Hogs Animal Welfare

Don’t Be Fooled: Animal Rights Activists Pose as Family Farmers

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:43:41 GMT

Recently, several new activist groups have been using proclaimed farmers as prominent features in legislative campaigns aimed at preserving state “animal welfare” laws like California’s Proposition 12 . But who are these organizations – and are they really speaking for farmers?

Last fall, the Animal Agriculture Alliance noticed a trend of groups like Farm Action and Humane World Action Fund running ads claiming “family farmers” are in favor of upholding Prop12 and encouraging opposition to federal efforts to overturn the law. The ads claimed that Prop 12 “created a market that gives family-run farms like ours a fighting chance.”

Farm Action, a group with a purposely misleading name, is run by two former Humane World for Animals (HSUS) staff. The group endorses anti-animal agriculture legislation while claiming that they are working to “protect the future of family farms,” and organized a Congressional fly-in event last year to speak with legislators. Similarly, the activist-backed American Meat Producers Association, also led by a former Humane World for Animals (HSUS) staffer, was launched last year and has also been involved in similar efforts in D.C. to support Prop 12. The group said that they are working to “give a voice on policy issues and protect state laws that are good for family farmers,” while misleading lawmakers that these voices – heavily influenced by leadership that has strong ties to anti-animal agriculture organizations – speak for the entirety of producers.

These efforts in D.C. in support of California’s Prop 12 and in opposition to the EATS Act, now renamed the Save Our Bacon Act, were lauded by other anti-animal agriculture groups like Mercy for Animals, which wrote a blog in November about the “hundreds of farmers [sending] a strong message on Capitol Hill.” If you look deeper into the connections of these organizations, it’s hard to believe that these “farmers” would want to align themselves with groups that ultimately want to put all animal agriculture out of business.

In January, The Center for the Environment & Welfare issued a report breaking down some of the alleged “supporters” of California’s Prop 12 that were listed on a letter circulating on Capitol Hill. In the letter, Humane World for Animals had claimed that 5,000 farms across 39 states support Prop 12’s “animal welfare standards,” however, after a thorough review, it was found that this list included over 100 wineries, 150 honey producers, a goat yoga practitioner, and an urban garden – not a very accurate depiction of farmers that are actually impacted by these housing standards and supply chain restrictions.

Most recently, with the House Ag Committee passing a Farm Bill that includes preemption language related to Prop 12, we have continued to see animal rights activists scramble for support. Many groups have put out rapid “calls to action” on social media and through e-mail blasts asking their supporters to reach out to legislators. Some of these efforts seem to be aimed at major conservative commentators and policymakers, signaling attempts by activist groups to reach nontraditional audiences. A recent article in the LA Times claimed that “even conservatives are mad” about Proposition 12 and, while using an activist-provided stock photo from outside of the United States, referenced “intensive corporate-owned mega-farms.” In the article, an alleged farmer and “self-described conservative Republican” claimed that gestation stalls are not “proven to be good science.” This kind of content directly opposes the work that has been done in partnership by farmers, academia, and industry to make sure that pigs, whatever housing system they are in, are raised in environments that balance the best for their welfare and environmental sustainability, all while creating a nutritious, affordable protein for consumers.

It’s not hard to see why animal rights activists are trying to appear as representing farmers and ranchers. According to Gallup polling , farming and agriculture is America’s most trusted sector over the past 25 years. This new wave of organizations and tactics seems to be an attempt at distracting and confusing the public and policymakers, drowning out the perspectives of longstanding grassroots organizations who do count farmers and ranchers responsible for putting meat, poultry, dairy, eggs and seafood on American plates among their membership. It’s imperative that we look beyond the facades that these groups want you to see to understand their true intent. That second look at groups claiming to be aligned with farmers and asking for support could be hugely impactful to major legislative changes that seek to alter the future of our food supply.

Abby Kornegay is the director of issues and engagement for the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

New Animal Activism Reports Released: Activists Connect in the Courtroom

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 17:42:28 GMT

As part of the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s mission to safeguard the future of animal agriculture, we work to make sure that farm and food communities have all the facts about what animal activist groups are really working toward. That’s why we’ve recently released two new reports that break down the strategic coordination and funding behind these organizations.

The first report, “ Radical Vegan Activism ,” looks back at statistics from 2024 to show the tactics, targets and driving ideologies of key players within the movement. The numbers tell an important story, with nearly one-quarter of all documented activist attacks focusing on farms and food businesses. It is of note that research institutions were reported to be the most targeted overall. When it comes to agriculture, documented actions included vandalism (59 incidents), animal theft or release (43 cases) and trespassing (31 cases).

The second report, the “ Major Animal Activist Groups Web ,” outlines the connections between well-known organizations based on staffing, funding and project collaboration.

While some of these groups have a more public-facing presence — such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or Humane World for Animals (formerly Humane Society of the United States) — and often engage with the public and are seen on television commercials, others are working behind the scenes pushing legislation that is unfavorable to agriculture and, even in some cases, stealing animals from farms and facilities. The point of the “Major Animal Activist Groups Web” is to show that though groups may differ on how they get their point across, they are all working together in some ways to push for changes in modern animal agriculture that drive up the cost of production and threaten the availability of animal-sourced protein.

The web is updated annually with the inclusion of new connections and organizations. A key theme identified in this latest update was a focus on legal collaboration between groups. For example, Animal Activist Legal Defense Project is working to appeal a 2023 felony conviction of Wayne Hsiung , founder of Direct Action Everywhere and Simple Heart Initiative (a new addition to the web this year after holding an “animal rescue” event in Washington, D.C., this past March). Other legal focused groups recently added include The Brooks Institute and Legal Impact for Chickens.

The groups highlighted in this report represent a fraction of the activist landscape, yet together, based on the latest publicly available financial information, pull in more than $865 million a year — a significant jump from $800 million last year. As funding for activism grows, it’s more important than ever for those of us in the farm and food community to share our own stories. If we don’t speak up about what really happens on farms, we risk letting activist groups tell that story for us.

Want to learn more about protecting your farm or business from potential activist threats? Visit the Alliance website for more resources and information on proactive security measures.

Read more:
Jury Rejects ‘Rescue’ Defense: DxE Extremist Zoe Rosenberg Found Guilty in Chicken Heist

Don’t Let Activists Spoil the Fun this Fair Season

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:25:46 GMT

As we move into fair season this year, there are so many reasons to be excited! It’s a time to get out and visit with friends and neighbors, eat delicious snacks, and celebrate the hard work that youth put into raising livestock for shows. As a member of the agricultural community, this is also an invaluable time to reach outside the bubble and engage with the public about agriculture and where our food comes from. However, there are often detractors attempting to sway public opinion and, in some cases, even protest these events.

In recent years, animal rights groups have been known to protest with a variety of tactics, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) bringing their “Hell on Wheels” vehicle to the fairgrounds. This initiative from PETA is a large truck that is meant to look like it is transporting pigs – it also claims to be loud, playing “the screams of panicked animals.” Last year, this truck made an appearance at several Midwest state fairs and is currently circling the U.S. with recent stops in Nebraska, Indiana and Illinois.

Other tactics seen at fairs and expos last year include animal rights groups handing out stickers and other pamphlets. It was reported that a group of animal rights supporters previously handed out what seemed like coupons to fair attendees. These coupons claimed to be for free fair food, like turkey legs and pulled pork sandwiches, but when you scanned the QR code, it would take you to a website in support of their vegan cause.

Fairs have also been the target of animal rights groups protesting birthing centers, specifically those highlighting pork production. While this is a great experience for fair attendees to potentially see piglets born up close (and the care that goes into this practice), animal rights groups have used this as an opportunity to protest sow housing and farrowing stalls.

Unfortunately, animal rights activist organizations see fairs as a major opportunity to spread misinformation about our industry and to diminish the great work done in the agricultural community. The good news? There are some steps fair organizers and exhibitors can take to keep security top of mind and keep the fun times rolling:

• All events should have a crisis plan outlining who should do what in various scenarios – protests, disruptions, etc. Crisis plans can also address natural disasters, accidents and other issues that may arise during the event. During this planning process, local law enforcement should be consulted about how to handle activist activity at fairs.

• Keep an eye out for suspicious activity: people carrying signs or other protest materials, someone taking a strange amount of photos/videos or recording with their phone (livestreaming is a common practice), individuals asking very direct questions, etc. Report any concerns immediately to fair management.

• Avoid confrontation. Activists want attention – please avoid giving it to them. Keep your cool and let law enforcement or event management handle any issues.

I hope that this is truly a great fair season for everyone and that you don’t let the actions of animal rights groups stand in the way of this great opportunity to interact with the public and share what truly supports pig farming in the U.S. – great farm families, starting with youth!

Abby Kornegay is the manager of issues and engagement for the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

Take the Stress Out of Social Media: Navigate Detractors

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:56:23 GMT

Have you ever wanted to post on social media but were worried about potential backlash? You want to share your farm, but are worried about receiving potentially negative comments about sow housing? Maybe you are worried about getting tough questions about the use of hormones or antibiotics when it comes to feeding your animals or treating them for illnesses?

