By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The largest lamb slaughterhouse in the country is located in the Globeville neighborhood of Denver, Colorado. Each year, up to 500,000 young sheep are carted into the facility, and leave as packaged meat. Now, Denver is poised to be the first city in the nation to ban slaughterhouses like this one. Thanks to a campaign spearheaded by Pro Animal Future - a nonprofit organization with tactics backed by research - voters will decide this November whether to allow the facility to continue operations.

Its success or failure could have broad implications for the animal rights movement. While it's certainly not the first time that animal advocates have sought to leverage ballot initiatives - there's currently also an initiative to ban factory farms from Sonoma County, California - the Denver campaign could serve as a blueprint for future campaigns in cities across the country.

Pro Animal Future was started to test out the research generated by their sister organization, Pax Fauna. That research suggested that animal rights activists could garner success by shifting the framing of their work to ask for people's votes instead of personal dietary change - a finding that let to this and another ballot initiative in Denver.

"We had a lot of people sign these petitions, including the slaughterhouse petition, while eating animals," Aidan Kankyoku, who worked on the research and is now spearheading the campaign, tells Sentient.

Though the fate of the slaughterhouse still hangs in the balance, even getting the question on the ballot was an uphill climb. Kankyoku embarked on it in hopes of testing the findings of Pax Fauna's research. So far, those findings are holding up, which may have far-reaching implications for animal welfare groups.

Why Ballot Measures May Be More Effective Than Advocating for Dietary Change

In 2023, Pax Fauna published research, which found that calling meat out as unsustainable or cruel is not very effective for the average consumer - in part because it ignores the large role of corporations and policymakers, and relies too heavily on changing personal choice. Instead, focusing on collective action and civic duty - via voting, for example - appears to be more effective.

Those findings were based upon a series of focus groups, surveys and interviews with over 200 participants, all of whom eat meat. After writing up and publishing their findings, their next steps were clear: the new grassroots framework they had designed needed to be tested. For that testing, they chose Denver.

"This is where we have the most progressive and liberal voters who are going to take the first step and set this precedent to say 'no' to slaughterhouses," says Kankyoku. In November of last year, the team dropped off 10,488 signatures supporting a ballot initiative to ban slaughterhouses from the city - well above the 8,940 needed to get on the ballot. Pro Animal Future ran a fur ban initiative alongside the slaughterhouse ban, which received 11,708 signatures and will also be appearing on ballots in November. Each of those signatures represents a conversation with a campaigner.

A Focus on Deep Canvassing

One of those campaigners is volunteer Alaina Sigler, who runs the nonprofit The Night Sky Garden. "These very meaningful conversations are going to be one of the most important tactics for us to continue to focus on," Sigler says, referencing the deep canvassing technique at the center of the campaign. Deep canvassing relies on having sincere conversations with voters, and offers space for people to express their concerns without judgment. Though the tactic is great for helping people understand an issue, it is time intensive. "It'll be anywhere from three to 12 voters in an hour, if you're walking up to groups," says Kankyoku.

In addition to these conversations, volunteers have been hosting postcard writing parties in collaboration with other local organizations, including nearby Luvin Arms Animal Sanctuary. While most of those writing parties are dominated by people already involved with the campaign, Pro-Animal Future works hard to ensure a welcoming environment for everyone - whether they eat meat or not.

"If you have friends, family members...and they're not vegan, we actively are asking folks to bring them to the social events," Sigler, who has organized several such parties, says.

From Sigler's perspective, the campaign is cause for "immense hope for these initiatives, after not seeing much change occur locally for animals." A longtime grassroots activist, Sigler has years of experience as an organizer for Direct Action Everywhere, standing vigil outside slaughterhouses and canvassing.

She and other volunteers have also been active in another facet of the campaign: flyering the city. "We do have this kind of guerrilla marketing component of the campaign as well," says Kankyoku. In addition to the flyers, volunteers hand out stickers, chalk art and messages around the city and are working with businesses to host events.

The Economic and Political Implications of Banning Slaughterhouses

In addition to being home to the nation's largest lamb slaughterhouse, Colorado also plays host to Colorado State University (CSU). CSU is home to AgNext, (an agricultural research institute that has come under fire for its connections to animal agriculture), as well as Regional Economic Development Institute (REDI), a research center focused on economic development.

In April of this year, REDI released a policy brief arguing that eliminating the slaughterhouse could result in a maximum loss of 629 jobs and over $861 million. Kanyuko says he doesn't believe those numbers are feasible, given that the facility has 160 employees and generates roughly $250 million in revenue annually. "It's just obvious propaganda, if you're going to dig into it a little bit," he says, but "they're using the letterhead of this respected university."

