Op-Ed: How Fringe Animal Groups Threaten Food Production
By Jack Hubbard, executive director for the newly formed Center for the Environment & Welfare*.
According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food inflation remains stubbornly high with prices rising by 7.7% in April compared to the year before. While most Americans are anxiously hoping costs will moderate, fringe animal extremist groups are actively working to keep prices rising.
Exhibit A is a Supreme Court decision that was handed down in May. The high court's majority upheld a California law that forbids the sale of conventionally raised and veterinarian approved pork and egg-laying hens in the state. Well-paid animal non-profit executives who are working towards upending American dinner tables predictably applauded the news.
While California raises little pork within its borders, state residents consume an estimated 13% of the country's supply -- meaning the decision will have wide-ranging consequences for farmers nationwide. For California families, the decision will mean higher prices at the grocery store. And to everyone else, it is a cautionary tale. Misguided policies that start in California rarely remain there.
Case in point is the 2023 farm bill. As lawmakers debate components of the legislative package that will influence how farms operate, animal activists are pushing for Congress to tack on provisions that target farmers. Efforts to halt the construction of large farms, phase out existing ones, and put in place even more government red tape that could strangle food producers are prime examples.
As someone who served as the chief operating officer at the country's first national humane organization, I am no enemy to animals. But this anti-farmer movement is not pro-animal. It is extremism that promotes regressive policies that will chip away at America's historically stable -- and affordable -- food supply.
Decades of innovation in farming, engineering, transportation, and animal science has made the U.S. home to some of the most affordable food in the world.
In fact, the share of disposable income Americans spend on food dropped from 17% in 1960 to roughly 10% in 2000 -- where it has remained relatively steady ever since. Compare that to people living in other countries that spend as much as 40% of take home pay to feed their families.
Food production is America's golden goose, and animal activists are threatening to slaughter it. And efforts in Sacramento and Washington are only one part of the equation. An offensive is brewing in the boardrooms of corporate America.
Animal activists are targeting food industry companies, including McDonald's, Hormel, and Kroger, with shareholder activism. It is similar to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions playbook, where institutions are squeezed until compliant with activist demands. In this case, the goal is to pressure corporations into adopting policies that prohibit them from buying most eggs, pork, or chicken produced in the country.
The backdoor corporate approach to implementing a de facto prohibition on traditional farming is primed to explode over the next year. The Open Philanthropy Project, an activist grant maker financed by a Facebook co-founder, has directed more than $50 million to animal activism since 2021 to fund a wave of corporate campaigns against food providers.
Consumers will ultimately pay the price. Many European countries have already adopted the food production policies of the animal rights movement. One study found that an average trip to the grocery store to buy staples like milk, eggs, chicken, and cheese costs Americans $28, compared to $35 for the same cartload in Norway and $48 in Switzerland.
When food costs balloon, the most vulnerable -- including low-income families, minority groups, and young people -- get kicked the hardest. It is akin to subjecting the economically disadvantaged to an additional tax. Does anyone think that is a good idea?
Despite rhetoric from animal rights activists -- whether they are playing judicial advocate, lobbying on Capitol Hill, or organizing corporate shareholders -- their goal is far from achieving the humane treatment of animals. The movement seeks to impose extreme beliefs on the American diet by inflating the price of food until the products they deem harmful are out of reach.
There is a brawl at the dinner table. Americans need to put up a fight.
*ABOUT CEW:
The newly launched Center for the Environment and Welfare (CEW) aims to help consumers, companies, and stakeholders navigate complex sustainability and animal welfare issues.
Areas of focus include animal agriculture, corporate food production, supply chains, and the credibility of thought leaders in the space.
CEW also examines the animal activists spearheading radical and irresponsible ESG proposals and legislation, including national charities like the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States.
Learn more about the organization at www.environmentandwelfare.com.