Unfortunately, this scenario is all too common for farmers, veterinarians and others in the ag community advocating for animal agriculture on social media. Negative comments have the potential to steer the conversation down an unproductive path. However, if you know how to handle contentious issues online then you can help people understand the animal agriculture community’s commitment to animal care, responsible antibiotic use, sustainability and other core values.

Before deciding how (and if) to respond to comments, take a deep breath and ask yourself a few key questions:

1. Is the comment relevant or is it completely off-topic?

2. Who has made the comments? Are they genuinely curious or are they a known extreme animal rights activist?

3. Consider, “Is it possible they have a different perspective?” or “Is there something that could have shaped this person’s opinion?”

4. Will responding to the comment help other people who will read your response?

If the person has left a completely irrelevant comment, don’t feel obligated to respond. If the comment included offensive remarks, feel confident in hiding the comment or blocking the person from commenting again. Remember, your social media page is your space, and you can set community guidelines.

Depending on who has left the comment can determine how you respond. By clicking on the commentor’s profile you can quickly learn if their comments come from a place of true concern and interest, like a parent concerned about feeding his or her children safe, nutrient-dense foods, or potentially an animal rights extremist with no intention of having a productive conversation about animal agriculture.

If you have concluded that the commenter is likely not open to having a dialogue, still ask yourself if responding to the comment will help others understand your perspective. Social media is a very public space and there are many more people reading your posts and comment sections than actually engaging.

Once you have asked yourself these questions and have decided that responding is your next step, look for common ground on a related topic – such as food safety and family values. Before jumping into the safety and animal welfare benefits of using antibiotics, validate their concerns and offer empathy. Then, ask permission to share your personal experience with using antibiotics on the farm. If the conversation is going well, follow up with the science and offer resources or other people to follow on social media if they are interested in learning more.

Most importantly, know that you can always ask for help. Bring in your friends who also have experience responding to contentious issues, reach out to your local partners, or the Animal Agriculture Alliance to help you moderate difficult conversations.

This is just a preview of the content and training available in the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Animal Ag Allies program. To sign up to become an Animal Ag Ally, go to and fill out the interest form to join our next class!

Your Next Read: Build Your Team Across the Entire Supply Chain

Early Returns Show Sonoma County Voters Reject Measure to Ban CAFOs

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 21:09:04 GMT

Despite campaign spending topping $2 million, Measure J initiated by the Coalition to End Factory Farming, a collection of animal rights groups that have been active for years in Sonoma County, Calif., appears to be headed for defeat with 85% of voters rejecting it as of the latest updated results on Nov. 6.

Measure J would have placed strict limits on the size of individual animal farms, banning any farm that meets the federal definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), KQED NPR reports . Advocates campaigned on the argument that larger animal farms pollute the environment and are more likely to mistreat animals.

The measure, a first of its kind in the U.S., raised questions about financial costs, regulations and Sonoma County’s appetite for meat. Measure J would have impacted an estimated 21 farms that the campaign has identified as “factory farms.”

“Measure J poses significant risks to local, multi-generational farms of all sizes in Sonoma County, particularly in how it could exacerbate the already fragile economic landscape,” the Sonoma County Farm Bureau said on its website .

Local farmers, politicians and business groups overwhelmingly opposed the measure, arguing that it would put long-standing family-owned farms out of business, some of which have operated in the county for over 100 years, KQED NPR reports. Opponents argued it would have caused exponential job losses, higher food costs and less locally sourced eggs, milk and poultry; and that trucking these into the county would have negated the measure’s environmental goals.

“Had the measure passed, farms not in compliance, including well-known farms like Clover and Strauss, would have been fined $10,000 a day. It would have authorized civilian enforcement and tasked the county agricultural commissioner with implementing and managing a job retraining and reentry program for farmworkers who would have lost their jobs,” the KQED NPR article said.

The Coalition to End Factory Farming said it is planning a protest on Saturday and a community discussion on Nov. 15, CBS News Bay Area reports.

Your Next Read: Denver Voters Reject Slaughterhouse Ban: Win for Animal Ag

Denver Voters Reject Slaughterhouse Ban: Win for Animal Ag

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 13:50:56 GMT

Denver residents rejected Ordinance 309 to ban slaughterhouses in the city. Denver, a hub of lamb processing for the state and nation, represents 15% to 20% of U.S. lamb harvest capacity. It also provides many jobs in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods.

“Activists from New Orleans and California used dark money from out of state to try and shut down this local company, but they lost to Colorado workers, farmers, ranchers and restaurateurs,” Ian Silverii, campaign spokesperson for “Stop the Ban. Protect Jobs,” said in a statement. “We have one message for those who tried to cone to our city and our state to run their experiment to upend the lives of so many hardworking people: it was a baaaaaaaad idea.”

According to the Denver Post , at 11:30 pm, 64.6% opposed the slaughterhouse ban, with very little change in the split for and against throughout the evening.

Opponents of the ban declared victory Tuesday night and Pro-Animal Future, which put the question on the ballot, issued a statement appearing to concede on both measures, the article said.

“This was a bold campaign, and no one said changing the status quo was going to be easy,” Pro-Animal Future spokesperson Olivia Hammond said in a statement. “Over a hundred thousand meat eaters voted for a world without slaughterhouses, and that’s a foundation we’ll continue building on. Voters aren’t used to seeing animal rights on the ballot, and we are paving the way with this campaign.”

The measure titled “Prohibition of Slaughterhouses” tried to outlaw “the construction, maintenance, or use of” any meat processing facilities in Denver beginning Jan. 1, 2026, as well as “require the city to prioritize residents whose employment is affected by the ordinance in workforce training or employment assistance programs.”

This ban put 160 jobs at stake and according to one study, at least $215 million in economic benefits, which could be as high as $860 million, counting indirect factors. In addition, the ban also threatened more than 2,700 jobs including independent ranchers, truckers, distributors, retailers, butchers and restaurant owners and employees, according to a Colorado State University study .

“Stop the Ban, Protect Jobs” raised money from an array of donors including Superior Farms, the American Sheep Industry Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Visit Denver, the Colorado Livestock Association, United Food & Commercial Workers International, Concience Bay Research, LLC, Political Action Trust, and the Colorado Livestock Association.

Voters also rejected Ordinance 308, which would ban the manufacture, distribution, display, sale or trade of certain animal products within Denver city limits, with limited exceptions, such as for Native American cultural uses or for cow leather. Had the ordinance passed it could have affected sales of cowboy and other hats made of beaver, rabbit or hare hides, as well as fly-fishing lures that include animal fibers. The Denver Post reported the ordinance reported nearly 58% of voters opposed the fur ban.

Your Next Read: Buoyed by Stronger Support from Rural America than 2016, Trump Wins Second Term as President

Protect Your Farm From Animal Rights Extremists

Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:47:18 GMT

Let’s take a minute and get back to basics. Farm security is important for many reasons but can often be overlooked as farmers are busy with so many other important tasks. It can be easy to be lured into a sense of complacency when you know your neighbors, but those targeting animal agriculture are looking for any opportunity to strike.

Animal rights extremists continually attempt to gain access to farms and facilities by any means necessary – and oftentimes that comes with a lack of biosecurity measures like proper clothing and sanitizing. In the times of avian influenza and other contagious diseases, it’s more important than ever that we ensure we’re not opening up our farms to extremists and any potential new pathogens they may bring in. As you work to protect your animals, your property, and your employees, there are several aspects of implementing a strong farm security plan that can serve as your first line of defense. Here are three tips to get you started:

1. Start by making your farm “YouTube proof.”

Pretend someone is taking a video of your farm to share on YouTube. Are you comfortable with that scenario? Typically, we don’t get a heads up or time to prepare when anti-animal agriculture visitors stop by. Be proactive in ensuring you’re doing everything right ahead of time.
Protect yourself and your animals by always using science-based animal care and environmental policies. Make sure family members and employees are trained on these policies as well.
Conduct self-audits to find new ways to improve and ensure current practices and protocols are being properly followed.

2. Make yourself a harder target!

Put up “No Trespassing” signs.
Install motion sensor lighting and security cameras.
Have gates and fencing with locks – and make sure they’re locked when not in use!

3. Be cautious with hiring.

You might have done all you can do to protect yourself from unwanted visitors entering your farm, but extremists know other ways to gain access to your property, including through employment. It’s important to never cut corners on your hiring process and to always have a formal policy. This should include a written application with references and past employers. It’s imperative that you take proper precautions and call the employers to verify that this person is who they say they are.
Trust your gut. If something feels off, trust your instincts. Don’t hire someone that could be a potential liability down the road.

As we continue to combat animal rights extremism, it is increasingly important for everyone in the animal agriculture and food communities to keep security top-of-mind. America’s farms, ranches and food processing facilities are the front lines of our food supply. Keeping them safe and secure is essential to animal health and well-being, in addition to ensuring the safety of our milk, meat, poultry, eggs and seafood and protecting the reputation of our community.

Click here for more detailed advice.

Your Next Read: Animal Activists Persist: What It Means for Your Farm

Abby Kornegay is the manager of issues and engagement for the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

Don’t Ignore Denver: Prohibition of Slaughterhouses Ballot Initiative Seeks to Stop Food Production

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:39:26 GMT

In November, Denver residents will cast their vote on a plan to ban slaughterhouses in the city. Denver, a hub of lamb processing for the state and nation, represents 15% to 20% of U.S. lamb harvest capacity.