The processes put into the report are standard within economics, says Dawn Thilmany, PhD, who led the team that put together the REDI brief. Analysis was based upon government data run through an economics software program that calculates likely ripple effects.

The analysis outlines three possible scenarios, based upon how much of the lamb industry exits the state of Colorado. Should the initiative pass, Thilmany is concerned that the most drastic of those is the most likely to take place. "It's [likely to be] really hard to get investors to build processing capacity in other parts of [Colorado] because they're afraid the ban is going to get wider than Denver County," she says.

From her perspective working with small producers, the Denver slaughterhouse is unique in that it allows producers to get back their animals following slaughter - a rarity within the industry. For producers who sell meat locally, getting their animals back is essential."Anyone who's selling local[ly], that's what they have to do," she says. "For lamb, I think they're about the only one who can do that, even in the region."

Even if the report's worst-case economic scenario does come to pass, points out Kankyoku, the projected impact of shutting down the slaughterhouse represents only a small fraction of the state's overall economy. In the third quarter of 2023, Colorado's real Gross Domestic Product - a measure of economic activity - was $529.1 billion.

What Comes Next

"What's so exciting about the ballot initiative approach is that we'd much rather be talking to voters than to a few city council members," says Kankyoku. Focusing on voters also means that even a loss is a win, in Kankyoku's eyes. "If we focus all our attention on engaging with the public and connecting with local businesses and building a really strong community around this objective, [even] if the measure doesn't pass, we can still feel very confident that all of that work is setting us up to do better next time, whether it's the same policy or a different policy for the next campaign."

Pro Animal Future's partner organization, Pax Fauna, is already gearing up to launch similar campaigns in cities across the country - starting with Portland.

Even with the growing popularity of ballot initiatives as a means of activism, advocates are restricted to the cities and states that allow them. But with roughly three quarters of cities allowing some form of citizen-supported legislation making, the opportunities for animal advocates are numerous.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient Climate.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Farms across the U.S. are still struggling to contain the spread of avian flu. The virus has infected farms in all 50 states since the beginning of the outbreak, according to the CDC. Two states - Pennsylvania and Georgia - have recently declared themselves bird-flu free, after stepping up testing efforts and biosecurity protocols. Yet the ongoing spread nationwide - both on factory farms and from infectious migratory birds - raises questions about what a "bird-flu free" announcement really means for the U.S. food system.

Large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can house over 125,000 broiler chickens or 82,000 laying hens at a time, creating a perfect environment for diseases like bird flu to spread. Similarly, large cattle farms may house over 1,000 cattle while dairy CAFOs can house 700 or more dairy cattle.

Pennsylvania state officials announced that they reached "HPAI-Free," or bird-flu free status in their dairy industry in February. By March, Georgia Agriculture Commissioner had also announced poultry operations in the state were "HPAI-Free."

Achieving "free from bird flu" status requires strict biosecurity protocols and significant collaboration between local, state and federal authorities, according to industry researchers. The USDA sets national guidelines for monitoring and testing, which each state adapts to its specific needs. In other words, states can implement their own testing strategies, but these are based on USDA guidelines, and it's the USDA that confirms the findings.

No matter how thorough the protocol, Corinne Bromfield, a University of Missouri extension swine veterinarian with a background in biosecurity, says even the best biosecurity plan on paper is still very difficult to enact on an actual farm. "For something that is transmitted by wild birds, we can only take the steps that we can control," Bromfield tells Sentient.

State Bird Flu Containment Strategies, Explained

In January 2025, Georgia confirmed its first bird flu case in a commercial poultry flock. Georgia raises around 1.4 billion broiler chickens and 18 million layer hens at any given time, making it one of the nation's leading chicken producers. The state responded quickly to the outbreak, containing the virus within 48 hours (according to a press release from state officials) and suspending all in-state poultry activities, including exhibitions and sales.

Tom Tabler, extension poultry specialist at the University of Tennessee Extension Service, told Sentient by email that the steps for containment include "quarantine, depopulation, disposal, cleaning, disinfecting, testing and time," including both state and federal guidelines.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, ranked 8th in total dairy production in the U.S, took a proactive testing approach to prevent the spread of bird flu in dairy herds. Since late November 2024, the state's Animal Diagnostic Laboratory System has tested over 22,000 bulk milk samples from nearly all of its dairy farms, according to the state's official press release. Pennsylvania has remained one of 33 states with no confirmed cases of bird flu in cattle, at least as of this publication date, according to USDA data.

