to slaughter cannot be observed.

Is lab-grown meat vegan?

Vegans have traditionally excluded all animal products, including meat, from their diets, usually for ethical, environmental, health, or religious reasons. There is potential for cultured meat to be considered vegan. Some people who follow a vegan lifestyle seek to minimize suffering or environmental devastation, while others view veganism as not eating, wearing, or otherwise using any animal products. From the former perspective, cultured meat could be considered vegan, because no animals are necessarily raised and killed in order to produce it. However, those who adhere to the latter perspective may not consider lab-grown meat vegan, as on the cellular level it is the same product as traditionally-produced meat.

Did the FDA approve lab-grown meat?

The Food and Drug Association (FDA) recently issued “no questions” letters to UPSIDE Foods and to GOOD Meat (the cultured meat division of Eat Just, Inc.) for their cultivated chicken products. These letters do not constitute approvals of these companies’ lab-grown meat products, but rather signal that at this point in the development process the FDA is accepting the companies’ conclusion that their products are safe. There is still a process that their products, and those made by other cell-based meat companies, will need to undergo before hitting supermarket shelves in the U.S. Part of this process includes getting approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Is lab-grown meat available in the U.S.?

Lab-grown meat is not yet available in the United States, as it is still pending approval by the USDA.

When can people buy lab-grown meat?

Though lab-grown meat recently took a big step toward hitting grocery store shelves when the FDA chose not to contest one company’s safety statement, there are still lengthy approval processes to move through. Products must be inspected and approved by the USDA before they can be sold in grocery stores. With dozens of different companies, each specializing in a specific cell-based product such as lamb, seafood, pork, or beef, the process of getting a cell-based option to consumers will still take some time.

Lab-grown meat companies

The global lab-grown meat industry was worth $246.9 million in 2022. The industry is expected to expand exponentially through 2030. The growth and promise of the industry have attracted a plethora of different companies, each working to create a specific cell-based product.

• Believer Meats. Previously Future Meat Technologies, this company focuses on increasing the efficiency of cell-based meat production.
• UPSIDE Foods. UPSIDE Foods focuses on creating cultivated chicken.
• Mosa Meat. Mosa Meat is a Dutch company focused on creating cell-cultivated beef.
• SuperMeat. This company focuses on lab-grown chicken, which they then use to create recipes within their test kitchen.
• Aleph Farms. This company cultivates steak in their labs.
• Bond Pet Food. Bond cultivates chicken protein, dries it, and grinds it into a fine powder, for use in dry and wet dog and cat foods.

What challenges in lab-grown meat need to be overcome?

Lab-grown meat still faces a large number of daunting challenges in its production process before it can reach a large enough scale to effectively compete against industrial raised meat.

A vegan growth medium

When first conceived, cell-cultured meat used fetal bovine serum as the medium for growing the meat. However, in recent years several companies have announced that they have created new animal-free growth mediums that are just as effective at cultivating and encouraging cell growth as their predecessors.

Mass production

Lab-grown meat companies have struggled with cultivating meat quickly enough to mass produce it. There are some signs of progress, such as facilities already launched internationally that can produce as much as 1,000 pounds of lab-grown meat a day.

Texture

Detractors of cultivated meat may doubt whether it’s possible to create meat in a lab that shares the texture of farm-raised meat. Conventional meat consists of about 90 percent muscle fibers and smaller amounts of fat, connective, nervous, and vascular tissues. This combination gives meat certain chewing characteristics such as cohesiveness, springiness, and resilience to which meat eaters have grown accustomed. Texture has long been a sticking point for cell-cultured meat companies working to create more complex meats (as opposed to highly processed meats like chicken nuggets).  A recent analysis of lab-grown meat used in frankfurters, turkey breast cold cuts, and chicken breasts found that the texture was very similar to the farm-raised products being imitated.

In addition, lab-grown meat faces a number of regulatory, cultural, and economic challenges that it must overcome for production to reach the scale necessary to compete with traditional meat on price.

Will lab-grown meat replace factory farming?

Lab-grown meat will likely play an important role in the elimination of factory farming—assuming that the products can be brought to market at a cost similar to industrially raised animal products—but it won’t be the only factor. Lab-grown meat faces an uphill battle in several areas. It will take some time for lab-grown meat to become culturally accepted as an alternative to traditional meat. Another potential hurdle comes from farmers, who may attempt to further increase production efficiency and decrease costs as they seek to compete with lab-grown meat. If industrial farms’ stocking densities increase, scales expands, and animals are treated increasingly as cogs in a machine, this would likely result in even worse consequences for animals, people, and the environment.

However, even if lab-grown meat could take over a small percentage of the meat market this would likely result in tens of millions of fewer animals raised in industrial farms, this would be a huge step forward.

What would happen to farmers and their animals if cultivated meat took off?

Cultured meat has been in the works for decades and still has many regulatory and production hurdles to clear before it hits grocery store shelves. In even the most optimistic scenarios, lab-grown meat would initially be available only in a limited number of outlets. The public’s uptake of lab-grown meat as a staple protein source would be gradual. Therefore, factory farms would not be eliminated overnight. Rather, cell-based meat could be one of the driving forces behind reducing the sizes of factory farms over a longer period of time. This phase-out provides ample time for farmers to retire or adapt to the changing market.

As we have written elsewhere,

[Lab-grown] meats will play a key role in replacing the need for factory farming by providing nutritious, desirable, low-cost products, but even assuming wide adoption of these technologies a sizable group of people will remain committed to eating farmed animals. Bearing those consumers in mind, defeating factory farming will require a second strategy: providing an adequate supply of animal products from higher (and the highest) welfare conditions. Farm Forward’s strongly supports plant based/cellular meat, but we would be unwise to put all of our eggs in one basket. Plant based/cellular meat and higher welfare meat must work synergistically if we are to create a world free of factory farming. We must not lose sight of either.

Conclusion

Cell-based meat has come a long way since the first burger from a lab was produced in 2013. Since then, intense research has resulted in a vast array of products. While many challenges remain in the decades ahead, lab-grown meat may become a significant force reducing society’s dependence on the factory farms that have proven so devastating to animal welfare and the climate and environment.

This letter is the second in a 3-part message from our founder, Aaron Gross. To read the previous letter in the series, please click here.

In 2007 when Farm Forward was founded there wasn’t a single organization in the country that even claimed to be exclusively focused on ending factory farming—it was, as it sometimes still remains, at best a smaller side project of an organization with a larger mission. At Farm Forward, we have only ever had one mission: ending factory farming. We give special priority to animal welfare, but our supporters are also climate activists, environmentalists, public health advocates, anti-racism activists, and many others ready to stand with us against the industrial farm and in favor of a transformed food system for all. We’re omnivores, vegans, flexitarians and every other kind of eater.

Though fifteen years old, we are still a new kind of organization. Factory farming is a new kind of problem and requires no less.

We’re proud that other nonprofits have joined us over the years; we’re pleased to see more resources at larger nonprofits directed to anti-factory farming efforts; and we’ve been especially honored to work with new philanthropists putting anti-factory farming efforts at the center of their portfolios. However, most of all, we’re grateful to all of you—our supporters and followers—for making it possible for us to spend our days fighting this important social transformation.

The Farm Forward team is made of individuals with a lifetime commitment to transforming animal agriculture—this is not just an ordinary job for us, but a calling. We work tirelessly to keep abreast of the unfolding realities of industrial farming so that we can identify the pressure points capable of truly weakening and ultimately transforming animal agriculture as we know it. We live in a world that demands specialists, and our specialty is building the public will to end factory farming.

For fifteen years we’ve been doing just that, and, with your help, we are just getting started!

Onward and forward,

Aaron S. Gross

Founder and CEO // Farm Forward

P.S. – Please consider supporting our efforts with a donation of $10 or more! Every donation in any amount helps demonstrate the public will to end factory farming and helps our efforts to secure funds from foundations and large donors.

***

Thank you for reading the second letter from Farm Forward’s founder, Aaron Gross. The final letter in the series can be found here.

This letter is the first in a 3-part message from our founder, Aaron Gross. To read the next letter in the series, please click here.

As Thanksgiving leftovers disappear, I still find myself filled with gratitude for the movement we are building to end factory farming and transform our food system. In 2022, Farm Forward turns fifteen years old, and, as New Years approaches, it’s a powerful time to reflect on just how much strength we’ve built. Our movement is stronger and closer to victory than you may think.

In the last twelve months Farm Forward’s call to transform animal agriculture has reached more people than ever before. The videos that we helped create on humanewashing and the link between factory farming and pandemics alone have been viewed more than a million times.

But what’s more important than individual statistics is the way our and others’ efforts are beginning to create a seismic cultural shift. Factory farming itself was the result of a massive cultural shift whereby Americans took the power to farm away from historic farm communities and handed that power over to large corporations who promised us cheap, clean, efficient food. Instead, what they gave us was climate change, superbugs, environmental racism, and a scale of animal suffering so immense that we literally cannot comprehend it—the groaning of billions of land animals and trillions of sea animals in nightmarish conditions.