The slaughterhouse provides many jobs in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. This ban puts 160 jobs at stake and according to one study, at least $215 million in economic benefits, which could be as high as $860 million, counting indirect factors, Channel 9 reports .

In addition, the ban also threatens more than 2,700 jobs including independent ranchers, truckers, distributors, retailers, butchers, and restaurant owners and employees, according to a Colorado State University study .

The measure titled “ Prohibition of Slaughterhouses ” would outlaw “the construction, maintenance, or use of” any meat processing facilities in Denver beginning Jan. 1, 2026, as well as “require the city to prioritize residents whose employment is affected by the ordinance in workforce training or employment assistance programs.”

Pro-Animal Future announced it had collected enough signatures from residents to add this proposal to the fall ballot, threatening Superior Farms, the last remaining slaughterhouse in the city. According to Pro-Animal Future’s website, the organization is a “citizen-led movement away from the exploitation, animal cruelty, and environmental pollution of factory farming, and towards a brighter future based on a more just, sustainable, and compassionate food system.”

Organizations, restaurants and people coming together to stop the ban , say the ban is wrong for working families, wrong for animal welfare and the cost of a ban will be passed on to consumers. The additional cost of shipping more of Denver’s food supply from further away will increase carbon emissions and make the food supply chain less sustainable. Read more here.

In the Proposed Denver Ordinance Banning Animal Slaughter: Implications for the Animal Sector and Economy study by Colorado State University’s Regional Economic Development Institute, analysts shared these additional concerns beyond the economic impact.

1. Some local businesses will suffer significantly.While the focus of the ordinance appears to be a single facility, economic spillovers will reverberate throughout the regional economy, because of the transport of goods and services to and from the Denver location. The meat slaughter and processing sector in Denver County is intertwined with other value-added food businesses who rely on the meat slaughter and processing sector for inputs.

2. The ordinance runs counter to demonstrated consumer preferences and choices.
Evidence suggests that consumers increasingly prefer local sourcing of food or products certifying sustainability and animal welfare innovations. The ordinance will eliminate the only substantive, local source of meat slaughter and processing for producers engaged in direct marketing of food products. Sales of domestic products are likely to be replaced by imported products.

3. The ordinance reduces the resilience of the meat supply chain.
Recent federal initiatives encourage investments enhancing the resilience of the food system including developing small and medium sized slaughter facilities. The purpose is two-fold: improving food security in times of disruption and enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized livestock operations. The proposed Denver ordinance reduces the resilience of the meat supply chain and increases costs for small and medium sized livestock producers who are unlikely to find alternatives.

Chefs Join the Fight
Now, two new, high-profile stakeholders are joining the fight against the referendum, reports a Denver news source .

La Diabla Pozole y Mezcal Chef Jose Avila and II Posto Chef Andrea Frizzi are teaming up with president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show and Complex Paul Andrews, operations manager/employee owner of Superior Farms Isabel Bautista, president of the Colorado Livestock Association Kenny Rogers along with other Superior Farms employee/owners to oppose this citizen-initiated measure.

According to Complete Colorado, the Denver election website reports that issue committees have been formed both for and against the measure.

Pro Animal Denver, has raised just under $230,000 from two contributors: Pro-Animal Future ($218,000), a Colorado-based organization with the mission to “end animal farming in Colorado” and Owen Gunden ($11,500), a New York-based philanthropist who “aims to make the world a kinder place for non-humans.”
“Stop the Ban, Protect Jobs” has raised $740,000 from an array of donors including Superior Farms, the American Sheep Industry Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Visit Denver, the Colorado Livestock Association, United Food & Commercial Workers International, Concience Bay Research, LLC, Political Action Trust, and the Colorado Livestock Association.

Your Next Read: Why Pork is in the Crosshairs of Animal Rights Extremists

Level Up Your Skills to Tell Ag’s Story

Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:56:11 GMT

Today, people are more curious than ever about where their food comes from. This is particularly true of the newest generation, Gen Z, that values transparency above all else. It can be hard to share the complexity of the many facets of agriculture, especially when society is more removed from it than ever. How can we better tell our story and take away the mystery?

The idea of putting yourself out there on the internet as a social media influencer can be intimidating, and it’s not necessarily for everyone! However, there are a lot of other things you can do as a member of the ag community to build connections with consumers and bridge the communication gap between farm and fork. These can be things like creating partnerships in your local community and inviting schools out for farm tours, sponsoring local events, or forming connections with local media to help tell your story.

If you’re looking to level up your skills and confidence as an “ag-vocate,” look no further than the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Animal Ag Allies program, working to empower farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, and food and agriculture professionals to be outspoken advocates for agriculture online and within their communities.

To date, more than 150 Animal Ag Allies graduates have been armed with the knowledge and skills necessary to serve on the front lines of responding to emerging issues and sharing positive messages about animal agriculture. There’s never been a better time than now to take the plunge in advocating for agriculture. Thanks to the generous support of the United Soybean Board, all participation fees for the 2024 Animal Ag Allies program have been waived!

The Animal Ag Allies program consists of two phases: online training and a private forum to discuss engagement strategies and emerging issues. The online training modules are all available online and can be completed at your own pace.

Modules address:
• Overviews of each sector of animal agriculture
• Where to find more resources on each sector
• Hot topics and emerging issues facing animal ag
• How to handle contentious issues
• Growing your social following and preaching outside the choir
• Public outreach

New Animal Ag Allies classes begin every quarter. You can visit the Alliance website to see when the next deadline is approaching. Apply by filling out this interest form . Don’t let this opportunity pass you by – sign up today!

Activists Fight for a Seat in the Boardroom

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:18:29 GMT

Animal rights extremist organizations are known for pressuring restaurant and retail brands from different angles. Recently, our attention has been on the boardroom as animal rights groups, specifically the Humane Society of the United States and The Accountability Board, are taking their plight to public-facing companies.

The Accountability Board, an organization launched in 2022 and led by two former HSUS leaders, has been responsible for the bulk of the effort, reportedly filing approximately 30 proposals so far this year targeting national restaurant chains. HSUS has been responsible for another 10 proposals. These 40 shareholders proposals are reported to be double what was filed last year against similar public companies for what a recent Bloomberg article called, “growing concern for animal treatment.”

The article continued to say that these types of resolutions “rarely have ample support” but as members of the agricultural community, this is still of great concern. This could potentially impact the pork community – and your pepperoni supply – with one of the cited examples being a previous filing from The Humane Society of the United States to a well-known national pizza chain. The proposal alleged that the company was not transparent in its plan to move away from gestation stalls.

The Accountability Board has been targeting other national restaurant brands with similar claims of “lack of transparency” specifically around gestation stalls for sows. As activist groups try to become more influential in this space and target companies as investors or shareholders, it’s our recommendation for public-facing companies to be wary of this tactic. The best advice we can offer for any targeted company is to have awareness of the true intent behind these organizations.

It’s not surprising that groups like The Accountability Board and HSUS, as well as others, continue to disrupt the ability of restaurant and retail brands to oversee their own operations and bring nutritious, affordable and delicious meat, poultry, dairy, eggs and seafood to the majority of consumers that choose to keep it on their plates. If the market truly was calling for these changes, we would expect these industry leaders to make these changes of their own volition – not through the pressure of animal rights groups. Brands, especially publicly traded ones, will need to prepare for continued attacks and the animal agriculture community will need to be there with support for their partners along the supply chain.

Abby Kornegay is the manager of issues and engagement for the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

Prepare for Animal Activism in 2024

Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:42:06 GMT

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has concluded the release of reports from four prominent animal rights extremist conferences held throughout 2023. The conferences included: Direct Action Everywhere’s Animal Liberation Conference (ALC) (held June 9-14), The Animal and Vegan Advocacy Summit (held July 27-30), Humane Society of the United States’ Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) Conference (held August 5-6), and Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Law Conference (held October 20-22). The Alliance also released a report from The Reducetarian Summit (held October 27-29).

Key discussions among speakers at these conferences included: a need for increased “investigations” and “open rescues” conducted at farms and processing facilities; calls for animal rights extremists to become more engaged politically and in the legislative process; strategies to pressure restaurant, retail, and foodservice brands to reduce their sourcing of meat, dairy, poultry, eggs, and seafood; and ways the animal rights movement can tap into other key issues to gain attention such as public health and climate change.

“Monitoring the strategies and tactics of the animal rights movement, including through our release of conference reports, allows Alliance members and the broader agriculture community – from farm to fork – to be aware of how these organizations are becoming increasingly aggressive in their efforts to take meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, and seafood off of consumers’ plates,” said Hannah Thompson-Weeman, Alliance president and CEO. “I hope that everyone involved in raising, processing, and retailing animal protein will take the opportunity to review the main themes of these reports and implement measures to safeguard their livelihoods.”

Direct Action Everywhere’s (DXE) Animal Liberation Conference primarily focused on its “right to rescue” campaign, as DXE has been advocating for the legal right to conduct “open rescues,” which entail entering farms and plants without permission and taking livestock and poultry. DXE extremist Alicia Santurio, who faced trial this year in charges stemming from one such incident, says DXE’s version of “open rescue” is, “[W]e do go into these places of violence and if we see a sick or injured animal that really needs us, those are the ones we rescue, but I don’t think that’s the only reason you have to rescue an animal.” Speakers at the event made their viewpoints of animal agriculture clear as Erin Wing, Animal Outlook’s director of “investigations” claimed, “Animal agriculture is a complex machine refined over centuries and designed to torture and destroy all of the living beings within it.”