When avian influenza is first detected in a flock, producers are supposed to report sick or dead birds to their state veterinarian or a state animal health official, according to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) guidelines. If the virus is confirmed, the USDA steps in to assist with the inventory for indemnity, investigation and depopulation.

Here, the term depopulation means wiping out an entire flock at once, as quickly and cheaply as possible. Producers often rely on an inexpensive slaughter strategy called "ventilation shut down plus." Most birds die of heat stroke or suffocation during the process, with any surviving birds typically killed by hand. Producers also must create a flock plan, which should include steps for getting rid of the virus and getting the farm back into production.

To eliminate bird flu in U.S. dairy herds, the USDA has developed a National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) that includes a combination of silo monitoring at dairy processing plants and mandatory testing for interstate movement of lactating dairy cattle.

A state must complete at least four rounds of monthly testing with negative results in order to achieve official "unaffected" status. Pennsylvania is one of nine states that, as of this publication date, has been listed as "unaffected" on the NMTS page. If a state's dairy herd tests positive, the producer is supposed to quickly detect and respond to affected herds, including increasing biosecurity protocols and using contact tracing to pinpoint the spread.

These strategies help to mitigate the spread of bird flu, but maintaining bird-flu free status is an ongoing challenge that can be undone at any time.

Biosecurity Protocols Can Be Quickly Undone

Much like any other virus, bird flu won't be deterred by a border on a map. The virus is unpredictable, threatening to resurface at any time. Containing bird flu spread then requires constant vigilance, as experts tell Sentient that any lapse in biosecurity can undo years of efforts.

Even the best on-farm protocols can't control for wild birds entirely. "We're doing everything that we can to minimize the risk to the animals that are under our control," Bromfield says, "but we also have this added layer of animals that are not under our control."

Pennsylvania state officials are aware of the challenge, it seems. "We are not out of the woods yet, and the threat demands that we keep our guard up," Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding said in the February 12 press release.

States must remain prepared to implement emergency control measures at a moment's notice - ready to establish control zones around affected farms and halt the movement of chickens and cows.

"We're always going to have migrating animals that happen to come through areas that we live in or our animals live in," Bromfield says.

Tabler, a poultry scientist, had a similar warning. "Migratory birds or a lapse in biosecurity could easily start the whole process over again," he wrote in an email to Sentient.

Factory Farms and Wild Birds Keep Threat Levels High

Biosecurity protocols do not address a persistent factor for disease spread - the conditions in which factory-farmed poultry are raised. With tens of thousands of birds confined in cramped, unsanitary spaces, factory farms are the ideal breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu.

Overcrowding combined with massive amounts of waste can make it nearly impossible to contain the spread of pathogens. On top of this, wild birds help to spread the disease, making confinement to any one farm exceptionally difficult.

Currently, the standard approach to outbreaks is depopulating - killing infected flocks en masse, often with methods that are cheaper and less humane than standard slaughter methods - and large-scale operations have received indemnity payments for their losses. A December 2024 report from the USDA found that the indemnity program was failing to incentivize producers to take increased biosecurity precautions. Changes to the program were subsequently instituted, though the payout scheme has already resulted in record profits for leading egg producer Cal-Maine.

For smaller farms or backyard poultry owners, maintaining biosecurity measures is also an ongoing challenge, thanks to increased exposure to wild birds and their droppings. Without the infrastructure or resources available to large-scale commercial operations, these smaller operations can be quickly wiped out.

The Bottom Line

While states like Georgia and Pennsylvania have declared themselves bird-flu free, the threat from avian flu is far from over in any part of the country. The virus continues to threaten the food system and public health, as risk of a larger pandemic - currently low - looms overhead. The process to contain the virus is ongoing, as any new outbreak can quickly undo progress, demonstrating the fragile nature of any bird-flu free announcement.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

An animal rights group filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from protests in front of the home of an executive for Perdue Foods.

The company asked for an injunction after activists with Direct Action Everywhere protested multiple times on the sidewalk in front of the Santa Rosa home of Jason Arnold, director of operations for Perdue's Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse.

Cassie King, organizer with Direct Action Everywhere, said the suit should be dismissed.

"Their lawsuit is a classic SLAPP suit, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation,' and is basically a way for wealthy corporations to shut down and silence activists through expensive litigation," King explained.

In its injunction request, Perdue claimed the protests amount to a "campaign of terror," which "intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Mr. Arnold and his family, invaded his privacy, and put Mr. Arnold and his family in fear for their safety." The motion does not apply to protests held outside the poultry plant.