The factory farm—especially the poultry industry—increasingly needs to renew the lie that first allowed it to destroy traditional agriculture and take over meat production. In important ways, the factory farm still has the upper hand—more money, more media, more political clout—but anyone paying attention knows the balance of power has shifted.

Will you help us seize this unique moment when the pandemic and other forces have made factory farms particularly vulnerable?

Consumers are demanding more information about where their animal products come from, major retailers are dropping deceptive humanewashing labels, politicians are proposing moratoriums for the first time, plant-based meat companies are experiencing explosive growth, veganism is increasingly a mainstream choice, the climate change movement is finally realizing the impact of changing food systems, financiers are warning of the risks of investing in factory farms, and, as a result, even cultural icons like Harvard University are considering radically retooling their dining services to make plant-based proteins the new default.

We need your support to continue to raise the conscience of consumers.

The future isn’t here yet, but it’s clear it belongs to those of us who believe in a better way to farm.

Onward and forward,

Aaron S. Gross

Founder and CEO // Farm Forward

P.S. – Please consider supporting our efforts with a donation of $10 or more! Every donation in any amount helps demonstrate the public will to end factory farming and helps our efforts to secure funds from foundations and large donors.

***

Thank you for reading the first of 3 letters from Farm Forward’s founder, Aaron Gross. The next letter in the series can be found here.

 

“It may not be over night, or over a year; it may take a few decades or so, but change is inevitable. It is possible. I hope it is possible.”
―Dr. S

Since 2012, Farm Forward has worked to identify and help fund some of the most innovative programs working toward humane and sustainable agriculture in South Asia. Our granting programs especially aim to empower India’s hundreds of millions of farmers to find their own unique path to resist factory farming, preserve rural life, enhance community health, and create animal agriculture systems that are both productive and more humane.1

Our Changing Farming: Transcending Borders to End Factory Farming video introduces veterinarian Dr. Mandhaven Sugumaran (“Dr. S”). Our most influential and empowering work to date includes providing financial support to Dr. S and his allies in The Nilgiris region of India as they resist the encroachment of industrial farming. The knowledge gained from this on the ground work with farmers now informs Farm Forward’s efforts to support research that can change farm policy across India.

Internationalizing the Fight Against Factory Farming

Global meat production has increased sevenfold since 1950 and factory farming is the fastest growing method of animal production worldwide. With our globalized economy, factory farming anywhere in the world is a threat to animal welfare and ecological stability everywhere in the world.2

If we’re going to defeat factory farming, we can’t be content with victories only in the US, Canada, and Mexico—we must also turn back the progress of the factory farm in the world’s most populous nations, India and China, before it’s too late.3 India, as a fellow democracy with a developed and free media, is a natural ally. Action in India today can have an outsized impact precisely because India still has comparatively low rates of meat consumption and—while factory farms are beginning to dot the countryside—traditional systems of farming are still widespread.4

Why India?

In India we simply need to preserve and expand the traditional systems already producing so much of India’s animal products. Unlike in America, where farmers and consumers alike forgot the value of heritage genetics as cheaper hybrid chickens came to comprise 99 percent of the market, people in India still recognize the superior value of slower-growing birds.5 In the areas of South India where we provide grant support, locals typically pay up to more than double the amount for heritage or “country birds,” as they are referred to locally.

Farm Forward began developing partnerships with local animal welfare and pro-traditional farming groups in India when the director of the Eating Animals documentary, Christopher Quinn, asked for our help telling the international side of the factory farming story. In the course of forging relationships with several of India’s citizens, including Dr. S, we saw just how much even modest donations could achieve. After three years of rigorous vetting, we’ve identified partners and projects that we know make an outsized difference, stretching charitable dollars to achieve the most good.

Our Work

Our most influential and empowering work to date includes providing financial support to Dr. S and his allies in The Nilgiris region of India as they resist the encroachment of industrial farming and support poor rural farmers in more than 36 villages for less than $35,000 annually—less than $1,000 per village. The Nilgiris is a beautiful, mountainous region featuring five national parks and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Through our support, our allies in The Nilgiris have provided emergency veterinary relief for small farmers facing pandemics like hoof and mouth disease, launched a campaign to help repopulate local heritage birds, and even started work on an animal shelter on donated land.

The most developed ongoing program is a pilot program distributing India’s native heritage breeds to small farmers who recently transitioned to hybrid birds. In addition to the animal welfare benefits and higher market value, the use of local genetics is crucial to allowing farmers in India to retain their independence from agribusiness. If local poultry genetics are lost in India like they have been in the US, farmers will be forced to buy hybrid strains from industrial hatcheries.

Wildlife Conservation

Work to promote humane and sustainable farming in India is work to protect wild animal species. The complex ecosystems of this area mean that our allies must develop farming systems that are not only higher welfare but also compatible with local efforts to protect forest species, including elephants, panthers, and tigers.

We believe our work to internationalize the movement for truly humane, sustainable, and just animal agriculture is key to defeating the factory farm.

***

Please consider a recurring monthly donation to provide basic free and subsidized veterinary care to an entire village in The Nilgiris. Write “photos please!” in the comment area of the donation form and we’ll have our partners in India send photos of how your dollars are being put to work.

Please sign up for our monthly newsletter below to receive updates about our work.

Watch our Changing Policy video next!

United Nations scientists warn that a climate catastrophe is coming, and a leaked UN document urges a shift to plant-based proteins as a strategy to stave off the most dire scenarios.

Read on to learn about political, institutional, and individual remedies already underway. Though it can feel like actions of an individual, institution, or state do not matter, when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. Every bit of climate change mitigated matters, so every meal matters.

“Code red for humanity”

Released last month, part one of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) sixth report (AR6) pulls together findings from more than 14 thousand peer-reviewed studies. In the strongest language the IPCC has ever used, and for the first time, the IPCC stated that it is “unequivocal” that humans have caused “widespread and rapid” changes to ocean, land, and atmospheric temperatures, and that many of these changes are “irreversible.”

The report says that because climate change is cumulative, we will see unavoidable intensification over the next 30 years. That is, even if the world dramatically cut emissions starting today, a hotter future is certain. In all scenarios, by “the early 2030s,” average global temperatures will rise 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.

That kind of temperature change may not sound like much, but it brings with it cataclysms and catastrophes. As the New York Times explained upon the release of the report,

“At 1.5 degrees of warming, scientists have found … Nearly 1 billion people worldwide could swelter in more frequent life-threatening heat waves. Hundreds of millions more would struggle for water because of severe droughts. Some animal and plant species alive today will be gone. Coral reefs, which sustain fisheries for large swaths of the globe, will suffer more frequent mass die-offs.”1

Unless we dramatically cut emissions, we can expect additional degrees of warming over 1.5°C as the century progresses, bringing more wildfires, floods, rising sea levels, and animal and plant extinctions.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres says that AR6 is nothing less than “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.”2

Humanity must act decisively, now, if we are to limit average global temperature rise to just 1.5 degrees. Thankfully, the report states, there is still time to act.

Leaked UN report urges switch to plant-based protein

Not scheduled for public release before March 2022, the leaked third section of AR6 focuses on ways to reduce human impacts to the climate. It reads in part, “A shift to diets with a higher share of plant-based protein in regions with excess consumption of calories and animal-source food can lead to substantial reductions in emissions, while also providing health benefits …”3

The recommended shift to plant-based proteins builds on a 2019 IPCC special report that stated that plant-based and sustainably produced animal-sourced food “present major opportunities for [climate] adaptation and mitigation.”4

This is because of industrial animal-sourced food’s disproportionate impact on climate. For example, in 2018 Oxford University researchers published in the journal Science a study of nearly 40,000 farms in 119 countries that found “meat, aquaculture, eggs, and dairy use ~83 percent of the world’s farmland and contribute 56 to 58 percent of food’s different [greenhouse gas] emissions, despite providing only 37 percent of our protein and 18 percent of our calories.”5

According to AR6, “strong, rapid, and sustained reductions” in methane emissions are critical if we are to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and thereby prevent the worst climate scenarios. This is no surprise: over the first 20 years after methane is emitted, it is over 80 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Anthropogenic methane is the cause of more than 25 percent of today’s global warming.6 Meat and dairy production is the largest source of human-caused methane, from enteric fermentation (a digestive process of ruminants like cattle) and manure emissions.7 In fact, if cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.8 9

Following the release of the 2019 IPCC report, Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, said,  “We don’t want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”10

The political and personal: every change matters

Some US politicians have put forward policy options that take seriously industrial animal agriculture’s contributions to the climate catastrophe.

In July 2021, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) reintroduced the Farm System Reform Act (FSRA), which would place an immediate moratorium (pause) on construction of new and expanded large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and phase out the largest CAFOs by 2040.11 The Act is the boldest vision for American agriculture that we have ever seen put forward on a national policy stage. Federal legislation related to animal farming more typically reflects the vision of a small number of corporate meat companies’ lobbyists and advocates in government. In contrast, the vision outlined in the FSRA contains several first steps toward Farm Forward’s own vision for agriculture—ending factory farming, leveling the playing field for independent farmers, and raising fewer animals for food.