The decision for the Supreme Court to uphold California’s Proposition 12 was a key focus at several conferences, including the Animal and Vegan Advocacy Summit and the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) TAFA Conference. Both conferences emphasized the recent “victory” and its implications for the animal rights movement. Kate Brindle, HSUS, said, “The court’s decision… not only upheld Proposition 12 and laws like it… it essentially gave a judicial green light so that we can keep working in the legislatures to free animals from suffering and extreme confinement.” The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act was also denounced as “the biggest threat…ever seen to animal protection.” We expect to see more pressure on this proposed legislation in 2024 as several animal rights supporters, including speakers at the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Law Conference have called it a “disaster for farmed animals.”

Several conferences also touched on their strategies to continue pressuring restaurant, retail, and foodservice brands to reduce their sourcing of meat, dairy, poultry, eggs, and seafood. Josh Bisig with ProVeg, an organization focused on “food system change,” said, “Our mission is to replace 50% of animal products globally with plant-based and cultivated foods by 2040.” It was also stated that creating change at the food brand level was an effective way to force change at the farm level. Danielle Melgar, U.S. PIRG, shared an example: “We saw an opportunity to instead turn to a corporate campaign approach, so that we could get major restaurant chains to make commitments to purchasing meat that was raised without the routine use of antibiotics. This would then change what their suppliers are doing.”

Animal rights groups have been using the coattails of issues of significant public interest such as climate change, public health, and social justice to reach wider audiences. David Meyer, Food Systems Innovations, put it this way: “What is it about this climate crisis that is actually a huge opportunity for the animals? Well, it’s a new reason to not eat animals, but this one can’t be ignored.” Brian Kateman, Reducetarian Foundation, said, “We are in a room where everybody agrees that we must end factory farming and we have to reduce the size of consumption of animal products. We don’t have to agree on everything in order to make progress on that one thing.”

All 2023 animal rights conference reports, which include accounts of speaker presentations and general observations, are available to Alliance members in the Resource Center on the Alliance website. The Alliance website also includes reports from previous years’ animal rights conferences. Media wishing to obtain copies of the full report, or for all other inquiries, please contact Emily Ellis, manager, communications and content, at eellis@animalagalliance.org.

Read more:

Animal Activists Are Waging War in Your Backyard

Activists Continue to ‘Storm the Courts’

In Their Own Words: Animal Activists Speak Out

Activist Threats Aren’t Just on the Farm Anymore

Animal Activist Wayne Hsiung Found Guilty of Felony Charges

Fri, 03 Nov 2023 18:57:50 GMT

A Transylvania County jury found animal activist Wayne Hsiung, who was arrested in 2018 for allegedly stealing a goat from a Pisgah Forest ranch, guilty on Dec. 6 of felony larceny after a breaking and entering and felony breaking and entering.

Hsiung was sentenced to a six-to-17-month suspended sentence with 24 months of supervised probation, the Transylvania Times reports. He was ordered to pay $250 in restitution for the value of the stolen animal.

Hsiung is one of the founders of the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an organization known for their headline-grabbing style of disruptive protest, which now has chapters and supporters all over the world. He is based out of Berkley, Calif.

During his trial in the Transylvania County Superior Court, prosecutors played the Facebook livestream video of Hsiung and three other animal rights activists breaking into Sospiro Ranch in Pisgah Forest and stealing a newborn baby goat.

Hsiung claimed he went to the farm with the “intent to save a life” during his testimony, the article said.

This marks the first time Hsuing has received a felony conviction for his animal rights activism, despite being arrested several times along with fellow DxE activists.

Activists Employ Open Rescue Strategies

Groups like DxE rely on strategies such as “open rescue,” where they film and/or livestream themselves entering farms or plants to steal (or “rescue” as they claim) livestock and poultry, explains Hannah Thompson-Weeman of the Animal Agriculture Alliance .

“DXE says its ‘open rescues’ are ‘seen by millions’ and ‘force the issue of animal rights into the public consciousness,’” Thompson-Weeman shared.

This case was the first time Hsiung and DxE ever attempted an open rescue, the Transylvania Times reports. Hsiung, a licensed lawyer in the state of California, represented himself in this case.

During opening statements, Superior Court Judge Peter Knight sustained so many of prosecutors’ Robert Bracket and Jason Hayes’ objections, Hsiung couldn’t finish his opening statements to the jury, the Transylvania Times reports.

Hsiung shared his animal activism beliefs when he took the stand as his first witness. One of his core arguments is that he believes Americans are entitled to the “right to rescue” animals facing cruelty, neglect, poor living conditions or untreated medical emergencies, and that he believes what he did was not only legal, but the moral thing to do, the article said.

The prosecution argued that this was a case of trespassing, breaking and entering and larceny, and that Hsiung had no prior knowledge of this specific goat’s existence before trespassing on the night of Feb. 11, 2018.

Time to Face Consequences

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has been following the trials of DxE members in California, North Carolina and Iowa (to begin soon) as they face the legal consequences of their actions over the past several years.

“Trespassing onto farms and stealing animals is not only unlawful, but it also threatens the health and safety of livestock and poultry. Farmers and ranchers should be able to do their important work to bring meat, poultry, dairy and eggs to the vast majority of consumers who choose to eat them without fear of intrusion by animal rights extremists who believe we should not be raising animals for food (regardless of how we do it) and want to take choices off of everyone’s plates,” Thompson-Weeman says.

She believes it is reassuring that the jury in North Carolina quickly decided on a guilty verdict in this case and she hopes to see similar outcomes in the other trials.

“While it is unlikely that this conviction or any others will deter the most dedicated extremists, perhaps others will think twice before engaging in what DXE calls “open rescue” activities,” she says.

Read more from Farm Journal’s PORK:

What Should You Do If Someone Breaks Into Your Farm?

Animal Rights Extremists Take Their Cause to the Courtroom

Crime on the Farm: How to Stay Calm When You Aren’t

In Their Own Words: Animal Activists Speak Out at 2023 Conferences

Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:00:36 GMT

The Animal Agriculture Alliance works diligently to safeguard the future of animal agriculture and its value to society by monitoring the activity of animal rights extremists. Several of these extremist groups convened this past year for their annual conferences, discussing new tactics and strategies they plan to use against animal agriculture to rally around their missions of “total animal liberation.” While animal rights supporters make up an incredibly small percentage of our population, they are loud and aggressive and can mislead consumers about the animal agriculture community’s commitment to animal welfare, sustainability and other key topics.

So far this year, three conferences have been hosted – Direct Action Everywhere’s (DXE) Animal Liberation Conference (ALC), Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) conference, and the Animal and Vegan Advocacy (AVA) Summit. Key topics at these events included sustainability, public health, legislation and animal welfare. It can be hard to hear comments coming from those opposed to animal agriculture, but it is important to monitor their activity and stay vigilant in whatever tactics may be coming next.

The 2023 DXE ALC was held in Berkeley, Calif., on June 9-14 and largely focused on DXE’s “Right to Rescue” campaign and recent thefts of animals from farms, however other sessions focused on strategy, specifically how to build a pressure campaign and how to align with fellow extremists. Here are a few quotes shared by speakers:

• “When we acknowledge that animals are individuals who deserve compassion, justice, and rescue, we inherently negate the idea that they are just objects to be bought and used, sold, and killed. These two perspectives, property and persons are intentioned with each other and with this campaign, we can bring this tension to the surface.”

• “Rescue is our moral duty to stand in solidarity with those who are oppressed.”

• “We are turning the criminal justice system on its head.”

• “Press can get charges dropped for activists and give you insider information.”

• “Taking your target, whether that is a company or an industry or a sector, figuring out what the Achilles heels are of those sectors of those industries, of those corporations, and putting pressure on those weight points to shift them to get them to do what you want or get them to just stop doing whatever they are doing.”

• “Goals might be something like stopping a slaughterhouse from being built, getting a company to drop fur, getting an animal relocated to a sanctuary from a zoo, and the corresponding visions to these goals are a world without slaughterhouses, a world where animals are not exploited for fur, and a world where zoos have been shut down.”

• “We most abolish animal ag to prevent the next pandemic.”

The Animal and Vegan Advocacy (AVA) Summit took place in Los Angeles, Calif., on July 27-30. This event was launched by ProVeg International and was billed as an opportunity to “explore and learn the latest knowledge, diversity of thought, and tools to effectively increase your individual and collective impact on systemic food system change.” The following key messages were shared by speakers:

• “One of the key strengths is mass protests because they can really create the conditions for transformation across the whole ecology, and really push the issue out into the public spotlight.”

• “There are also scientists that are using AI to decode animal language so that one day maybe they can advocate for themselves.”

• “We want to find any evidence that leads to more opposition to animal farming as a whole.”

• “This is a normalized atrocity in our in our food system. They [chickens] are kept in windowless houses, trapped in cages and crates raised their babies are taken away.”

• “When it comes to this cutthroat billion-dollar companies [Tyson, Smithfield, etc.], those are the entities that deserve no mercy. And if you want to ring the alarm on them, ring it.”