King pointed out advocates are frustrated local authorities have not filed charges against Perdue for animal cruelty.

"For years now, Direct Action Everywhere investigators have documented violations of California's animal cruelty laws at Petaluma poultry factory farms and at the slaughterhouse in Petaluma," King noted. "Including evidence of birds who are not properly stunned, being scalded alive."

Perdue denies allegations of abuse. A hearing on the initial injunction and the motion to dismiss is set for August 20. Meanwhile, activists are planning a week of action, starting this Friday, including protests against grocery stores in Sonoma County selling Perdue brand chicken.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

In 2018, California voters passed the strongest animal protection law in the country, and it’s been under near-constant attack ever since. After surviving a Supreme Court challenge and multiple legislative assaults, Proposition 12 now faces a new threat: the Food Security & Farm Protection Act, a new piece of legislation that was announced last week.

The GOP-sponsored bill is explicitly aimed at undoing Proposition 12, which requires farmers to give certain livestock animals a specific amount of space on their facilities. However, experts say that it could also potentially threaten over 1,000 public health, safety and welfare laws across the country.

While the Food Security & Farm Protection Act itself is new, the approach to undoing Prop 12 isn’t. “This has been the Big Ag playbook for quite a while, and it’s taken various legislative forms,” Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, tells Sentient. “Big Ag doesn’t want to be told what to do by states, and so it puts Republicans in a really interesting position that puts them between Big Ag and more of a states’ rights framework.”

But some Republicans strongly oppose this latest attempt to repeal Proposition 12, and so do a lot of farmers. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and the fight over Proposition 12 is a perfect illustration of why.

Proposition 12, Explained

Initially passed by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 is a state law that regulates the conditions in which certain livestock are reared, and additionally, the type of livestock products that can be sold in the state. Both components of the law are centered on how much room the animals are given to live.

Proposition 12 imposes minimum space requirements for breeding pigs, egg-laying hens and veal calves. Breeding pigs must be given at least 24 square feet of floor space, while egg-laying hens must be given between 1 and 1.5 square feet of space, depending on the type of housing system. Veal calves are required to be given 43 square feet of space.

In addition, Proposition 12 requires that all food sold in the state of California adheres to the above requirements, even if it was produced in another state. Because California is such an enormous market for eggs and pork, this second provision has resulted in many out-of-state producers, including some in other countries, adapting to Proposition 12’s requirements.

Although Proposition 12 is widely regarded as the strongest animal welfare law in the country, there’s a lot that it doesn’t do. The law’s protections don’t apply to chickens raised for meat, for instance, or cattle, nor does it place any restrictions on how the animals are slaughtered. In addition, Proposition 12 doesn’t regulate tail-docking, beak trimming and many other practices that are commonplace on factory farms but not strictly related to living space.

The Fight to Repeal Proposition 12

The Food Security and Farm Protection Act is the most recent attempt to scrap Proposition 12, but it’s definitely not the first.

   The King Amendment

Way back in 2013, before Proposition 12 was even on the ballot, Rep. Steve King proposed an amendment to that year’s farm bill that would have banned states from imposing their own restrictions on the in-state sale of agricultural products produced out of state. This was in response to earlier state laws that enacted such restrictions, such as California’s Proposition 2.

Ultimately, Congress didn’t include the King Amendment in that year’s farm bill. But King resurrected his amendment five years later, as California voters were preparing to weigh in on Proposition 12. As with the previous attempt, it was initially approved in committee; months later, however, California voters approved Proposition 12, and one month after that, the King Amendment was defeated on the House floor.

   The Supreme Court Case

The next year, several meat industry lobbying groups sued to overturn Proposition 12, including the North American Meat Institute and, in a separate lawsuit, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The former suit was quickly defeated, but the latter made its way up to the Supreme Court.

These trade groups argued that Proposition 12 was unconstitutional on two grounds. First, they claimed that it violated a legal doctrine known as the dormant commerce clause. This is the idea that, because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, states can’t pass laws that substantially encroach on this congressional duty.

The plaintiffs also argued that the purported benefits of Proposition 12 to Californians didn’t outweigh the economic burden that it placed on other states’ economic interests. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected both arguments, and Proposition 12 went into full effect in 2024.

   The EATS Act

Perhaps in anticipation of this, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas then introduced the EATS Act. It was essentially the same as the King Amendment, and followed a similar path: Republicans included it in their 2024 farm bill proposal, but it never passed or became law. This is largely because the 2024 farm bill itself never passed, but that’s another story entirely.