Another example: In June 2021, Reps. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Jamaal Bowman, Ed.D (D-NY) introduced the “Healthy Future Students and Earth Pilot Program Act,” which would fund healthier, climate friendly, culturally appropriate plant-based entrée options for public school students. “At the same time as we invest urgently in the transition to renewable energy, we must build sustainable food systems at every level of our society—and our public education system can lead the way,” said Rep. Bowman.12 He noted that the bill would advance food justice in marginalized communities and support local farmers of color while fighting the climate crisis with healthier, plant-based food. The bill would fund $10 million in grants for a voluntary pilot program to help school districts address challenges in transitioning to plant-based meals, such as lack of culinary training.13

While politicians debate, it is incumbent that individuals and institutions take their own steps to mitigate climate change. Farm Forward has long supported efforts to reduce meat consumption, and recently began promoting DefaultVeg, an approach to dining which uses simple behavioral “nudges” to encourage institutional and home diners to choose more climate-friendly foods, without restricting anyone’s choices. The use of plant-forward defaults is enormously effective: for example, making plant-based meals the default menu option while giving people the choice to opt in to meals with animal products (an approach called “Greener by Default”) can increase the selection of more sustainable plant-based options by an average of 60 percentage points and up to 80 percentage points. Dozens of institutions are adopting plant-based nudges, from Harvard recommending them in its catering guide to organizations like Climate Nexus and the American Lung Association committing to use them for their events.

Sometimes when facing a problem as vast in scope as the climate crisis, it feels like actions of an individual, institution, and even a city, state or nation do not matter. In fact, when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. Every fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the decades ahead will have consequences, particularly for the world’s most vulnerable. So every action matters, every bit of climate change mitigated matters, and every meal matters.

And they matter, too, because individual and institutional decisions often ramify: they influence and motivate other individuals and institutions, redefining what is “normal” and even eventually leading to political change. Decisions made for dining room tables, offices, schools, hospitals, and university departments become the social norms that change society and eventually change politics.

The good news embedded in the IPCC report is that there is still time to act to avoid the worst scenarios. No one person, institution, or country can do everything. Still, we can each do something. Do what you can, knowing that every day, more and more people are doing the same. And please donate to Farm Forward so that we can keep this good work going.

Header image: Food photo created by freepik – www.freepik.com 

“All that you touch, You Change. All that you Change, Changes You. The only lasting truth is Change.”

– Octavia Butler

Hello again from 2050. We want you to know that your efforts in 2020 to create a more just food system won’t be for nothing. We’re living in a better world that you helped create. Thanks to your support a new vision for agriculture and food systems became a reality.  

The introduction of the Farm System Reform Act (FSRA) in 2019 was a turning point. Enacted in 2024, the FSRA immediately stopped the construction or expansion of large factory farms, and required that existing factory farms be phased out by 2040. After farmers received training and the FSRA’s billions of dollars of debt forgiveness, they eagerly left factory farming in favor of the highest welfare forms of agriculture, including indigenous-informed methods like agroforestry and silvopasture. Lands formerly used for factory farms and to grow food for farmed animals now support diverse, resilient and regenerative farms. The Regenerative Organic Certified program launched in 2020 set the standard for what climate-friendly and more humane forms of animal agriculture could be.   

You are part of this story. These changes happened because millions of Americans decided it was time for a change. Rural communities that were impacted by CAFOs and rose up to protect themselves, young people who worked to mitigate climate change, citizens who were concerned for animal welfare, and farmers who were tired of being beholden to monopolistic food companies all took action. 

Our thriving, resilient food system honors the lives of human and non-human animals, and recognizes the interdependence of all living beings and the planet. A reminder: In 2020, the future is not yet written. Please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of Farm Forward’s work. 

Future generations thank you.  

With gratitude,  

Farm Forward 

Washington, DC — Today Farm Forward joined nearly 300 local, state and national advocacy organizations in sending a letter to Congress urging passage of the Farm System Reform Act (S.3221/HR.6718), introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). As COVID-19 further exposes the exploitation and injustice in the food system, the letter recognizes that “this visionary legislation meets the scale of action necessary to transform our farming and food system in a timeline that reflects the urgency of its problems.” The letter was facilitated by the national advocacy organization Food & Water Action, and signed by others groups including Family Farm Action, Waterkeeper Alliance, Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future and ASPCA (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).  

Among other things, the Farm System Reform Act would halt the establishment of new factory farm operations (otherwise known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs) and prohibit the expansion of existing ones. It would also provide a $100 billion voluntary buyout program for contract farmers who wish to transition away from the factory farm system. 

“The factory farm agricultural model, which dominates our country’s food system, fuels toxic air and water contamination, drives dangerous and unfair working conditions, wreaks havoc on independent farmers and rural communities, and threatens food safety,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, the organizer of the letter. “The Farm System Reform Act is the bold approach we need to bring dangerous factory farming under control now, and begin the necessary transformation to a safe and equitable future for food consumers and workers alike.” 

“Our independent family farmers and ranchers are continuing to be squeezed by large, multinational corporations that, because of their buying power and size, run roughshod over the marketplace. We need to fix the broken system – that means protecting family farmers and ranchers and holding corporate integrators responsible for the harm they are causing,” said Senator Cory Booker. “Large factory farms are harmful to rural communities, public health, and the environment and we must immediately begin to transition to a more sustainable and humane system.” 

“The Farm System Reform Act will ensure that huge corporations no longer have a stranglehold on our food supply,” said Representative Ro Khanna. “It’s important for our farmers, the economy, the environment, and animal welfare. I’m proud to see the growing coalition of groups organizing to support the bill.” 

As the letter points out,  “…The U.S. food system is dominated by factory farms that confine tens of thousands of animals in cramped, unsanitary conditions; these conditions place the safety of our food at risk, pollute our air and water, harm the welfare of animals and workers, extract wealth from rural communities, increase the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria and increase corporate control of our food.” 

This legislation will revitalize independent family farm agriculture and rural communities by: 

• Placing a moratorium on new and expanding large factory farms 
• Phasing out existing large factory farms by 2040 
• Holding corporate integrators responsible for harm caused by factory farms 
• Providing a $100 billion voluntary buyout program for contract farmers who want to transition away from factory farms 
• Strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act to protect family farmers and ranchers 
• Restoring mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meat, and including dairy products 
• Prohibiting USDA from labeling foreign imported meat products as “Product of USA”  

“The Farm System Reform Act will rein in multinational agribusiness control over livestock production,” said Jake Davis, Senior Policy Advisor for Family Farm Action. “The factory farm model is designed to bolster these corporations’ bottom line while extracting wealth from family farmers and rural communities, and that has to stop. We are proud to join such a broad coalition of supporters calling for change in our broken food system.”    

“Nearly 10 billion animals are raised on U.S. factory farms every year, crowded together in intensive, cruel confinement and unable to carry out even the most basic natural behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed the cruelty of industrial animal agriculture, fueling an urgent need to build a more humane and resilient food system that values animals, people, and our planet,” said Daisy Freund, vice president of Farm Animal Welfare for the ASPCA. “The Farm System Reform Act offers a roadmap for moving away from destructive, confinement-based animal agriculture toward higher-welfare farming practices and sustainable crop production. We are grateful to Senator Booker and Representative Khanna for their leadership on this legislation, and we are proud to support this bold vision for a more compassionate food system, free of factory farming.” 

“The provisions of this bill, including the $100 billion voluntary buyout program for contract farmers who want to transition away from industrial animal agriculture, would protect watersheds around the country,” said Waterkeeper Alliance Executive Director Marc Yaggi. “That’s one of the reasons more than 50 Waterkeeper groups in the U.S. endorsed this bill. It will provide real — and necessary — improvements to waterways that have been impacted by pathogens, excess nutrients, and harmful algal blooms for far too long.”    

The sign-on letter calls for passage of the Farm System Reform Act and a ban on factory farms in order to benefit independent farms, rural communities, food safety, our air and water, and the welfare of animals. It is signed by over 250 organizations including those mentioned above and  Family Farm Defenders, Food Chain Workers Alliance, HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance, Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias, Friends of Family Farmers, Pennsylvania Farmers Union, Indiana Farmers Union, and Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN). 

In sum, this historic legislation has the potential to change the conversation about the future of animal agriculture in America. Farm Forward’s vision for American agriculture, which includes an end to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and a transition to more just, sustainable, and humane forms of agriculture, is one step closer to reality thanks to the introduction of the Farm System Reform Act.  

Today Farm Forward and more than 120 groups launched a week of action against Tyson Foods Inc. (NYSE: TSN) demanding the company address the rising number of COVID-19 cases affecting workers at its chicken, pork, and beef processing facilities. 

A letter sent to Tyson shareholders this morning is the first in a series of actions this week to pressure the company to implement essential worker safety measures needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The week of action kicks off as the Senate goes into recess without passing legislation requiring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to implement an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect meatpacking and other frontline workers. 