• “The court’s decision, it’s, you know, it not only upheld proposition 12 and laws like it like Josh pointed out, but it essentially gave a judicial green light so that we can keep working in the legislatures to free animals from suffering and extreme confinement.”

At the HSUS TAFA Conference, held August 5-6 in Springfield, Ill., animal rights extremists came together to discuss lobbying and current political efforts in the animal rights space, specifically concerning the fur community. The conference focused on advocacy and the importance of building relationships with lawmakers. Here are a few quotes shared by speakers:

• “You might be surprised, but the time is going to come when you’re going to need to get everybody together to get that point for the animals.”

• “State by state, scorecards have been rolling out on a state-by-state basis, which literally hold legislators accountable for the votes they take or don’t take for animal welfare.”

• “We really had to focus on public safety, threats of danger to people, and elderly when we’re talking about people who are abusing animals.”

• “Smaller cities and towns or local lawmakers are probably not going to have staff. We can get into bigger, midsize cities, larger cities as well as your state legislatures they will often have staff and it’s really important to not undervalue the staff. Staff are there to support the lawmaker, but their job is to also go deep and to really kind of understand these issues and to help the lawmaker understand the issues and why they are important and might be important to the community. So, meeting with a staff person is a really great opportunity to pull someone else onto the team. They can be an internal advocate.”

As members of the animal agriculture community, these quotes can be frustrating to hear. I want to remind everyone of their responsibility to speak up and be an informed voice for animal agriculture and sharing our story.

Read More:

Animal Rights Extremist Connections and Tactics Updated in New Reports

Bring Back Field Trips

Activists Continue to ‘Storm the Courts’

Group of U.S. House Members Oppose Bill That Would Overturn Prop 12

Wed, 23 Aug 2023 01:36:55 GMT

More than 150 members of the U.S. House sent a letter to U.S. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson, R-Pa., and Ranking Member David Scott, R-Ga., on Monday citing their opposition to the Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, H.R. 4417/S. 2019, led by Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, and Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., in the Senate.

Two of the leading groups that lobbied the Members of Congress to join the letter include the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and Competitive Markets Action (CMA), as well as members of the Alabama Contract Poultry Growers Association, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association, National Dairy Producers Organization, Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias, and others, CMA said in a release .

The EATS Act would curb states’ ability to regulate agricultural products sold within their borders and is in part aimed at California’s Proposition 12, which sets housing standards for animals used for pork, veal and eggs sold in the state, Reuters reports. However, the bill could also threaten numerous state laws related to food safety and public health and represents an overreach of the federal government, the authors of the letter claim.

“We believe that Congress should not usurp the power of states to regulate food and agricultural products,” wrote the bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Democrat Earl Blumenauer. “The federal government should play a complementary role to the states on agriculture policy, rather than rendering them powerless.”

The current farm bill expires Sept. 30, although Congress will likely need to pass a short-term extension due to delays drafting and negotiating the next bill, Reuters reports.

The National Pork Producers Council supports the EATS Act but some large pork companies are opposed to the bill.

On Aug. 9, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led 16 states in a letter to U.S. Congressional leadership, urging the passage of the EATS Act . The authors of that letter said the EATS Act gives states the tools they need to protect farmers and ranchers. By explicitly authorizing courts to issue a preliminary injunction while a case is pending, the EATS Act ensures that food markets will not be disrupted while a court figures out whether a state’s new regulation is lawful.

“California needs to keep their hands off our bacon,” Attorney General Bird said in a release. “No other state should be dictating how Iowans farm, let alone California’s bureaucrats. The EATS Act stops California’s overreach and gives state attorneys general the tools they need to fight for farmers and ranchers. We urge Congress to pass the EATS Act and stand up for livestock producers across the nation.”

Read More:

Attorneys Call on Congress to Pass the EATS Act Now

EATS Act: Preserving Free Market Commerce in Agriculture Amidst Prop 12

Is the EATS Act the Answer to Prop 12 Concerns?

Attorneys Call on Congress to Pass the EATS Act Now

Mon, 14 Aug 2023 20:55:52 GMT

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led 16 states in a letter to U.S. Congressional leadership on Aug. 9, urging the passage of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (“EATS”) Act . The EATS Act seeks to preserve states’ rights by limiting their ability to impose agricultural regulations on other states.

“As Attorneys General, we have expertise in defending our States’ laws. The EATS Act gives States the tools they need to protect farmers and ranchers. By explicitly authorizing courts to issue a preliminary injunction while a case is pending, the EATS Act ensures that food markets will not be disrupted while a court figures out whether a State’s new regulation is lawful,” the authors wrote in the letter .

The bill prevents California from regulating farmers and ranchers across the country by preserving states’ authority to regulate agriculture within their own borders, according to a release .

California’s Proposition 12 requires out-of-state pork producers to comply with strict farming regulations if they want to sell their products in the state, the release pointed out. Because California accounts for approximately 13% of the nation’s pork consumption, it has major influence over the whole market.

“California needs to keep their hands off our bacon,” Attorney General Bird said in a release. “No other state should be dictating how Iowans farm, let alone California’s bureaucrats. The EATS Act stops California’s overreach and gives state attorneys general the tools they need to fight for farmers and ranchers. We urge Congress to pass the EATS Act and stand up for livestock producers across the nation.”

This letter was proceeded by a coalition of 11 governors, including Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who wrote to U.S. Congressional leadership in June to encourage the passage of the EATS Act.

Iowa led the letter joined by Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

In the letter, 20 states signed a Supreme Court brief explaining their position on future pork production, Bird said.

“Our States support letting individuals buy the animal products they want and to allow States to lawfully regulate livestock production within their own borders. But when a state decides to regulate outside its borders, and to try to impose its agenda on other states, that goes too far. Regulations like California’s Prop 12 will disrupt farmers’ ability to feed the nation. At a minimum, Prop 12 will force high food prices on the American people. Congress should make clear that a State can regulate how livestock is produced within its borders but not in other States,” the authors wrote.

Senator Roger Marshall, (R- Kan.), along with other Republican partners, introduced the EATS Act in June. Other senators backing the EATS Act include Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Eric Schmidt (Mo.), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Tedd Budd (N.C.) and Bill Hagerty (Tenn.).

“California’s radical-drafted requirements for farmers are hog wild. Justice Kavanaugh recognized that California’s requirements might even worsen animal health and welfare. And because California buys about 13 percent of the nation’s pork, it is prohibitively expensive for farmers to separate out California-approved pork from the rest. California’s burdensome regulations will put small, medium, and possibly even large pork producers out of business. And American consumers won’t be able to afford bacon for breakfast,” the authors wrote.

Read the full letter here.

Read More:

Is the EATS Act the Answer to Prop 12 Concerns?

EATS Act: Preserving Free Market Commerce in Agriculture Amidst Prop 12

New Jersey Law To Impact Housing and Care of Breeding Pigs and Veal Calves

Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:23:18 GMT

Legislation in the state of New Jersey, signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy, now requires the State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to “adopt rules and regulations concerning the confinement, care and treatment of breeding pigs and calves raised for veal,” says a recent release .

Similar to California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, the bill “prohibits confinement in an enclosure that impacts a breeding pig and calf’s ability to freely move in certain ways and properly groom itself and that limits visual contact with other calves,” explains the release.

Following Gov. Murphy’s signing on July 26, the release notes rules and regulations must be adopted within 180 days as penalties will be established for violators.

However, some exceptions to the rules and regulations, announced by the State Board and the Department, have been included in the bill.

These exceptions, as listed by the state of New Jersey, include:
1. Medical research
2. Examination, testing or veterinary treatment that is supervised by a licensed veterinarian, either in person or via a telemedicine appointment
3. Transportation
4. State or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs or similar temporary exhibitions
5. Humane slaughter in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
6. Confinement of a breeding pig during the 14-day period prior to the expected date of the breeding pig giving birth or on any day when the breeding pig is nursing piglets

“The humane treatment of domestic livestock has long been a major priority for the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, and we endorse legislation that supports those rules while ensuring the farmers’ right to raise livestock,” said New Jersey Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary Joe Atchison III, in the release.

Primary sponsors of the bill (A-1970/S-1298), Senators Nick Scutari and Vin Gopal, respectively, were able to pass the legislation in the state Senate in June 2023, while Assembly members Raj Makherji, Daniel Benson and Carol Murphy successfully passed the bill through the state Assembly in May 2023.

The legislation is part of an extensive coalition co-led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, according to a HSUS release.

Read More:
Massachusetts Question 3: What’s Next for Pork Producers

The Real Facts About Prop 12 Implementation Modification

Animal Ag Organizations Team Up to Combat Misinformation and Share Science

Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:14:55 GMT

Everyone knows communication is key to animal agriculture’s future success. That’s why the Animal Agriculture Alliance and National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) are teaming up.

On July 26, the Animal Agriculture Alliance and NIAA announced a working partnership to maximize areas of expertise to ensure sound scientific information about animal agriculture is being communicated effectively to key audiences.

