By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for North Carolina News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Imagery is a powerful cornerstone of food marketing — think of a laughing cow on cheese — often playing an outsize role in what consumers ultimately choose to buy. But when it comes to the marketing of meat, dairy and eggs, the branding does not necessarily match reality. Appealing to the emotional part of the brain, visuals are there to tell a story to connect with consumers, not provide transparency about the meat or milk in your cart.

As author, academic and activist Carol J. Adams tells Sentient, “We’re in an image-based world,” and “images accomplish a lot, going around rational minds, right to the emotion.” After all, in the minds of many consumers, how farm animals are raised is important.

Symbols like red barns, rolling green pastures, sunshine and happy animals are common on meat and dairy labels. But how accurate are the most common visual representations? Sentient spoke to Adams, author of the books “The Sexual Politics of Meat,” “The Pornography of Meat,” and others, as well as to Jo-Anne McArthur, photojournalist and founder of We Animals, to compare common tropes in advertising with the reality of industrial animal agriculture today.

 Misleading Advertising Expectation #1: The Traditional Barn

The red or otherwise traditional barn is a prominent symbol used in meat, dairy and egg marketing. Rooted in childhood nursery rhymes, fables and films, the barn helps paint farming as wholesome and idyllic. From “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” to “Charlotte’s Web” and “Babe,” we learn at an early age that farms are peaceful places where animals roam freely.

As adults, we find that same barn imagery on labels for meat, dairy and eggs. Adams argues these images are placed to evoke feelings of comfort, familiarity and trust; a powerful marketing tool. “You’d really have to stretch the notion of barn to apply it to these [modern] institutions,” she argues.

McArthur has been to over 60 countries to document agricultural spaces, and says that what she often finds is “that the barns are actually very big warehouses. Gone are the days of the small red barn.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are approximately 74.5 million hogs and pigs at any given time raised on around 56,265 U.S. farms. This means the average building holds over 1,300 animals per farm; not quite a little red barn. The majority of farm animals in the U.S. are housed in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), which operate “more like factories than farms.”

Misleading Advertising Expectation #2: Green Pastures for All

Another visual commonly utilized in the marketing of meat, dairy and eggs is that of green fields and grassy hills. Sometimes accompanied by bright sunshine, blue skies and blue water, these symbols elicit notions of farming as a natural endeavor.

Agriculture, however depicted, is an entirely human invention developed to feed ourselves more efficiently, not a product of nature. Today, the vast majority of farm animals are raised on factory farms; not on rolling pastures. Space is particularly tight for chickens.

“For the most part, birds who are used to lay eggs don’t ever have access to daylight,” says McArthur. They are kept in windowless warehouses, often with artificial lighting used to manipulate laying cycles. Around 60 percent of hens in the U.S. egg industry are confined to battery cages, the smallest size cages allowed by law. In Canada that number is over 80 percent.

For poultry chickens, also known as broilers, no outdoor access is ever required by USDA standards, unless the label claims “organic” or “free-range,” then outdoor access is mandated by USDA guidelines. On industrial farms — which can house up to 50,000 birds — each chicken is provided as little as 100 square inches each, as per the National Chicken Council’s minimal guidelines.

There are some programs that do require chickens to have “access” to the outdoors, such as Certified Animal Welfare Approved and USDA Organic, but what that means in practice varies. Certified Humane standards, for example, do not require that chickens have access to the outdoors at all, unless specified as “free range” or “pasture raised.”

This limited access to green fields and sunshine is simply not the norm for the majority of egg-laying hens, nor broiler chickens farmed in the U.S.

And as we’ll see with our next piece of misleading advertising, pasture is only the norm for beef cows, and for around four to six months, give or take depending on the farm.

Misleading Advertising Expectation #3: Green, Not Brown

On a label, green tends to connote healthy and natural to consumers. “Green is a positive color, and green fields imply bucolic,” Adams says. Unfortunately, though, the use of the green pastures on meat labels is often not accurate. In fact, the reality is much…browner.