Meatpacking workers nationwide, including those at Tyson, have been fighting for safe working conditions since March. More than 8,500 Tyson employees at 37 poultry, pork, and beef plants in seven states have been confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19, an infection count more than double that of any other meatpacker. Tragically, more than 25 Tyson workers have died from the virus. 

In response to the meat giant’s continued neglect of workers’ safety, 120 organizations are demanding that Tyson protect workers by:  

• providing personal protective equipment 
• offering paid sick leave 
• slowing down slaughter line speeds 
• comprehensively providing testing 
• ensure workers can practice physical distancing 
• respecting the right to organize, including protecting workers from retaliation, and 
• eliminating the punitive point system that results in unfairly firing workers who miss a certain number of shifts, including those who are legitimately afraid to go back to work because of unsafe working conditions due to COVID-19.  

“I have been organizing workers at poultry processing plants in northwest Arkansas since 2014, and I can tell you there is more to this than a concern for your right to an uninterrupted supply of chicken tenders, bacon, and T-bone steaks,” says Magaly Licolli of Venceremos, a worker-based grassroots organization fighting for better working conditions for poultry workers. “We’re in such a crucial moment right now. For the future of the country, we must think deeply about the meaning of frontline food workers in our daily lives and stand up for their human rights and dignity — because they’ve always been essential, and if they don’t survive, we won’t survive.” 

The week of action against Tyson comes on the heels of tens of thousands of letters sent by concerned citizens to the company demanding swift action to protect workers. Tomorrow, environmental, labor, food justice and animal welfare leaders will also stand in solidarity with Venceremos and frontline meatpacking workers in urging Governor Hutchinson to close plants where workers have tested positive for COVID-19. The rest of the week will include petitions, social media, emails, and phone calls calling on Tyson to immediately implement the basic health and safety measures listed above.  

Actions for Worker Safety 

Tyson’s failure to properly protect its workforce from the spread of this deadly virus is a prime illustration of how little the company cares about its employees—who are predominantly people of color and immigrants—despite its aggressive media efforts to portray the opposite. Take Action Today—Here’s how. 

“We have to wrap our heads around the modes of thinking that were designed precisely to ensure certain humans, animals, and other nonhuman life remain outside our moral and social communities. This is not a precious, academic, intellectual activity. This is absolutely necessary for real change.” – Syl Ko 

We find ourselves in a moment of deep pain and outrage. Millions of people around the world are rising up, amidst a pandemic, to demand justice in the wake of yet another racist murder of a Black human being by the police. The scale of public outrage may be new, but the pain, suffering, and discrimination of Black Americans has been swept under the rug for centuries.  

Our nation was built upon the exploitation of Black and Brown bodies and knowledge. White supremacy is woven into the fabric of our society, including our food system. This isn’t by chance. It isn’t by chance that the majority of people working dangerous and low paid jobs on farms and in slaughterhouses are people of color. The frameworks that allow us to exploit people of color in the food system are the same that allow us to exploit non human animals. Food justice is racial justice, and not until we address systemic racism will we be able to end factory farming. We simply can’t—we know that the structures that perpetuate factory farming are inextricably linked with those that perpetuate racist oppression and violence. To create meaningful change in our food system we must build an anti-racist movement.  

Racism is ethically intolerable, socially debilitating, and it threatens the moral energies that are the foundation of the movement to end factory farming. 

So we must reimagine a just world.  

As we stand in solidarity with the Black community we’re also committed to ongoing learning, listening, and action to center anti-racism work in our policies, procedures, and strategies. Liberation must include all—not just some and we’re committed to building a more just, humane world.  

We encourage everyone to take the time to learn about systemic racism in our food system and to read the work of people who are helping to make the movement to end animal oppression more anti-racist. We recommend the books Aphro-ism by Aph and Syl Ko, and Farming While Black by Leah Penniman as a place to begin. There are also many good articles from FERN, The Atlantic, Food Empowerment Project, The Guardian, and Duke University’s World Food Policy Center that illustrate the inherent interconnectedness between our work to end factory farming and anti-racism advocacy.  

We also encourage you to donate to any of the following organizations working to eradicate racism in our food system.  

HEAL Food Alliance – HEAL’s mission is to build our collective power to create food and farm systems that are healthy for our families, accessible and affordable for all communities, and fair to the hard-working people who grow, distribute, prepare, and serve our food — while protecting the air, water, and land we all depend on. 

30,000 Acres – F.A.R.M.S is a legal non-profit, committed to assisting Black farmers and landowners retain land for future use of next generation farmer. 

Planting Justice – Planting Justice is a grassroots organization with a mission to empower people impacted by mass incarceration and other social inequities with the skills and resources to cultivate food sovereignty, economic justice, and community healing.  

Encompass – Encompass is working to make the farmed animal protection movement more effective by fostering racial diversity and inclusivity. 

Soul Fire Farm – Soul Fire Farm is a BIPOC*-centered community farm committed to ending racism and injustice in the food system. 

Together we can take steps to eradicate the thinking that created the systemic oppressions responsible for both racism and factory farming. Now is the time to take action. Change isn’t only possible, it’s happening.  

*BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, People of Color

This week Farm Forward, along with a coalition of more than 50 organizations, called on Congress to prevent corporate factory farm companies from receiving COVID-19 relief funds, and instead to direct funds to small and midsize farmers and food chain workers who have been disproportionately impacted by the crisis.   

Our letter asks Congressional leaders to: 

• Prohibit industrial animal agriculture operations and corporate parents from receiving any COVID-19 bailout funding. 
• Support small and mid-size farmers to continue producing food and keeping their farms operational. 
• Protect food and farm workers. 
• Put a priority on ensuring food security and access to a range of healthy produce for those most vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and the dislocation it’s causing. 
• Oppose any efforts to weaken or waive environmental regulations for industrial agriculture. 
• Ensure that recovery funds provide long-term security for small farmers and invest in a just and equitable transition. 
• Invest in public health, food security and small farmers by increasing the accessibility of plant-based foods and addressing food waste. 

Industrial livestock producers benefit from huge financial subsidies and regulatory advantages relative to other food producers. COVID-19 economic relief and investments should prioritize an equitable and sustainable food system rather than bailout consolidated meat, poultry, and dairy companies. We can and must invest in the food production systems that build resilience, conserve water, protect biodiversity, promote soil health, and prioritize animal welfare.  

If you’d like to be a part of our work to change the way our world eats and farms, please become a monthly supporter today. 

On Friday, April 17 you’re invited to join theologian David Clough to discuss animal ethics, the environmental impacts of factory farming, Christian responses to these issues, as well as information on the DefaultVeg campaign.

Sign up now to join us for this free event. Within a few days following your sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with further details. 

Dr. Clough is Professor of Theological Ethics at the University of Chester, UK, Visiting Professor at the Centre for Animal Welfare at the University of Winchester, past President of the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics, and founder of CreatureKind, which engages UK and North American Christian churches and institutions with farmed animal welfare as a faith issue. Dr. Clough also recently created the DefaultVeg campaign. DefaultVeg is a tangible and effective way to implement food policy that can help universities make the shift toward sustainable food choices.

The idea is simple:

Offer plant-based meals by default, while providing diners the choice to add meat and/or dairy products upon request. Institutions that have adopted DefaultVeg report that it’s easy to implement, saves money, and has a large, measurable climate impact, all while retaining diners’ freedom of choice. DefaultVeg also helps diners with allergies or restrictions (lactose intolerance, vegetarian, vegan, etc.) feel more included in their dining environment. DefaultVeg can be implemented anywhere food is served, including faculty meetings, catered events, cafes, all-you-can-eat dining facilities and anywhere food is served on campus.

This event is part of Farm Forward’s Faith in Food Initiative, the largest national effort to promote community-specific work to fight factory farming from a faith-based perspective. Only with your support will Farm Forward again be able to sponsor these unique virtual visits and ensure that the program’s cost is covered in its entirety.

Be a producer of the next Virtual Visits Series by making a donation to Farm Forward today.

Questions or comments about this event or the Virtual Visits series can be sent to Joey Tuminello at josepht@farmforward.com.

Educational outreach programs are just one example of how Farm Forward puts individual contributions to work to promote conscientious food choices and end factory farming. You can join our network of supporters by making a donation that will help us continue our important work.

To stay up to date on our projects and to learn about how you can get involved, you can sign up below for the Farm Forward newsletter and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Today, Farm Forward and ten other members of the Stand Up to Factory Farms coalition submitted written testimony in a letter to the Oregon Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee in opposition to Senate Bill 1513, which would create a new approval process for mega-dairies and other concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  

Farm Forward opposes the proposed bill because it fails to create a rigorous enough process to evaluate the impact of proposed CAFOs or adequately protect Oregon’s land and water, its family farms, or farmed animals from the inherent harms of factory farms. New mega-dairies are an imminent threat, the State Department of Agriculture is currently considering a permit application from Easterday Farms, which would house nearly 30,000 dairy cows on the site of the disastrous Lost Valley Farm.  