“The Alliance frequently fields questions from food brands, registered dietitians, media, and thought leaders on issues such as animal welfare, responsible antibiotic use, and environmental stewardship. This partnership with the NIAA will give us greater access to technical experts in these fields to ensure we’re communicating accurate, science-backed, and expert-supported information to these audiences,” Hannah Thompson-Weeman, Animal Agriculture Alliance president and CEO, said in a release. “The animal agriculture community has an incredible history of progress – thanks in large part to advancements in science – and we’re honored to continue spreading that message with the support of NIAA.”

According to the release, as part of the working relationship,

NIAA, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing programs to work towards providing solutions for disease, while promoting a safe and wholesome food supply, will serve as a resource on scientific research and technical expertise.
Animal Agriculture Alliance, a non-profit working to safeguard the future of animal agriculture and its value to society by bridging the communication gap between the farm and food communities, will work to communicate this information to key audiences.

“The NIAA has often served the animal agriculture community behind the scenes by convening experts and allies to explore, discuss, learn, and develop knowledge that fosters interdisciplinary cooperation and advances progress within the fields of animal welfare, animal health, and antibiotic use, among others,” J.J. Jones, NIAA executive director, said in a release. “Working alongside our communications partners at the Alliance, we’re positioned to better support the animal agriculture community in communicating science while combatting misinformation.”

From coordinating media responses on technical issues with third-party expertise and collaborating on the development and review of talking points, infographics and other resources on topics such as animal welfare, antibiotic use and sustainability to hosting regular joint issue updates with key stakeholders from each organization, the partnership will allow each organization to achieve greater reach.

Read More:

Bring Back Field Trips

Animal Rights Extremist Connections and Tactics Updated in New Reports

Animal Rights Extremist Connections and Tactics Updated in New Reports

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:40:39 GMT

Do you know what the Top 5 targeted states are for animal rights activists? The answer may surprise you. California, New York, Illinois, Texas and Washington are the most targeted states. The U.S. is the second most targeted country behind the United Kingdom.

This kind of information and more are part of two new reports released from the Animal Agriculture Alliance detail the interconnectedness of the animal rights movement, as well as tactics targeting animal agriculture. The Animal Rights Extremist Web exemplifies how animal rights groups are strategically connected in many ways, including personnel and financial support. The Radical Vegan Activism in 2022 report highlights efforts to attack animal agriculture and the true intentions of these organizations with quotes from leadership.

“No matter the animal rights extremist group or the tactics used, they all share the same goal of eliminating animal agriculture and taking meat, dairy, poultry, eggs, and seafood off of our grocery store shelves and family tables,” says Abby Kornegay, manager, issues and engagement, Animal Agriculture Alliance. “These reports succinctly detail those true intentions, the strategic efforts of the animal rights movement to further their agenda, and key tactics for the animal agriculture community to be aware of.”

Nearly one-third of animal rights extremist attacks documented in 2022 targeted farmers and food workers, putting them and animals in danger. Documented direct actions to animal agriculture include:

• 95 vandalism incidents
• 70 stolen animals
• 60 criminal trespasses
• 10 arson cases
• 9 harassment and intimidation incidents

“Extremists are getting ever bolder in their efforts against animal agriculture, and direct actions at the farm, processing facility, and retail store continue to rise,” Kornegay says in a release. “Farmers, processors, and the entire food supply chain are encouraged to implement security measures that protect against potential threats.”

In addition to demanding change through direct actions, animal rights groups are also attempting to force change through fundraising efforts which help fund their various efforts and campaigns, Kornegay explains. The major animal rights extremist groups included on the Animal Rights Extremist Web are major fundraisers and bring in more than $800 million in income annually. Organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) saw a dramatic increase in revenue between their previous fiscal year and current. In PETA’s 2021 tax filing, total revenue equaled $68 million and according to its website, 2022 revenue equals $82 million, a nearly $14 million increase, the release says.

Several updates were made to the Animal Rights Extremist Web including several new groups for the farm and food community to be aware of, including The Accountability Board and the Organization for Competitive Markets. The Accountability Board, which fronts itself as a non-radical group and invests in over 100 of the largest publicly traded companies to force environmental and animal welfare change, is led by former Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) employees Josh Balk and Matthew Prescott, the release says. The Organization for Competitive Markets, which seeks to “enforce” rules within the agriculture community, was added to the web due to Marty Irby’s involvement as a board member. Irby is also a former employee of HSUS with close ties to its former president and CEO Wayne Pacelle. Sentient Media, Animal Partisan, and Farm Action were also added to the web.

For more information about the Alliance’s work to monitor animal rights extremism, or to view the reports, visit animalagalliance.org/initiatives/monitoring-activism .

Activists Continue to ‘Storm the Courts’

Wed, 24 May 2023 12:00:00 GMT

The mission of the Animal Agriculture Alliance is to “safeguard the future of animal agriculture,” including working to expose those who threaten our nation’s food security with damaging misinformation. When talking about these groups, we are talking about animal rights extremists. You may be familiar with other tactics you’ve seen activists using before to disrupt the supply chain and attempt to end animal agriculture. Things like “undercover video” campaigns, staging protests at grocery stores and posting graphic content on social media might be known to you, but I wanted to share a recent trend of court cases – and unfortunately, “wins” – involving animal rights extremists.

In October of 2022, activists affiliated with Direct Action Everywhere (DXE) – one of the most extreme groups we follow – went to trial in Utah after the theft of two piglets from a farm location several years earlier. Both defendants, Wayne Hsiung, DXE founder, and Paul Pickelsimer, DXE core team member, were found not guilty.

This verdict was surprising to members of the agricultural community as the charges seemed very straightforward. However, when jurors were interviewed after the fact, it was revealed that their decision was ultimately because they thought the defendants, “just looked to do what was right.”

Direct Action Everywhere claimed another “victory” recently when two activists, Alexandra Paul (former Baywatch actress) and Alicia Santurio, were found not guilty of stealing two chickens from a transport truck outside of a California processing plant in 2021.

DXE is calling this push for change a part of their “right to rescue” campaign. They claim these incidents are not thefts but rather “open rescues,” and the recent court outcomes help give them the right to enter farms and other locations to “rescue” animals that need saving. However, when we know that the goal of this group is “total animal liberation” – it can be understood that they believe all animals need to be “saved” from being raised for food, no matter how humanely they are treated. In a March blog post, DXE “lead organizer” Almira Tanner wrote, “we’re building a movement to win what animals really need: Rose’s Law, an Animal Bill of Rights. And it’s working.”

Tanner continued, “We have the momentum and we cannot stop now. 2023 will bring more open rescues, more bold actions, and more trials.” As these efforts continue, the Alliance will be closely tuning in, including the next similarly-focused trial happening soon in Sonoma County, California.

While the verdict has been in favor of the activists in these recent trials, it’s important to hear from the other side of the courtroom. The Merced County, California District Attorney (where the recent trial was held) put out a strong statement of opposition to the local press. In the Fresno Bee, the DA wrote that the activists employed a “mistake of law” defense, which means “they believed it was legal to steal the animals in this instance.”

She made her perspective clear, stating: “Now there should be no further mistake that this conduct is illegal and anyone who commits these acts will be prosecuted. They, and everyone who reads this, is now on notice that it is illegal to take animals from another person, farm, or place of business. Moving forward from this verdict, there should be no further mistakes or misunderstandings: if you steal animals in Merced County, regardless of your personal beliefs, you will be prosecuted for that conduct.”

As we watch the next trial in California play out, as well as another upcoming trial in Wisconsin and the appeal of a previous loss in North Carolina, it will be interesting to see if the DA’s words ring true.

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Animal Activist and Former Baywatch Star Found Not Guilty in ‘Open Rescue’

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs California Prop 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 17:21:04 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s new humane-pork law , rejecting an industry challenge in a ruling strengthening the power of states to impose rules that have a broad economic impact on other parts of the country, writes Pro Farmer analyst Jim Wiesemeyer in his daily commentary.

The Supreme Court ruled that the case was properly dismissed by lower courts. Pork producers had said that the law could force industry-wide changes and raise the cost of bacon and other pork products nationwide, the Associated Press reports.

“This is a major blow to pork and the ag sector,” Wiesemeyer wrote. “The ruling could force pork producers to implement costly changes to keep selling in the country’s most populous state.”

The decision of the court was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority.

Wiesemeyer writes that Kavanaugh’s dissent comments could mean further challenge ahead.

Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion, “I add this opinion to point out that state economic regulations like California’s Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Although the Court today rejects the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause challenge as insufficiently pled, state laws like Proposition 12 implicate not only the Commerce Clause, but also potentially several other constitutional provisions, including the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, if one State conditions sale of a good on the use of preferred farming, manufacturing, or production practices in another State where the good was grown or made, serious questions may arise under the Import-Export Clause. I do not take a position here on whether such an argument ultimately would prevail. I note only that the question warrants additional consideration in a future case. Under this Court’s precedents, one State’s efforts to effectively regulate farming, manufacturing, or production in other States could raise significant questions under that Clause [Privileges and Immunities Clause]. Again, I express no view on whether such an argument ultimately would prevail. But the issue warrants further analysis in a future case.”

Kavanaugh concludes that it appears that the “properly pled dormant Commerce Clause challenges under Pike to laws like California’s Proposition 12 (or even to Proposition 12 itself) could succeed in the future — or at least survive past the motion-to-dismiss stage. Regardless, it will be important in future cases to consider that state laws like Proposition 12 also may raise substantial constitutional questions under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

Prop 12 History

Proposition 12 bans the sale of pork within the state unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens. The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which sued in 2019, say the measure violates the so-called dormant commerce clause, a doctrine that says the U.S. Constitution limits the power of states to regulate commerce outside their borders without congressional authorization.