“Where is all the manure?” Adams asks. “Where is the dirty water that comes from these huge manure fields?” In reality, modern farming operations produce immense amounts of waste, around 1.4 billion tons of manure each year. That waste is supposed to be spread onto fields to help crops grow — but the sheer volume of waste coupled with spills from accidents or extreme weather leads to plenty of exceptions.

Manure from agricultural operations is the primary source of phosphorus and nitrogen contamination in surface and groundwater, leading to undrinkable water supply in factory farm frontline communities in states like Iowa and North Carolina.

Beef cattle in the U.S. spend at least some of the first part of their lives on pasture. Over half of them eventually end up in dusty feedlots for fattening, before being sent to slaughter. As of January 2024 in the U.S., there were 14.4 million cows and calves on feedlots.

McArthur has been to industrial feedlots all over the world, including in the U.S. and Canada, and describes them as cramped and dirty spaces, where animals are “not given much room to move, explore or do anything natural.” They are also often slippery, she says, due to the excessive amount of animal waste. “It’s not a place that animals can romp around on.”

Misleading Advertising Expectation #4: Happy Cows and Other Cartoon Animals

Meat, dairy and egg companies that include animals in their branding often use cartoon depictions or simple silhouettes, rather than real images of animals.

This may sound harmless enough, but Adams, who has been called a pioneer of vegan-feminist critical theory, argues there is a more sinister intent behind the tactic. Meat marketers tend to shy away from real images, she says, as “that would perpetuate the lie that animals want to be our food. So they have to rely on different cultural tropes, and the cartoon is one of them. The cartoon sort of liberates them into a bigger lie.”

From her work photographing farmed animals, McArthur adds, “you would be really hard-pressed to find an animal that could be photographed to look pretty [enough for marketing purposes],” she says, “because they are very, very dirty, because they don’t have the ability to clean themselves in these conditions.” She adds that it wouldn’t be possible to “go into a place like this and take a beautiful picture that would make us want to eat these animals.”

The use of cartoons like the “laughing cow” helps perpetuate the image of happy and clean animals, animals who only experience what is often described as “one bad day” by farmers who tout their welfare standards. Again, the vast majority of animals are not raised on such farms.

“There’s a desire [by marketers] to sanitize, to sentimentalize, because the truth is threatening,” says Adams. “Avoiding some language and using a happy cow is a successful way of keeping complacent consumers.”

The Bottom Line

Meat, dairy and egg marketing relies heavily on imagery to shape consumer perceptions, with symbols like red barns and green pastures suggesting idyllic farming conditions. However, the reality is starkly different, with most farm animals confined to industrial, overcrowded environments, far from the serene settings depicted on labels. These carefully crafted visuals mask the grim conditions of factory farms, perpetuating a misleading narrative that sanitizes the true nature of industrial animal agriculture.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's Natural Resources Commission will decide this week whether to allow bobcat trapping, giving Hoosiers one last chance to weigh in.

The meeting will be held Tuesday at 10 a.m. at Fort Harrison State Park in Indianapolis and will determine whether the state moves forward with a plan to permit bobcat trapping in 40 southern Indiana counties next fall.

Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director of the group Humane World for Animals, stressed Hoosier voices are critical at the meeting.

"We really want folks to show up and voice their opposition to this proposal," Chapman emphasized. "Indiana's bobcats are still recovering, and we need more data on what the actual numbers and populations are for bobcats in Indiana."

Opponents said the plan is premature. The Department of Natural Resources has released only a siting map, not a full study, raising concerns the species remains vulnerable. Humane World Animals urged residents to demand a zero quota, arguing the proposal prioritizes trappers over conservation.

The plan allows trappers to capture up to 250 bobcats, with each trapper limited to one and required to obtain a special license. Chapman warned trappers will kill bobcats at a time when Indiana must prevent past population declines rather than risk undoing decades of recovery.

"While the commission can legally set a quota of zero, it is instead proposed allowing 250 bobcats to be barbarically trapped, bludgeoned, strangled, stomped or shot," Chapman contended. "This is why we need Hoosiers to speak up at the Natural Resources Commission meeting."