Government Reform 

Nationwide there is growing concern about the impact of CAFO’s and citizens and leading politicians are calling for a moratorium. In December 2019, Senator Cory Booker introduced the Farm System Reform Act, a wide ranging bill aimed at supporting independent family farmers and curbing the power of the largest meat and poultry companies. The bill would include a moratorium on new CAFO’s and would require the largest CAFOs to be phased out by 2040.  

Public Concern 

There is growing support for increased oversight of large-scale livestock operations. According to a 2019 poll conducted by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future, 80 percent of those surveyed said they were concerned about the air and water pollution caused by CAFOs and more than half of all those surveyed said there should be more oversight of large animal farms. The poll follows a recommendation from the nation’s leading public health association to freeze the creation of new CAFOs and increase their oversight and regulation.  

For years, Farm Forward has actively advocated for a moratorium on mega-dairies in Oregon, and alternatives to factory farming, and we will continue to do so until no animals suffer on factory farms. As a member of Stand up To Factory Farms coalition we work with a broad range of local, state, and national organizations concerned about the harmful impacts of mega-dairies on Oregon’s family farms, communities, the environment, and farmed animals. 

Portland, OR —Following a request for a permit by a proposed eastern Oregon factory farm to build another mega-dairy on the site of the disastrous Lost Valley Farm, 21 groups, including members of the Stand Up to Factory Farms Coalition, of which Farm Forward is a member, sent a letter today to Gov. Brown and the directors of the Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality and Agriculture voicing their fervent opposition to granting a permit to Easterday Farms. The groups warn that granting a permit to the mega-dairy would mean doubling down on the failed approach that led to the Lost Valley Farm debacle. That mega-dairy was shut down by the state after hundreds of documented environmental violations, including overflowing mortalities storage, as well as egregious conditions for animals and workplace health and safety abuses.  

The coalition warns that the rush to grant Lost Valley a permit exposed a systemic failure to fully weigh the environmental and health dangers before green-lighting industrial mega-dairy operations. They say the permitting process should be overhauled before considering the request by Easterday Farms to open yet another mega-dairy of nearly 30,000 cows on the same site. Last year the state legislature failed to enact stronger protections to avoid another disaster like Lost Valley Farms.  

The Stand Up to Factory Farms coalition would like to see a moratorium on all new mega-dairy permits. 

“Lost Valley Farm showed us the state’s inability to regulate mega-dairies and keep the public safe from the environmental and health harms posed by these industrial-scale operations,” said Tarah Heinzen, senior attorney with Food & Water Action. “Now, history is threatening to repeat itself. Industrial mega-dairies have proven too unsafe for Oregon, and the state should not grant Easterday’s–or any mega-dairy’s–permits.” 

Some groups called on the governor and state regulators to take stronger measures to protect public health. 

“The communities around the proposed Easterday mega-dairy already suffer from drinking water contaminated with unsafe levels of nitrates, a public health threat that can cause reproductive and cardiovascular issues, Blue Baby Syndrome, and even cancer,” said Amy van Saun, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety. “Putting another 30,000 cows on top of this existing pollution, bringing the number of cows in the area over 100,000, is extremely irresponsible. The state needs to protect all Oregonians, not sacrifice community health for private profit.” 

Other signatories worried that Easterday Farms could put family farmers out of business. 

“In 2016 we had significant concerns about the permitting of Lost Valley, each of which were validated as the ‘state of the art’ facility was shut down within 18 months,” said Shari Sirkin, farmer and Executive Director of Friends of Family Farmers. “Now, three years later we have the very same concerns as yet another similarly sized mega-diary seeks to set up shop in the exact same location. The overproduction of milk drives down prices, creating a negative effect on the viability of small family farms around the state, yet the ODA has refused to conduct an economic impact analysis to determine how this new mega-dairy might harm rural economies.” 

The Stand Up to Factory Farms Coalition says it will continue to press state regulators and the governor to declare a moratorium on new permits for factory farms until an effective process is put in place. 

Stand Up to Factory Farms is a coalition of local, state and national organizations concerned about the harmful impacts of mega-dairies on Oregon’s family farms, communities, the environment and animal welfare. We seek legislation or an executive order establishing a moratorium on new mega-dairies and the expansion of existing mega-dairies until policies are in place that meaningfully protect our air, water, and climate and ensure the humane treatment of animals and the economic viability of family farmers. 

“Through thoughtful procurement policies, institutions like Harvard Business School meet growing consumer demands for more ethical and sustainable food. By making this commitment today, the school improves farmed animals’ welfare—at no increased cost.”
— Andrew deCoriolis, Farm Forward Executive Director

We’re excited to welcome Harvard Business School (HBS) to Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle. Business leaders from around the world look to HBS as the gold standard for business education. We hope that HBS’s policy prioritizing animal welfare will inspire many others.

HBS is the fourteenth institution to join the Leadership Circle, which includes other leading universities and businesses such as Bon Appétit Management Company, Burgerville, University of California Berkeley, and Villanova University.

As a member of the Leadership Circle, HBS has committed to buying 100 percent of its eggs—including both liquid and shell—from certified higher welfare farms aligned with our sourcing requirements. To implement these changes, HBS partnered with their on-site dining management company, Restaurant Associates (RA), a company of Compass Group, to identify higher welfare suppliers and to shift their purchasing. Restaurant Associates leveraged the expertise of Food Buy, the largest foodservice procurement organization in North America, to assess the impact of changing the egg supplies to operations on campus and found that switching to a higher welfare products did not increase costs to HBS. The change will impact more than 15,000 hens over the next ten years.

Farm Forward applauds HBS for adopting a kinder, more sustainable food policy. As HBS invests in this growing sector of the food economy, the school paves the way to making to higher welfare, more sustainable products readily available to other institutions and large buyers. Moving forward, HBS will explore other ways to sensibly incorporate highest welfare eggs and continue to integrate plant-based food options into their dining services, thereby improving the health and sustainability of our food system.

HBS and RA were inspired by the forthcoming Sustainable Healthful Food Standards developed by the Harvard Office for Sustainability in collaboration with Harvard’s Multidisciplinary Faculty Food Standards Committee and Council of Student Sustainability Leaders. Harvard’s Sustainable Healthful Food standards includes a recommendation that other Harvard schools work with Farm Forward to create a baseline of farmed animal welfare and to work with the Leadership Circle to develop and implement strategies to improve their dining operations. Farm Forward is pleased to support Harvard’s commitment to continuous improvement on these issues.

Earlier this year, Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens joined the Leadership Circle by sourcing exclusively certified higher welfare chicken and turkey for their restaurant, Café Phipps. I spoke with Chef Amy Reed, General Manager at Café Phipps, to learn how serving higher welfare products has further strengthened the sustainability of their dining operations. By serving higher welfare animal products as part of a plant-centered menu, Phipps is aligning their food choices with the values of the conservatory.

To celebrate updates in sourcing and new menu items and to educate guests, Phipps shares their vision of sustainability with visitors throughout their dining experience. “In our café, we lead by example to engage visitors with sustainability messaging.” Amy said. “Our efforts are highlighted by signs around the café and in our menus, which are 60% vegetarian and include local and higher welfare options wherever possible. We take pride in the health and sustainability of our meals, but never sacrifice on flavor. We also do our best to have new and exciting plant-based options on our menu—such as asian jackfruit—as well as more familiar offerings—like a portobello sandwich—so that there’s something for everyone. ”

Menus continue to evolve at Café Phipps. Each year, Phipps finds ways to go even further by including more plant-forward and higher welfare options. As one example, Phipps decided to replace its chicken meatball hoagie with a new delicious portabella sandwich. “We have clientele that come in because they are excited about our new options. Because of what we’re doing, word is getting out and people are coming here looking for healthy, clean and tasty food.” Amy particularly loves serving new visitors. “I’ll have many folks come in who doubt the menu—and they’ll come back up after the meal and tell me how delicious their meal was! It always puts a smile on my face to see someone come to our café questioning whether they’ll like the meal and coming out the other side believing that healthy food can be tasty.”

Amy had also been looking to transition meat offerings to higher welfare options for awhile. “We used to serve conventional chicken. With Farm Forward’s help, we found suppliers in our area who sourced higher welfare meat, and then we evolved our purchasing parameters to better align with our animal welfare values. In the past, I’ve trusted product labels and when I found out that the products I was purchasing with labels like ‘humanely raised’ didn’t have substantial meaning—it broke my heart. We all need more education around higher welfare products as consumers so that we can make the most conscientious choices.”

Phipps’ approach meets each guest wherever they are in their journey. “It’s very important for us to lead with understanding and education and integrate sustainable messaging throughout the guest experience. With this communication approach tied to all of Cafe Phipps’ fresh, healthy menu choices, loyal vegan and vegetarian eaters see us as a destination as well as those who are looking to try healthier choices for the first time. We’re very proud to offer something for everyone. Our goal is to help our visitors take that next step to leading a better, healthier lifestyle and drive positive change in their community.”

