Litigation Strategies Against Factory Farming In Emerging Economies

Industrial animal agriculture has redefined the global food system through intensive confinement and mechanization. Each year, humans slaughter around 85 billion land animals for food — mostly chickens, followed by pigs, sheep, and cows. And this number is likely to grow: by 2050, demand for meat worldwide is expected to rise by nearly 73% from 2010 levels.

While industrial farming systems aim to lower costs, the price for animals is high. Many are kept in highly restrictive environments like battery cages or gestation crates, where they’re unable to perform even basic natural behaviors, and are subject to painful practices like dehorning or castration without pain relief. These systems also drive environmental crises, such as deforestation and water pollution, pose public health risks like antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases, and cause mental and physical harm to the people employed in them.

Much research on factory farming comes from the U.S. or Europe, leaving a gap in understanding these issues in populous low- and middle-income countries. This report examines how legal strategies in Brazil, India, Mexico, and Zimbabwe have succeeded or failed in slowing the spread of industrial animal agriculture. These countries represent major producers in the Global South that are currently balancing economic growth with food security, animal welfare, and environmental concerns.

The report was a collaborative effort by students and professors in the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark Law School during the 2024–2025 academic year. The team reviewed the current state of animal farming in the four target countries, including species numbers and confinement conditions. They then studied animal welfare statutes, constitutional provisions, environmental rules, and public health regulations with relevance to industrial animal agriculture. Finally, they analyzed key court cases to understand how judicial reasoning and enforcement gaps shape outcomes for animals used for food. The goal was to find strategies that advocates could replicate in other regions to challenge factory farming.

Brazil

Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world and slaughters around 30 land animals per person each year, compared to a global average of 10. Article 225 of its 1988 constitution provides a unique “biocentric” framework that requires the government to protect animals from cruelty.

One landmark case in Brazil, involving two dogs named Rambo and Spike, established that animals are sentient beings and can be recognized as subjects of rights with the capacity to be parties in legal proceedings. While this involved companion animals, the reasoning could theoretically apply to animals used for food.

Advocates in Brazil have also challenged live animal exports, arguing that long-distance transport is inherently cruel. Although an initial injunction stopped these exports, it was later dismissed because the court felt a total ban would require legislative, not judicial, action.

Currently, a challenge is pending against a “self-control law” that allows slaughterhouses and other agricultural establishments to conduct their own inspections, which advocates argue undermines animal welfare and public health.

India

India has the world’s largest dairy sector and is a major consumer of dairy products. The country’s constitution includes provisions for the state to protect the environment and for citizens to show compassion to all living creatures.

In a foundational case, the Supreme Court of India recognized animal sentience and dignity in banning cart-racing and other sports involving bulls. However, a later decision limited this progress by prioritizing cultural traditions and arguing that animals don’t have fundamental constitutional rights. This highlights how rights-based arguments can face significant political backlash.

Encouragingly, the National Green Tribunal, a court specifically dedicated to the resolution of environmental claims, has been effective in addressing illegal dairies by framing their waste and methane emissions as environmental violations. This action was prompted by a media report, suggesting that the Tribunal takes the environmental impacts of animal agriculture seriously.

Mexico

Mexico is the 12th largest farmed animal producer globally and has the highest per-capita egg consumption in the world. In December 2024, the country passed historic constitutional amendments that formally recognize the state’s duty to protect all animals from mistreatment. This gives Congress the power to create a uniform federal animal welfare law.

Mexican advocates have successfully used a judicial action called an amparo, the country’s primary mechanism for protecting civil and human rights, to protect animals. For example, a civil association alleged that the Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development, the national agency that oversees agriculture, was neglecting its duty to supervise bull-fighting events. The court then compelled the Secretariat to enforce humane slaughter standards in bull-fighting, underscoring the judiciary’s ability to hold agencies accountable for their oversight duties.

Another case in Yucatán used an environmental justice lens to halt a 49,000-pig concentrated animal feeding operation. The court issued an injunction because the farm’s waste threatened an Indigenous community’s right to a healthy environment and clean water in local cenotes (limestone sinkholes with cultural and spiritual significance for the Mayan people).

Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe, animal agriculture is primarily run by smallholder farmers, and most cows roam freely in communal areas. However, intensive systems for chickens and pigs are emerging.

The primary welfare law is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but it’s rarely applied to animals used for food. The law requires proof of mens rea (intent to cause suffering), and routine farming practices are rarely seen as intentional cruelty by judges. However, litigation has successfully used environmental laws to stop mining activities that polluted water used by farmed animals and thus harmed local livelihoods. This strategy could be applied to industrial animal farms as they violate both human and animal interests.

A major concern in Zimbabwe is “stock theft” legislation, which carries a mandatory minimum nine-year prison sentence per count. Because animals are viewed strictly as property, these harsh laws could be used against activists who try to rescue animals from abusive conditions.

Limitations And Challenges For Advocates

The report identifies several roadblocks for animal advocates. Data gaps continue to be an issue. Some countries, like Zimbabwe, haven’t held a full agricultural census in decades, making it hard to track the true scale of the industry. Inconsistent enforcement is another concern. Agencies are often under pressure from powerful agribusiness sectors, leading to a lack of follow-through even after a legal win. Finally, cultural resistance is ongoing. Sweeping claims for animal personhood often face political backlash, as seen in the Indian Supreme Court’s retreat from earlier progressive stances.

Advocacy Opportunities

The report points to several promising approaches for advocates in their legal fight against factory farming:

• Use environmental and health framing: Courts might be more willing to stop an industrial farm if it’s framed as a threat to clean water, air, or human health rather than just an animal welfare issue.
• Focus on administrative compliance: Rather than seeking broad new rights, advocates can push courts to compel agencies to enforce existing rules, such as licensing, sanitation, and transport.
• Build intersectional coalitions: Collaborating with environmental, worker safety, and Indigenous rights movements can help build a stronger evidence base for litigation.
• Prepare for backlash: Success in court can lead to political or industry resistance, so advocates should plan for sustained public advocacy and agency engagement.

Finally, it’s important to treat a court victory as just the beginning. Advocates should continue to monitor enforcement agencies to ensure that court orders actually change things for farmed animals on the ground.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.