Conservationists stressed live bobcats generate more economic benefits through tourism than trapping ever could. They urged Hoosiers to turn out in force Tuesday and speak before the commission makes its final decision.


get more stories like this via email

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

As egg prices continue to skyrocket across the United States, some consumers are looking for alternative ways to secure affordable eggs, including turning to their backyard. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, penned a commentary outlining her plan to help "lower egg prices." Among her proposals - such as vaccinating chickens and reassessing California's Proposition 12, which tightened animal welfare laws - there was also a nod to raising backyard chickens.

In her commentary, Rollins writes that part of the plan is "to make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens." There was no expansion on this point, however, outside of a sentence in the USDA release of the plan promising to "minimize burdens on individual farmers and consumers who harvest homegrown eggs." A spate of articles also suggests the notion is picking up steam. Yet even though the idea may seem like a potential solution to rising egg prices, research suggests that keeping chickens for eggs may just bring the risks of avian flu to your backyard. In short, because your backyard is not protected from wild birds.

"The more birds that you have, especially when they kind of overlap with waterfowl habitat, for example, the increased risk you're going to have [of bird flu]," Maurice Pitesky, associate professor and expert in poultry disease modeling at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, tells Sentient.

The increased risk applies to industrial egg operations. Nearly 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. are raised on factory farms - operations where animals are crowded together, often in unsanitary conditions. These settings are breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu, as the density and poor care make it easy for viruses to spread quickly. But it's not just factory farms that are at risk. In the past year, bird flu outbreaks have made headlines across the United States, and backyard chickens have not been immune to its reach.

Backyard Flocks Impacted

Over the last 30 days, 51 backyard flocks across the U.S. have confirmed cases of avian influenza, compared to 59 cases in commercial operations, as of March 3. While the number of affected backyard flocks is slightly lower overall, it's important to remember that the risk to smaller, home-raised flocks remains significant, primarily because the disease is often spread through wild birds - including their droppings and saliva - who can easily get to a backyard flock.

Wyoming recently reported its first human case of bird flu, which is believed to have been contracted from exposure to a backyard flock. The first severe case of avian flu in the U.S. occurred in December 2024 in Louisiana, where it was determined that the person had been exposed to sick and dead birds from a backyard flock. This person also became the first person in the U.S to die from the virus.

"This case underscores that, in addition to affected commercial poultry and dairy operations, wild birds and backyard flocks also can be a source of exposure," the Center for Disease Control has stated about this case.

Bird flu can spread to people through various routes in a backyard farm, according to the CDC, including direct contact with infected birds, their droppings and contaminated equipment.

The Spread: Wild Birds and Backyard Flocks

It's tempting to assume that backyard chickens are safer from bird flu than large commercial farms due to their smaller flock size and less crowded living conditions. But this assumption overlooks the critical role of wild birds in spreading the virus.

The virus is frequently carried by wild birds, many of which are migrating across the country. For backyard chicken keepers, this poses a serious risk, as wild birds can easily come into contact with their flocks, potentially bringing the virus with them.

Benjamin Anderson, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Global Health at the University of Florida, told Sentient in an email that wild birds, particularly ducks and geese, are the main carriers that can introduce the flu into backyard flocks. Outbreaks are also more concentrated along migratory bird flyways, Anderson noted, with four major routes across the U.S.

A 2021 study on avian flu transmission pathways found that flocks near or in contact with waterfowl and migratory birds are at a higher risk of infection. Although the study primarily focuses on commercial farms, its insights are also relevant to backyard operations - in essence, the researchers found that the virus can spread more widely when chickens aren't properly isolated from these outside threats. Infected birds can release the virus through their saliva and feces - in other words, exposure doesn't require direct contact with a backyard chicken.

Though backyard chickens are often not as crowded together as chickens raised commercially, birds raised in backyards are vulnerable to bird flu thanks to the lack of strict biosecurity regulations. Unlike commercial farms, which are at least required to follow certain guidelines to prevent outbreaks (such as regular testing and isolating infected animals), there is no oversight or enforcement for smaller, home-raised flocks.