“At the end of the day, you can’t have healthy people without a healthy planet. At Cafe Phipps, we are leading by example with our menus to show others how important it is to include food in your sustainability goals.”

Phipps is proud to be recognized in Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle.  To learn more about Cafe Phipps, located onsite at Phipps Conservatory at One Schenley Park in Pittsburgh, visit phipps.conservatory.org.

Farm Forward’s board has added four new members, and we couldn’t be more excited!

Our new Board of Directors includes authors, scientists, religious leaders, scholars of ethics, and a climate change leader. Together, they have professional expertise and experience helping people and animals in Canada, China, India, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

One of our recruitment priorities was candidates’ commitment to promoting the values of diversity, equity and inclusion in our organization, and in the work we do to fight factory farming. Our new board composition also better reflects the gender and racial diversity of the communities we work in and with.

We are grateful for the outstanding service of our outgoing board members, Ian Duncan, John Mackey, and Steven Gross.

Our new board includes the following directors, all leaders in their respective fields:

Rev. Christopher Carter, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Theology at the University of San Diego

New board member Rev. Dr. Carter’s work explores how religion and the institution of factory farming affect food choices within the African American community. He is a United Methodist pastor, holds a seat on the steering committee for the prestigious Animals and Religion Group of the American Academy of Religion, and has been a Farm Forward Faith in Food Fellow since 2016. He is about to release a new book called The Spirit of Soul Food.

Rabbi Jonathan Crane, Ph.D.

Rabbi and Ethicist

Founding board member Dr. Crane is a Scholar of Bioethics and Jewish Thought at Emory University in Atlanta and is the author of the book Eating Ethically: Religion and Science for a Better Diet. He holds rabbinic ordination from the Hebrew Union College and a Ph.D. in religion from the University of Toronto. Crane has served Jewish communities in North America, India, and China. He sits on the national board of the Society for Jewish Ethics.

Jonathan Safran Foer

Author

Founding board member Foer’s internationally bestselling first book, Everything Is Illuminated, was named Book of the Year by the Los Angeles Times and won numerous awards, including the Guardian First Book Prize and the National Jewish Book Award. His second book, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, also a bestseller, was hailed by Salman Rushdie as “ambitious, pyrotechnic, riddling, and above all … extremely moving.” His third book, Eating Animals, offers a critique of factory farming and was written in close collaboration with Farm Forward. It was the inspiration for the documentary of the same name with Executive Producer Natalie Portman. Foer’s novels have received widespread acclaim and awards and two have been made into major motion pictures. Foer has taught writing at Yale and is on the faculty of New York University’s Creative Writing Program.

Nicole Gross-Camp, Ph.D.

Professor of Environmental Science & Sustainability at Allegheny College

New board member Dr. Gross-Camp is an interdisciplinary conservation scientist with over seventeen years experience working in East African tropical forests. She has held teaching positions in the UK and the US. Her overarching interests are integrating social and ecological needs to achieve long-term equitable conservation. In her career, Dr. Gross-Camp has received over twenty prestigious research and leadership awards.

Bernard Rollin, Ph.D.

University-distinguished Professor, Professor of: Philosophy, Animal Sciences, Biomedical Security, and University Bioethicist at the University of Colorado 

Founding board member Dr. Rollin is one of the world’s leading scholars in animal ethics and actively lectures all over the globe. He introduced the first university course on veterinary ethics, helped pass the federal Animal Welfare Act, has published seven books on animal protection and consciousness, and served on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.

Krithika Srinivasan, Ph.D.

Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

New board member Dr. Srinivasan’s research and teaching interests lie at the intersection of environmental social science, post-development politics, and animal studies. Her current research revolves around intersectional approaches to social, ecological and animal justice in the context of contemporary development. She is Farm Forward’s South Asia Adviser and is working to establish the first human-animal studies program in India at the Tata Institute in Mumbai.

Jodie Van Horn

Ready For 100 Campaign Director, Sierra Club

New Board Member Van Horn spent 15 years in the environmental movement working on campaigns to combat climate change, and is currently leading a nationwide clean energy advocacy campaign at the Sierra Club. She believes that ending factory farming can be a crucial part of the climate action agenda.

Aaron Gross, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Theology & Religious Studies at the University of San Diego

Farm Forward’s founder and CEO, Dr. Gross has played a leadership role in a wide variety of national and international farmed animal welfare campaigns in the Americas, India, and the Middle East since the mid-1990s. While collaborating with novelist Jonathan Safran Foer on Foer’s internationally best-selling critique of industrial farming, Eating Animals, Aaron saw the need for an organization devoted entirely to ending factory farming and founded Farm Forward in 2007. Aaron has served as CEO from the beginning and grown the organization into a leading national nonprofit with eleven full-time staff. Alongside Foer and director Christopher Quinn, Gross is a co-writer for the new Eating Animals documentary film narrated by Natalie Portman. In addition to his advocacy work, Aaron is an internationally respected expert on religion and animals who teaches courses on animals and religion, food and religion, and modern Jewish thought. He has authored two scholarly books and numerous articles dealing with animal and food ethics from both religious and secular perspectives, including his critically acclaimed The Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications (Columbia University Press, 2015). Gross currently serves as President of the Society for Jewish Ethics and on the Faith Advisory Council of the Humane Society of the United States.

Welcome new board members! We look forward to our work together promoting conscientious food choices, reducing farmed animal suffering, and advancing sustainable agriculture.

Dining halls employ many different strategies to improve animal welfare by serving ‘less and better’ animal products. Earlier this year we spoke with Carolyn Gahn, sustainability manager for Aramark at The University of Kentucky (UK), who makes such higher welfare sourcing possible through the “Whole Animal Program”1. Of the pork and beef served in UK residential dining halls, approximately 70 percent is Global Animal Partnership Step 4 certified, locally sourced meat from Marksbury Farm. By purchasing whole animals from local higher welfare farms, UK demonstrates how institutions can improve animal welfare, support local economies, and reduce carbon emissions while maintaining affordable dining operations.

Farm Forward: How did you start the Whole Animal Program?

Carolyn Gahn: University of Kentucky Dining Services has a strong commitment to local purchasing from Kentucky farms. Our direct spending requirement for local farms increases annually and we constantly look for innovative strategies to source local food that work best for the farmers and our dining operations. Coming from an agricultural background, I know that selling a whole animal at one time is much better for farmers and we wanted to find a way to make that work on a large scale.

Farm Forward: What were the keys to making the Whole Animal Program a success?

Gahn: As the UK Dining Sustainability Manager, I work with local farms and ranches to build a program that works for our kitchens and the farmers. Our dining halls would typically buy standard cuts of meat to be used in our menus, like pork loin or eye of round roast. When you buy a whole animal you get dozens of different cuts of meat. To make the Whole Animal Program work, we needed to group products by how our chefs use them. We found a way to group cuts into SKUs (stockkeeping units) based on their applications, such as a Roasting Box, Braising Box, Smoking Box, and a Carving Box. This way our team only has to inventory a few items into our purchasing system and can use multiple types of cuts for the same menu option.
We also had to consider how the price per pound was determined. A traditional whole animal program bases price per pound on the hanging weight of the whole animal, which results in a lump sum cost. However, in order for our dining operation to determine plate cost, we needed to pay a price per pound reflective of the market value of those cuts, rather than one lump sum. Working in partnership with Marksbury to determine the proper value, we allocated the total hanging-weight price among our boxes so that we could pay a per-pound price reflecting the value of the cuts in that box. For example, the beef Braising Box (which contains skirt steak, flank steak, and shanks) is valued less than the Carving Box (which contains sirloin and strip loin).

Farm Forward: How has the Whole Animal Program helped UK meet their local and sustainable sourcing goals?

Gahn: With this program, we committed to purchase 3 cows and 5 hogs per week, totaling 84 cows and 140 hogs over the course of the school year. The cows are grass-fed, the pigs are pasture-raised, and all of the animals are raised by Kentucky farmers. The meat is top-notch and helps us reach the following goals:

1. Local spending. All of the products we purchase from Marksbury Farm count toward our contractual farm impact local purchasing goal of $706,194. Next year our local purchasing requirement for farm impact products will increase to $741,503.

2. Sustainable sourcing. The products we purchase from Marksbury Farm are certified by Global Animal Partnership so we can count these purchases toward the long-term sustainability goals of the university (as set forth in our campus Sustainability Strategic Plan) and our AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education) Stars reporting.

3. Customer service. We provide our students with the best possible product quality and dining experience.

Farm Forward: How has purchasing whole animal products from Marksbury impacted your costs? If there has been a cost increase on ingredients, have you found ways to balance that cost increase through operational savings?