Although the EATS Act is kaput, many supporters of Proposition 12 still use “the EATS Act” as a colloquial way of referring to the most recent piece of legislation that would repeal the California law.

This time, it’s the Food Security & Farm Protection Act.

The Complicated Coalitions Behind Proposition 12

It might be tempting to assume that liberals support Proposition 12, and conservatives oppose it. But in practice, opinions on the law haven’t mapped neatly on to traditional partisan lines, and it’s drawn both support and opposition from some surprising places.

   Animal Welfare Groups

Generally speaking, supporters of animal welfare and opponents of factory farming support Prop 12. The Humane Society, Animal Legal Defense Fund, ASPCA, Animal Welfare Institute, The Humane League and many other animal rights organizations have all gone to bat for the law, and so have a good number of climate and environmental organizations, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and National Sustainable Agriculture commission.

“We want to see the standards raised for all animals on factory farms, and we want to see a roll away from factory farms,” Wolf says.

And yet one of the most well-known animal rights groups, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has opposed Proposition 12 from the start, and so has the Humane Farming Association (HFA). PETA’s position is that the law doesn’t go far enough and would be misleading to consumers, while HFA essentially doubted that Proposition 12 would be properly implemented.

   Agricultural Lobbies & Farmers

On the other side, major agricultural lobbies have long opposed Proposition 12. This includes the National Pork Board as well as the Meat Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers’ Council. Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in America, has complained about Proposition 12 and suggested that it supports repeal, without stating so explicitly.

And yet despite this, many individual farmers support Proposition 12 for a variety of reasons. Some simply agree with the idea of giving farm animals a little bit more space, while others like that they can sell Proposition 12-compliant meat and eggs at a premium to welfare-minded customers. One farmer told Sentient last year that the law is “one of the best things, economically, that’s happened to us in a very long time.”

“Within the food and farm marketplace, there are places for producers to carve and make investments, and provide the product that the market is asking for,“ Wolf says. Proposition 12, she says, makes it easier for “independent producers [to] carve this niche, and form higher-welfare markets” for pork and eggs.

Why Republicans Are Divided on Attempts to Repeal Prop 12

All of the legislative attempts to repeal Proposition 12 have come from Republican lawmakers. And yet a surprising number of Republicans have come out in support of Proposition 12 — or at the very least, against the efforts to repeal it. This may sound like a small distinction, but it’s played a big role in shaping some folks’ opinion on the law, especially on the right.

In 2023, 16 House Republicans signed a letter declaring their opposition to the EATS Act and its inclusion in the farm bill. These lawmakers said that, while they didn’t necessarily support Proposition 12 itself, they very much did oppose the idea of the federal government overturning state laws, which is what the EATS Act, and now the Food Security & Farm Protection Act, would do.

“The EATS Act is a pretty draconian federal preemptive strategy that tells states how to regulate within their borders,” Wolf says. “That is pretty antithetical to a lot of the major talking points of the Republican Party.”

This is also the position of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, a conservative Republican who opposes both Proposition 12 and the attempts to repeal it. In 2024, Miller wrote in an op-ed that, “while I don’t agree with Proposition 12, I’ll defend to my dying day California’s right to self-determination, and any state’s ability to use its constitutional authority as that state’s citizens best see fit.”

In addition to this reasoning, some conservative Republicans also support Proposition 12 because they see it as a bulwark against foreign influence over American farmland. This is largely because the biggest pork producer in America, Smithfield Foods, is owned by a Chinese company with strong ties to the Chinese government. China has scant animal welfare laws, but any meat that Smithfield’s parent company sells in California has to be Proposition 12-compliant.

Many conservatives oppose Smithfield’s Chinese ownership, seeing it as a threat to national security, the livelihood of American farmworkers, and animal welfare. These concerns vary in terms of their validity, but regardless, 10 House Republicans signed a letter stating that they oppose the EATS Act on these grounds.

The Bottom Line

It’s far too soon to say what will come of the Food Security & Farm Protection Act. While Republicans have the majority in Congress, they’re divided enough on Prop 12 that attempts to overturn it are anything but certain. But like the EATS Act and the King amendment before it, the legislation’s mere existence is evidence of Proposition 12’s enormous impact on the farming sector. So, too, is the fact that it’s supported by such a wide variety of people, for so many different reasons.

“There’s a ton of these different conversations about the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” Wolf says. “It’s not just about animal welfare standards, but the infrastructure under which food production happens today.”


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email