With backyard bird flocks, says Pitesky, "their biosecurity on average is not ideal." There are a number of reasons why that can be the case, including a lack of "adequate fencing." It can even be as simple as the hobbyist may be pressed for time. "People have lives," says Pitesky. To keep backyard chickens safe, Pitesky says, "it takes some time and energy and money."

Backyard chicken keepers may not be aware of the measures they should take to minimize risk of exposure. A 2024 survey study in the UK of 1,550 poultry keepers found that not all backyard poultry owners were following biosecurity measures mandated by the government. The researchers found that some poultry keepers were unaware of what was required of them or faced barriers such as expenses, fewer carers for the birds and other welfare concerns.

The CDC has issued guidelines for backyard chicken owners to follow, such as restricting human access to their chickens, keeping them in enclosed spaces and minimizing exposure to wild birds. But if backyard chicken keepers do not implement these protocols effectively, the birds are left exposed to the virus.

Should You Raise Backyard Chickens During a Bird Flu Outbreak?

Anecdotally at least, Anderson has found that more people are interested in having backyard chickens these days, especially with high egg prices. And though both Anderson and Pitesky see the appeal of having backyard flocks, they also point to the risk associated with keeping them.

It's crucial to understand that keeping backyard chickens during an outbreak requires significant research, preparation and strict adherence to CDC guidelines. The CDC recommends wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling sick or dead birds, cleaning and disinfecting contaminated areas and avoiding stirring up dust or bird waste that may spread the virus. In an email to Sentient, Anderson writes "people should take necessary steps to learn how to raise poultry safely and according to local and state rules."

However, this guidance quickly becomes complicated - some infected birds (especially those that are infected with a low pathogenic strain of bird flu) may not show symptoms. This strain can then mutate into the highly pathogenic version. As a result, flock owners may not realize they need PPE or take proper measures when dealing with asymptomatic birds. They may end up spreading the virus unwittingly.

The Bottom Line

Though the current risk of contracting bird flu remains low for most of the public, the middle of a bird flu outbreak may not be the best time to start keeping backyard chickens. It may sound appealing to be able to source "free" eggs from your backyard, but the reality is that keeping backyard chickens safe from bird flu requires time and money. And ultimately, raising chickens in a backyard doesn't eliminate the risk of spreading the virus, and could even exacerbate the problem if you don't take the proper precautions recommended by the CDC.

As for Secretary Rollins' plan to make raising backyard chickens easier for homeowners, the details remain unclear. Sentient reached out to the USDA for more information on how her plan addresses these concerns, but has yet to receive a response.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Industrial farming practices could be boosting the spread of bird flu.

Avian influenza has been detected in poultry across the country, including in North Carolina, where 3.3 million birds had to be culled because of the disease at one farm alone in January.

Rania Masri, co-director of the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, said concentrated animal feeding operations used for poultry are a breeding ground for disease.

"CAFOs by design amplify the formation, the mutation and the spread of new viruses," Masri explained. "Which can very simply and quickly transform into a full-blown epidemic."

Masri pointed out industrial farms in North Carolina disproportionately affect low income communities and communities of color. Her organization signed a letter with other public interest groups calling for more transparent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The North Carolina Environmental Justice Network is also calling on the state to be more transparent with its data.

Craig Watts, a farmer and director of the contract grower transition program for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, said diseases like bird flu at large industrial operations can create bottlenecks, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when farms did not have workers and had to kill their birds.

"While they're killing those birds in the field, now our shelves are empty," Watts observed. "If you have smaller, more localized, regional, you might have an issue in, say, North Carolina but maybe it wouldn't affect Nebraska like a breakdown in the industrial system will."

Masri believes the control of the industry by a small handful of corporations is bad for democracy.

"The only thing that the industrial farming is good for is the shareholders of these mega-corporations," Masri contended.


get more stories like this via email