Gahn: Before this program, we purchased Marksbury meat by the cut. By purchasing the whole animal we pay significantly less per pound. Purchasing whole animals from more sustainable, higher welfare farms still costs more than buying products from conventional farms, yet by simultaneously strategically sourcing more expensive, higher welfare meat and focusing on plant-forward menu options, we have found that our overall food costs have remained on target. For example, we have a Local Salad Bar Program that is the produce twin to the Whole Animal Program. Through this program, we have increased the locally grown produce served on our salad bar by 24,000 pounds for the school year. We have put a big marketing focus on eating fresh salads. Serving more vegetables is naturally going to be more cost effective for a dining hall, in addition to the health, environmental, and animal welfare benefits of plant-forward menus.

Farm Forward: How has using whole animal products or sourcing higher welfare products impacted your menus?

Gahn: Purchasing whole animals has required us to get creative with our menus. We have a Smokehouse station that offers smoked meats daily. We now use cuts that we hadn’t typically served in the dining halls, like beef shanks, and the students love it. Our chefs have risen to the challenge to find ways to use the products we have (like short ribs) to create delicious new menus items.

Farm Forward: What advice would you give to other campuses working on sourcing more humane animal products?

Gahn: Ultimately, sourcing higher welfare, local animal products is only actually sustainable if it works for everyone. Building a committed team is critical for the success of the program. The kitchen staff needs to know how to use the products and understand what the students want as well. The product quality needs to be consistent, with food safety being the absolute number one priority. The biggest consideration we took into account when thinking about sustainable sourcing was, “Does this work for all of the stakeholders involved?” If it’s not working for the farm, then it can’t work for operations; if it’s not working for operations, then it can’t work for the farm.

You can learn more about UK’s Whole Animal Program here.

Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle assists institutional food providers—such as universities, corporations, and nonprofits—in sourcing higher welfare meat, poultry, and eggs while incorporating more plant-based proteins into the meals they serve by providing free consultation and resources. If you are looking for ways to source local, higher welfare meat or offer plant-forward menus in your institution’s dining halls, email us at info@betterfoodfoundation.org.

As Farm Forward’s new Executive Director, I want to tell you my story of how I became passionate about farmed animal welfare and share my goals for this excellent organization. I stepped into this new role because I’ve seen Farm Forward’s unique strategy, high-impact programs, and phenomenal team radically transform how people eat and farm. Helping lead this organization into its second decade is an honor and I’m excited to see what we will accomplish together to end factory farming.

My belief in the transformative power of food began more than a decade ago in college when I volunteered to cook in a student co-op, making a vegetarian dinner each week for more than a hundred of my peers. By sourcing food from dozens of local farms I got to know the foodshed of Northeast Ohio and learned that access to food—especially fresh food—depends on a complex set of social, economic, and geographic factors.

After I graduated my experiences at the co-op drew me to Chicago to work for several years with the Chicago Food Policy Council, a coalition of organizations working to create a more equitable, healthy and just food system for Chicagoans. Seeing the impact of our work firsthand is why, today, I am so optimistic about the ability of activists to work with communities to envision and build a better world.

Around the same time, I read Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals, which made explicit the connections I had long felt between factory farming’s contributions to justice issues like climate change, food security, and animal suffering. I credit Eating Animals with my decision to focus my career on ending factory farming. It felt like serendipity when I applied for a position at Farm Forward, which had been so intimately involved in creating that book.

I began working for Farm Forward five years ago on projects to transform how animal products are sourced by consumers and institutions. I’ve seen Farm Forward grow from a scrappy (but astonishingly high-impact) staff of three to a team that is poised to alter the landscape of food production in the US and internationally. With your support, we can seize these opportunities and launch a new, more vibrant, and more impactful phase of the anti–factory farming movement.

Here are some of my goals for Farm Forward in the year to come:

• Build bridges between anti–factory farming and social movements (including climate activism and food justice) in order to build a broad and effective coalition to oppose factory farming;
• Continue to grow our impact on institutional food policies and practices through programs like the Leadership Circle, the Jewish Initiative for Animals, and our partnership with the Good Food Purchasing Program in cities around the US;
• Strengthen Farm Forward’s own capacity to disseminate knowledge, coordinate strategy and provide thought leadership in order to increase the overall capacity and effectiveness of the anti–factory farming movement;
• Develop platforms to empower underrepresented voices to implement new, diverse approaches to fighting factory farming and creating better food systems;
• Continue to improve Farm Forward’s policies and practices to foster a safe, inclusive, and healthy workplace that encourages our employees to thrive personally and professionally.

The opportunities that lie ahead for Farm Forward in the coming year to help reduce the impacts of factory farming and improve the lives of farmed animals are truly exciting and are the result of ten years of excellent executive leadership by Ben Goldsmith, the vision and strategy of our founder Aaron Gross, and the hard work and skill of our excellent team. I encourage you to take the time to read Farm Forward’s Annual Report, which includes a comprehensive summary of our first ten years. I feel honored to help lead this team as it embarks on its second decade, and I hope you will join us.

With Gratitude,

Andrew deCoriolis

We’re excited to welcome Villanova University to Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle. Villanova Dining Services has committed to source 100% of its eggs from sources that, at a minimum, meet Certified Humane (CH) cage-free standards. After conversations with our staff, Villanova started sourcing all of their shell eggs from a CH Pasture Raised egg supplier, Vital Farms. Villanova is the first university of its size to source all shell eggs from hens raised in certified pasture-based systems, a decision that raises the bar for institutional food procurement commitments across the country.

Pasture-raised eggs are a significant step up from cage-free eggs when it comes to animal welfare (and, research suggests, the nutritional profile of the end product1 as well). While cage-free eggs can still come from farms where birds never see the outdoors, pasture-raised hens spend most of their time outside, exhibiting natural behaviors (like foraging for bugs and insects) with plenty of space. Villanova’s support for a pasture-raised egg company may also have ripple effects for other food buyers: by convincing their food distributor to carry new pasture-raised egg products, Villanova is paving the way to making pasture-raised products available to other institutions and large buyers.

Villanova’s membership in the Leadership Circle aligns well with the university’s “VEG” program, which promotes healthy and sustainable eating. By offering delicious plant-forward menu options, the VEG program has led to an increase in produce purchases and has increased student satisfaction with on-campus dining. Joining the Leadership Circle and committing to purchase certified higher welfare eggs will help Villanova focus on sourcing “less and better” animal products.

Our team looks forward to working with Villanova and supporting other universities that wish to build a higher welfare, more sustainable food system through their food purchasing practices. Please reach out if you’d like to learn more, or are interested in joining our Leadership Circle program.

Recently Farm Forward met with Perdue Farm’s executive team and several of the company’s contract farmers, touring some of their farms and facilities in Salisbury, Maryland at Perdue’s third annual Animal Care Summit. Each year, this summit invites candid discussions about Perdue’s progress on animal welfare and provides a chance for Perdue to consider new ideas from farmers and animal advocates. This year, attendees discussed everything from higher welfare genetics to the opportunity for Perdue to diversify into plant-based and blended proteins. Farm Forward welcomes Perdue’s ongoing commitment to transparency and dialogue. Perdue has shown leadership among poultry companies on antibiotics and we applaud their current leadership on animal welfare.

The summit included a tour of a research farm where Perdue works toward improving animal welfare—they have identified slower-growing, active breeds high in welfare indicators that also receive top marks in taste and meat quality. Farm Forward is encouraged by the possibility that improvements in genetics may result in lower incidents of white striping and woody breast, and that improved meat quality may offset higher production cost (as a result of birds living longer). As we await Perdue’s forthcoming research on different breeds, we will continue to inform consumers about the welfare benefits of slower-growth genetics.

For more than a decade, Farm Forward has advocated that genetics should be the cornerstone of efforts to improve poultry welfare. Our advocacy led to a landmark announcement by Global Animal Partnership (GAP) to require higher welfare genetics for all poultry in the GAP program, a change that will impact more than 300 million animals per year. Perdue is the only major poultry company that has committed to improve animal welfare through genetics, and their progress ahead of their 2024 commitment is impressive.

At the summit, Perdue also discussed Controlled Atmospheric Stunning (CAS)—a slaughtering technology with clear benefits for animal welfare, workers, and production efficiency. Perdue has implemented CAS in one of their processing plants and has committed to installing it in all of their slaughterhouses. Farm Forward strongly recommends that other poultry companies adopt CAS or other similar technologies to reduce stocking density in their operations.

Perdue has shared data about the changes they have been making throughout their operations, even when that data isn’t flattering. This level of transparency is in stark contrast to what we’ve seen from other poultry companies, which have not committed to the same level of animal welfare improvements (or even, in the case of Sanderson Farms, to reduce antibiotic use), nor to engage with advocacy groups meaningfully. We look forward to supporting Perdue on their evolution toward improved animal welfare!

Due to demand from conscious consumers and pressure from organizations like Farm Forward and our allies, the food industry is changing. Blue Apron, the leading meal kit service, has announced an industry-leading animal welfare policy that has a strong focus on third-party animal welfare certification and public transparency. Blue Apron’s policy demonstrates the improvements to animal welfare possible in a large supply chain. Blue Apron’s changes will impact several million animals per year.