The Biden administration had urged the justices to side with pork producers, telling the court in written filings that Proposition 12 would be a “wholesale change in how pork is raised and marketed in this country” and that it has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market, The Associated Press reports.

“Pork producers argue that 72% of farmers use individual pens for sows that do not allow them to turn around and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require,” The Associated Press reports. “They also say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various producers being combined before sale, it is likely all pork would have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold. Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million.”

The industry argued unsuccessfully that California is violating the Constitution by regulating commerce outside its borders, Wiesemeyer reports.

“During arguments in the case in October, liberal and conservative justices underscored the potential reach of the case,” The Associated Press reports. “Some worried whether greenlighting the animal cruelty law would give state legislators a license to pass laws targeting practices they disapprove of, such as a law that says a product cannot be sold in the state if workers who made it are not vaccinated or are not in the country legally. They also worried about the reverse: How many state laws would be called into question if California’s law were not permitted?”

NPPC said in a statement that it will continue to fight for the nation’s pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations.

“We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” said Scott Hays, NPPC president, and Missouri pork producer. “We are still evaluating the Court’s full opinion to understand all the implications. ”

*This is a breaking story. Updates will be added here.*

Read More:

Proposition 12 Update from the National Pork Industry Forum

Supreme Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Petition to Review Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:55:54 GMT

The Supreme Court has denied a petition to review California’s Proposition 12, which requires the sale of meat products in California to conform with the state’s animal housing standards.

Prop 12, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, will impose animal housing standards that reach far outside the state’s borders to farms across the country, driving up costs for both pork producers and consumers, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said in a release.

The denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari was among dozens announced on June 28 by the court. No explanation was provided for the reason why the petition was denied. The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) filed the petition, with the support of 20 states, challenging the sales ban in California on veal and pork not raised according to Prop 12’s housing standards.

“We are disappointed our petition for cert was denied. We will be considering other options to block Proposition 12 which will cost both producers and consumers millions of dollars according to economists and the state of California’s own analysis,” Meat Institute spokesperson Sarah Little said in a statement.

Prop 12 is currently being challenged in a separate lawsuit from the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, asking the court to strike down Prop 12 as unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in April and is expected to make a decision in mid-July.

“Prop 12 hurts the family on a budget by causing higher prices for pork, veal and eggs, and unfairly punishes livestock producers outside of California by forcing them to spend millions just to access California markets,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a March release . “If this unconstitutional law is allowed to stand, California will dictate farming practices across the nation.”

Read More:

Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12

Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away

On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12

California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions

New Briefs Filed in Support of NPPC’s Proposition 12 Lawsuit

Pork Industry, Don’t Underestimate Proposition 12

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

California’s Proposition 12: NPPC, AFBF Seek to Strike as Invalid

Supreme Court Takes Up NPPC, AFBF Challenge to Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:38:46 GMT

The Supreme Court of the United States announced on March 28 that it will take up the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) challenge to California’s Proposition 12. The case is expected to be argued after the court begins its new term in October.

“We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 12, in which California seeks to impose regulations targeting farming practices outside its borders that would stifle interstate and international commerce,” NPPC President Terry Wolters said in a release. “NPPC has poured a lot of blood, sweat and tears into preserving the rights of America’s pork producers to raise hogs in a way that’s best for their animals’ well-being and that allows them to continue selling pork to all consumers, both here and internationally.”

NPPC and AFBF are petitioning the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of one state imposing regulations that reach far outside its borders and stifle interstate and international commerce. And, in this case, it’s about arbitrary animal housing standards that lack any scientific, technical or agricultural basis and that will only inflict harm on U.S. hog farmers, NPPC said.

The high court is taking up the case on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which in July upheld a lower court ruling against the NPPC-AFBF lawsuit, NPPC explained in a release. The appeals court found that despite the organizations plausibly alleging that Prop. 12 “will have dramatic upstream effects and require pervasive changes to the pork industry nationwide,” 9th Circuit precedent didn’t allow the case to continue. That precedent, however, runs counter to numerous Supreme Court decisions and is in conflict with nearly every other federal circuit court.

Proposition 12, approved by voters in 2018 and took effect Jan. 1, 2022, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow housed with at least 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. It applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, whether produced there or outside its borders. Nearly all pork currently produced in the United States fails to meet California’s arbitrary standards. (Business groups in California recently got a state superior court to delay the effective date of Proposition 12 for 180 days after final implementing regulations are issued.)

“AFBF is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of California’s law imposing arbitrary requirements on farmers well outside its borders. We share California’s goal of ensuring animals are well cared for, but Prop 12 fails to advance that goal,” AFBF president Zippy Duvall said in a release . “We look forward to presenting the facts to the Court, including how Prop 12 hamstrings farmers’ efforts to provide a safe environment for their animals, while harming small family farms and raising pork prices across the country. One state’s misguided law should not dictate farming practices for an entire nation.”

In addition to its legal efforts, NPPC weighed in on problems with the initial proposal implementing regulations for Prop 12, including an unworkable annual certification of hog farms’ compliance with the initiative’s requirements. The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which wrote the regulations, has yet to issue final rules, NPPC said in a release.

“It requires massive and costly alteration to existing sow housing nationwide, necessitates either reduction of herd sizes or building of new facilities to meet its space mandates, raises prices in transactions with no California connection, drives farms out of business, and promotes industry consolidation, and will be policed by intrusive inspections of out-of-state farms conducted by California’s agents,” NPPC and AFBF said in their appeal.

NPPC and AFBF in the coming weeks will file their initial brief with the Supreme Court, which could hear oral arguments in the fall and could render a decision by the end of the year.

“This is important to the pork industry today, but it is broader than just Proposition 12,” Bryan Humphreys, NPPC CEO, said last month .

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

The Wait Continues for SCOTUS Decision on Prop 12 Petition

State Court Halts Enforcement of Prop 12, California Must Finalize Rules First

Prop 12 Countdown: California Food Industry Leaders Fight Back

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:31:04 GMT

More than half of Californians voted in favor of stricter restrictions on animal confinement, commonly called Prop 12, which took effect on Jan. 1.

The law not only altered its livestock raising standards, but it also banned the sale of animal-derived products that do not comply with statute’s regulations. This means producers in other states cannot sell eggs, veal and pork products in California unless they meet Prop 12’s standards.

Challenged by numerous ag alliances, Prop 12 is scheduled to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Impact for Crop Producers

If the Court rules in favor of California, the legislation will open a door to a much larger arena of regulatory authority. This case should have all producers on high alert, according to John Dillard, principal at OFW Law.

“If California were to win this case in the Supreme Court, there’s nothing stopping the state from saying, for example, you can only sell corn in California if it’s harvested with an electric combine,” he says.

Dillard says the Supreme Court’s ruling could give the green or red light for each state to set its own standards on any and all products that come across state lines.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Profarmer policy analyst told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory that he believes once all Prop 12 arguments are heard on Tuesday, the Court won’t produce a final ruling until next June.

The live court hearing will be available here on Tuesday.

More on Prop 12:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live
Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say
California Proposition 12 Took Effect Jan. 1, But Supreme Court Action Ahead

Pork is Under Pressure

Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:08:17 GMT

Any company involved in the production, processing and retailing of dairy, meat, poultry, eggs and seafood has at least one thing in common – the potential to be targeted by extreme animal rights organizations. These groups are opposed to humans using animals for any purpose, including for food. Among the many tactics used to advance their goal of eliminating animal agriculture and taking animal products off of our plates, one is of primary concern to any consumer-facing food brand – pressure campaigns and pushing for “incremental changes” under the guise of concern for animal welfare.

As much as I always advocate for agriculture and the consumption of animal products, I recognize buying decisions are deeply personal and never want to push anyone to make a choice they don’t feel comfortable making. Having consumer choice is a great privilege and something I feel proud to be a part of working in agriculture and food production. However, this small (but loud) group of animal rights extremists and vegan activists are working hard to eliminate choice. They are doing so by applying intense pressure to restaurant, retail and foodservice brands.

Primary tactics used in these pressure campaigns include the use of “scorecards” and pushing for incremental changes. “Scorecards” rank or grade various companies and food brands against each other based on public policies and commitments on various issues, including sow housing and cage-free eggs. Examples of “scorecards” within the pork community include the “Quit Stalling” report focused on eliminating the use of gestation stalls. Animal rights extremist groups are using these “scorecards” to push progress even further. The first step in their incremental approach was to change specific production practices. Now, these groups are demanding more “plant-based” menu options as part of their rankings.

Unfortunately, it won’t stop there. The demands and the tactics used will only get more extreme in their mission to eliminate consumer choice by having only vegan options available on the menu.

Here are some quotes from animal rights extremists in their own words:

• “We don’t want to set unrealistic goals. We don’t have to have a campaign to “end speciesism” because that is not achievable right now. We don’t want to start a campaign to get a steakhouse in Lincoln, Neb., to go vegan. First, we want to maybe have them introduce some vegan options and work towards it that way…make measurable progress and then escalate.”

