Background

Animal advocacy organizations consistently face opposition from agricultural groups when attempting to prevent and reduce the suffering of farmed animals across the United States. These industry groups generally want to limit the development of higher-welfare practices and maintain or increase subsidies to animal agriculture. Meanwhile, advocate groups want to enforce stricter farmed animal welfare standards and reduce subsidies to animal agriculture.

In the companion to this report, we dig into the methods by which advocates are tackling subsidies and welfare standards. However, there is also relatively little information available on how the animal agriculture industry (or “Big Ag”) perceives, portrays, and reacts to advocate tactics, including those that target farm subsidies. In order to examine how the industry responds to advocates’ efforts, we reviewed a small sample of industry publications, the findings of which are outlined in this report. We hope that this will help animal advocates prepare for Big Ag’s response to their work, and thus be more effective in strategizing to help farmed animals.

Key Findings

1. 1. Big Ag has become increasingly concerned about animal advocacy’s impact on their industry over the past 10 to 15 years, particularly with respect to cage-free reforms that increase the cost of production. Inhumane practices like caged housing are a form of indirect subsidy, saving producers money by allowing them to overcrowd animals and increase their production. Industry concern about cage-free reform has intensified over the last decade, following a string of successful cage-free corporate campaigns and, more recently, statewide cage-free bans. They appear to be most concerned about state-level legislative action, writing “after you’ve got 9, 10, 11, 12 states that [have] passed laws, all of a sudden you will bring the industry to its knees.”
   2. A variety of strategies, similar to those of animal advocates, have been employed by Big Ag to challenge, overcome, or reverse the progress of cage-free reforms. These include agriculture groups lobbying to establish cages as a national standard, organizing at the local and federal level to block animal welfare legislation, and endorsing enriched cages instead of cage-free systems. Understanding industry counter-responses to the successes of animal advocacy can help advocates adjust their strategies to build on existing achievements.
   3. Animal agriculture portrays itself as pro-science and animal advocates as anti-science or reliant on emotional manipulation. Trade publications present farmed animal producers as caring about animal welfare and following scientific practices that are typically supported by animal welfare scientists and veterinarians. In contrast, advocates are described as being ‘anti-science’ and using evocative footage in their opposition to current farmed animal welfare practices. 
   4. The industry relies on a narrative of farmer and consumer choice to support the continued use of inhumane practices. In this “freedom to farm” narrative, farmed animal producers have a right to farm however they like, even with inhumane methods. The industry also argues that consumers, especially lower-income consumers, have a right to choose lower-priced animal products. Tactics used by animal advocates to increase the price of animal products, such as cage-free reforms, are therefore portrayed as harming farmers and lower-income individuals. 
   5. Industry writers portray their interactions with animal advocates as a “high-stakes battle” where industry actors are at a disadvantage. For the readers of these trade publications, animal advocates are portrayed as more powerful, more professionalized, and less honest than industry actors. Industry actors cast themselves in an underdog role and emphasize their responsibilities in supporting and uniting a range of small-scale farmers to “fight a powerful enemy.” 
   6. Big Ag is more concerned about changes to direct subsidies in the energy sector than in animal agriculture. These trade publications didn’t discuss direct loans or payments from the government to animal agriculture, implying that the industry isn’t concerned with these subsidies being threatened. Instead, the industry appears to be more concerned about how subsidies for corn-based biofuel have resulted in higher corn prices, thereby increasing the cost of animal feed.