Farm Forward worked with Blue Apron’s supply chain team for more than two years to develop standards, source higher welfare animal products, and evaluate suppliers to confirm they could meet Blue Apron’s new standards. Our collaboration shows how food companies can work with animal welfare organizations to set forward-looking standards and push the envelope of what’s possible for farmed animal welfare.

Study1 after study2 shows that consumers care about how animals are treated. They are troubled, to say the least, by many of the practices of industrial animal production. Many companies have responded to consumer pressure over the last decade, especially the last five years, by eliminating some of their very worst animal welfare practices.

Most recently, in just the past year, dozens of companies—including Burger King, Starbucks, and Compass Group—have gone beyond eliminating their worst practices to improving their standard practices. Now Blue Apron, with Farm Forward’s support, has evaluated new possibilities for its beef and broiler chicken supply chains and committed to set an even higher standard.

Blue Apron’s Policy

Blue Apron’s animal welfare policy represents an important step forward in several respects:

• Meat from slower-growing chickens. Blue Apron has announced that more than 10 percent of the chicken in their meal kits is certified at GAP Step 4, which means that they are using slower-growing breeds raised with access to pasture. Blue Apron has also committed to source 100 percent of their chicken from slower-growing birds raised with environmental enrichments, more space, and improved slaughter by 2022.
• Eggs from pasture raised hens. 100 percent of Blue Apron’s eggs come from pasture-based farms verified by Certified Humane Pasture Raised, which requires that hens have continuous access to vegetated pasture. This is a tremendous improvement over cage-free, where most hens are raised in cramped conditions indoors.
• Beef from cattle raised entirely on pasture. By the end of 2019, 50 percent of the cows providing Blue Apron’s beef will be raised and finished on pasture.
• Commitment to verification and transparency. Blue Apron is the first U.S. company to commit to sell only those animal products that use Certified Humane or GAP animal welfare certifications, also by the end of 2019.

While most companies are raising the floor and eliminating the worst practices from their supply chains, Blue Apron is pushing the ceiling: setting a positive vision for a path forward that ensures meaningfully better conditions for all animals in their supply chain.

Learn more about our work to help institutions leverage their buying power to change the way animals are raised for food.

Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle champions a “less meat, better meat,” strategy for the schools, businesses, and other institutions that serve hundreds of millions of meals in the U.S. each year. Developed by Health Care Without Harm, the “less meat, better meat” framework can help institutions reduce their use of animal products overall (“less meat”), while at the same time sourcing the animal products they do serve from higher-welfare, more sustainable sources (“better meat”).

The Leadership Circle supports institutions sourcing “better meat” by connecting them with certified higher-welfare and environmentally sustainable farmers. By doing this, we help the growing network of certified higher-welfare farmers find markets for their products. For example, Farm Forward helped the University of Denver connect with and source Global Animal Partnership Step 5 chicken from Boulder Natural Meats. Although the Leadership Circle program only launched in October 2017, our “better meat” commitment has already improved the lives of more than three million animals raised for food.

Given these accomplishments, why focus on “less meat” as a critical component of the Leadership Circle’s approach? Part of the answer is economic: because animal products typically cost more than plant-based protein1, buying a lower volume of animal products allows institutions to save money. Those savings can be reinvested in better-quality animal products. Shifting dollars away from industrialized farms and toward higher-welfare farms supports small- and medium-sized family farms, which often struggle to compete in a market dominated by a handful of large agricultural companies. By shifting consumption to animal products raised by smaller, higher-welfare farms, we help build a sustainable farming movement that can be part of a solution to factory farms.

Reducing our consumption of animal products provides broader benefits for animal welfare, human health, and the planet. The U.S. raises over 9 billion animals for food each year2, and nearly 99 percent spend most or all of their lives confined in factory farms.3 Consuming fewer animal products usually translates to consuming fewer animals, which reduces overall animal suffering.4

Eating less meat and more plants is also recommended for better health and increased food security.5 Most American adults eat roughly twice the recommended amount of protein each day6 and consume more saturated fat and sodium—both present in conventional meat and poultry—than is optimal for health.7 Switching from a diet high in animal products to one featuring more plants is broadly recognized as better for human health.

Lastly, the high emissions of food animal production mean that reducing our consumption of animal products is critical if we are to limit the severe and irreversible consequences of climate change associated with a global temperature rise of  2° C or more.8

For animals, our health, and the stability of our planet, it is imperative that we eat less and better meat and other animal products. The effect of influencing meals eaten in institutions cannot be overestimated; more than 1/3 of every dollar we spend on food goes to foodservice establishments.9

Please support our efforts to reduce animal product consumption by donating to Farm Forward’s Leadership Circle program.

See also our subsequent blog post “Progress: An Update on Farm Forward’s Commitment to a Safe and Inclusive Workplace and Movement.”

Headlines from the last two weeks have documented serious problems with workplace sexual harassment within the anti–factory farming movement. The most thoughtful discussions have put the problems with harassment inside the broader frame of pay inequity and chronic discrimination based on sex, gender, and race. That such discrimination is unacceptable should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said: Sex, gender, racial and other forms of bias are both ethically intolerable and socially debilitating. Such discrimination troubles all of us and threatens the moral energies that are the ultimate foundation of the movement to end factory farming. At the end of this letter, I list four concrete ways that Farm Forward is responding to recent events but please first allow me to put those next steps in context.

Though my colleagues and I at Farm Forward have for several years taken increased action to address sex, gender, and racial bias in our movement I myself did not sufficiently appreciate the scale of the suffering faced by colleagues at other organizations and the profundity of the harm done to our movement as a whole. To paraphrase Indian farmed animal advocate, Clementien Pauws-Koenegras, there is a big difference between seeing and seeing. I am grateful to all of those who helped us see the problems, often at great personal cost.

Farm Forward wants to seize this opportunity to make the anti–factory farming movement more just in our workplaces and we know many other organizations do as well, but getting a firm grasp on the full shape and scope of the problems also requires the patience to look clearly and closely. Not patience with the wrongdoing, of course—so much of the shame of the present moment is precisely a kind of perverse patience for the exploiters. Rather, I point to the kind of patience that allows us to cease the problem-solving just long enough to grasp as fully as we can what has happened, and the nature and implications of the environments in which these sorts of problems have occurred. The right kind of patience builds our endurance and creates not simply a basis for response, but for creating systems of responsibility.

Enabling sexual exploiters and creating workplace environments shaped by sex, gender, and racial bias are bad enough problems, but the deeper truth is that these problems are also symptoms. I see many in the anti–factory farming space hastening to respond with policies and trainings addressed narrowly at anti-harassment, which is good, but I do not see transformative potential in such policy and training alone.

Perhaps the greatest possibility for transformation towards greater justice and efficacy lies in taking seriously the longstanding call of many prescient voices to rethink the nature of our fight against industrial farming. As Farm Forward Faith in Food Fellow, Dr. Rev. Christopher Carter, has helped me articulate, we would do well to ask what it would mean to not only be a movement “for” animal welfare, food justice, or other values, but also one of many movements standing against oppression—against oppression as a mindset and material system.

It is one kind of victory to, for example, address sex and gender based inequity; it is another to address the sources that lead sex and gender based inequity to be so widespread in the first place. We want to do both. At Farm Forward, this means that in addition to policy and training work, we are asking how sex and gender bias in the movement have impacted strategic decision-making, how we can better understand the harms this has done to anti–factory farming work, and, above all, asking what new strategies now emerge as worthy of attention.

The roots of gender, sex, and racial bias in the nonprofit sector are longstanding and deep. As my colleague at Compassion in World Farming, Leah Garces, put it, “pressure must come from stakeholders at every level to tackle the problem at its root and prevent further harm.”

Below are four ways Farm Forward is responding:

1. Farm Forward already has a robust policy against sexual and other forms of harassment that describes in clear details our expectations of all employees. It is in fact the first policy we ever created and the first in our handbook. We are in the process of engaging the entire staff in a review of these policies, including instituting new training procedures. To read more about our internal policies against discrimination, see this link to our current employee handbook.
2. In order to ensure greater equity, Farm Forward salaries are set according to a compensation formula and not individually negotiated by employees. When we hire new people we openly discuss how their salary compares to other employees for transparency. In addition, we have recently hired an outside consultant whose charge includes a review of our policies for determining salary to ensure ongoing fairness.
3. While Farm Forward has received no complaints from employees to date (indeed, no full-time employee has ever left Farm Forward’s staff), we are in the process of developing and administering anonymous surveys and other procedures to ensure we are in fact achieving the safest possible working environment.
4. Farm Forward in partnership with the allied nonprofit we helped found last year, the Better Food Foundation, will allot at least $50,000 in spending to address sex, gender, and racial discrimination and its impact on strategic decision making in the fight against factory farming. Stay tuned for further announcements about these efforts.

While saddened by all the harm that has been done, the present moment is ultimately a lucky one. We are fortunate to be in a movement that has broken the silence about abuses that are, in the end, a problem in almost every sector of our society. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to build a better movement, and we will.

Onward and forward,

Aaron S. Gross
Founder and CEO