• “We do know [corporations] are motivated by one thing, of course, and that is money. And generally, it means animal welfare isn’t their motivation in life. They do care about their brand perception and how that affects sales. And they certainly care about their investors, and business partners and what they think about them. And this is good news for us.”

• “An incremental approach is used to gradually switch companies over to veganism.”

• “You want to put direct pressure on the decision makers in the company; know how the business functions and what will frustrate the decision makers the most.”

• “You don’t want to give your target time to catch its breath.”

• “When companies refuse to do the right thing, we send out action alerts to our members and boom, the company’s phone lines, email, and social media light up like the Fourth of July.”

While we know that it is not most consumers leading these efforts, this small group is still loud and making it difficult for suppliers to navigate these difficult situations. It’s time for the animal agriculture community to come together to support these members of the food supply chain and reiterate the importance of consumer choice – choices that include plenty of pork on the menu!

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has an in-depth report on this topic. Readers interested in the report can contact the Alliance at info@animalagalliance.org.

Read More:

Animal Activist and Former Baywatch Star Found Not Guilty in ‘Open Rescue’

What Animal Rights Activists are Saying About Ag: 2022

Why We Need More Youth to Speak Up About Ag

$15K Reward Offered for Information on Attempted Arson at a Pig Farm

Tell Your Story: If We All Do A Little, No One Will Have To Do A Lot

Scorecards And Incremental Changes: How Extremists Are Targeting Consumer Choice

Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:30:33 GMT

Here are some quotes from animal rights extremists in their own words:

• “We don’t want to set unrealistic goals. We don’t have to have a campaign to “end speciesism” because that is not achievable right now. We don’t want to start a campaign to get a steakhouse in Lincoln, Neb., to go vegan. First, we want to maybe have them introduce some vegan options and work towards it that way…make measurable progress and then escalate.”

• “We do know [corporations] are motivated by one thing, of course, and that is money. And generally, it means animal welfare isn’t their motivation in life. They do care about their brand perception and how that affects sales. And they certainly care about their investors, and business partners and what they think about them. And this is good news for us.”

• “An incremental approach is used to gradually switch companies over to veganism.”

• “You want to put direct pressure on the decision makers in the company; know how the business functions and what will frustrate the decision makers the most.”

• “You don’t want to give your target time to catch its breath.”

• “When companies refuse to do the right thing, we send out action alerts to our members and boom, the company’s phone lines, email, and social media light up like the Fourth of July.”

While we know that it is not most consumers leading these efforts, this small group is still loud and making it difficult for suppliers to navigate these difficult situations. It’s time for the animal agriculture community to come together to support these members of the food supply chain and reiterate the importance of consumer choice – choices that include plenty of meat on the menu!

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has an in-depth report on this topic. Readers interested in the report can contact the Alliance at info@animalagalliance.org.

Read More:

Animal Activist and Former Baywatch Star Found Not Guilty in ‘Open Rescue’

What Animal Rights Activists are Saying About Ag: 2022

Why We Need More Youth to Speak Up About Ag

$15K Reward Offered for Information on Attempted Arson at a Pig Farm

Tell Your Story: If We All Do A Little, No One Will Have To Do A Lot

Animal Activist and Former Baywatch Star Found Not Guilty in ‘Open Rescue’

Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:01:34 GMT

Former “Baywatch” star Alexandra Paul and animal rights activist Alicia Santurio were found not guilty of misdemeanor theft by a Merced County jury on March 17 after they “rescued” two chickens from a Foster Farms truck in Livingston, Calif., in September 2021.

The Merced County District Attorney’s office prosecuted the case that caught international attention from animal rights activists who continue to target large farms across the country.

This is the latest of several trials, and more trials will be held throughout 2023. The next one will take place in Sonoma County, Calif .

Paul and Santurio are members of the animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere (DXE). They faced the possibility of spending up to six months in jail if they were found guilty.

After the verdict, Paul told reporters going to jail would have been worth it.

“The only reason people like us go into these places is because law enforcement and the government aren’t helping these animals,” Paul said in The Fresno Bee . “No one is comfortable with abusing animals, even if they are chickens, and I think the jury understood that.”

District Attorney Sets Record Straight

Cassie King, a spokesperson for DXE, called this court decision a victory for the concept of “open rescue.”

“We have the momentum, and we cannot stop now,” Almira Tanner wrote in a recent DXE blog post. “2023 will bring more open rescues, more bold actions, and more trials. As we tear down the industry, we lift up animals. We show the world the violence that must be left in the past, and the beauty the future can hold.”

Even Paul admitted to reporters she would do it again if necessary and plans to continue to do her “investigatory work,” if she finds a sick animal.

But Merced County District Attorney Nicole Silveira argues this Foster Farms case doesn’t set a precedent. “Rescuing” farm animals is illegal and you will be prosecuted, she said in The Fresno Bee .

Many animal rights groups saw the court decision as a key victory in the movement to make it legal to remove farm animals that are suspected of being neglected. Some states provide immunity to a person who breaks into a car to rescue a pet that is in distress, but that protection does not apply to farm animals.

Silveira explained the jury’s not guilty verdict does not mean the defendant’s acts were legal. It shows that they were not guilty of this crime, she said in The Fresno Bee. The crime of theft is still criminal conduct.

She pointed out that the activists and their legal team used a “mistake of law” defense, meaning “they believed it was legal to steal the animals in this instance,” the article said.

“Now there should be no further mistake that this conduct is illegal and anyone who commits these acts will be prosecuted. They, and everyone who reads this, is now on notice that it is illegal to take animals from another person, farm, or place of business,” Silveira wrote to The Fresno Bee. “Moving forward from this verdict, there should be no further mistakes or misunderstandings: if you steal animals in Merced County, regardless of your personal beliefs, you will be prosecuted for that conduct.”

Local Rally Attempts to Raise Support

On March 26, five animal activists gathered on the University of Illinois campus in Urbana, Ill., in a “Rally for the Right to Rescue” to raise awareness and show support for the right to rescue, according to a Facebook post.

“We are here to speak out for animals who cannot speak for themselves. We are here to tell you that there is something you can do. Rescue these animals and join the animal rights movement today,” an activist read from his phone during the rally.

The organization continues to mobilize activists all over the country – not just on the coasts, explains Hannah Thompson-Weeman, president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance . She says there are two important takeaways for the livestock industry to understand from the rally.

“Sometimes people can be lulled into a false sense of security by assuming these extreme incidents are only happening on the coasts, or only in urban areas. That is not the case. While DXE is primarily based in the San Francisco Bay area, the group has small pockets of supporters across the country that are willing to mobilize for the cause, and the ‘lead organizers’ have also shown they’re willing to travel anywhere to conduct ‘investigations’ and demonstrations,” Thompson-Weeman explains. “Other extreme groups like The Save Movement have chapters in various cities, particularly where processing plants are located. By providing these local chapters with messaging and resources, these organizations are trying to get their message heard even in unexpected places.”

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

What Animal Rights Activists are Saying About Ag: 2022

Why We Need More Youth to Speak Up About Ag

$15K Reward Offered for Information on Attempted Arson at a Pig Farm

Tell Your Story: If We All Do A Little, No One Will Have To Do A Lot

Two-Thirds of Consumers Deem Transparency Very to Extremely Important, Survey Finds

Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:06:24 GMT

Two-thirds of consumers say transparency in animal protein is extremely or very important, says Merck Animal Health, as part of the company’s results in its first consumer transparency research study.

The study focused on gauging consumers’ growing interest in transparency in animal protein and its importance in their purchasing decision and brand trust. Specifically, the study explored the consumers’ perception of industry transparency when to comes to animal welfare and sustainability and the crossover between transparency, traceability and their willingness to pay for transparency label claims.

Surveyed consumers were given the following definitions:
Transparency: knowing how food is grown, raised and made
Traceability: know where foods come from, or more specifically, being able to follow the movement of food products and ingredients through the supply chain

Study Results

Capturing the opinions of over 1,000 consumers who represent the U.S. shopper, highlights of the study’s results include:
• 66% reported transparency in animal proteins (meat, fish, eggs and dairy) as extremely or very important; reasons were considered personal, such as health and nutrition
• 86% of consumers who reported transparency as important also rank traceability as extremely or very important; 40% of those consumers also want to know where the livestock comes from
• Over 50% reported they were willing to pay a 5% premium for transparent labeling
• 55% reported environmental sustainability as very to extremely important
• 66% reported animal care and treatment very to extremely important

“The survey results tell us consumers want more information than ever in order to make informed decisions about the food they put on their dinner tables,” says Allison Flinn, DVM, executive director of value chain and consumer affairs at Merck Animal Health.

Merck Animal Health describes the company’s DNA TRACEBACK platform as one example of an animal protein traceability solution to accurately trace meat and seafood from farm to table that helps build trust in food labels. Utilizing “nature’s bar code”—DNA—this technology assigns a unique barcode number at slaughter to each animal that can be traced through the supply chain from the farm gate, to the processing plant and to the restaurant plate.

Sustainability, nutrition, food safety and animal welfare are all topics consumers want to know more about, and greater transparency builds trust, Flinn adds. This research also provides insights into how farmers, ranchers, food brands and allied industry partners, like Merck Animal Health, can collaborate to meet their expectations.