In a time when the changing climate demands that we bend the curve away from large-scale factory farming, the federal government is heavily investing in a scheme that does little to address the root causes of environmental harm and can even strengthen industrial animal farming: Factory Farm Gas (FFG).

FFG, marketed as “renewable natural gas,” has enjoyed millions of dollars of government subsidies and incentive programs in recent years.

However, to double down on FFG is to double down on a strategy that perpetuates the very system it claims to mitigate—massively confined, industrial animal farming.

Our new reports, “Gaslit by Biogas: Big Ag’s Reverse Robin Hood Effect” and “The ‘Biogas’ Plot: Fueling Factory Farms in the Midwest,” detail this phenomenon and were recently cited in a powerful Vox piece.

What Is Factory Farm Gas?

FFG is gas captured from the massive cesspools of waste generated by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—-factory farms. These operations are touted by industry as exciting renewable energy sources and as a plausible replacement for fossil fuels. They use devices called anaerobic digesters to capture methane gas from cesspools and process the waste into “biogas.” After further refinement, the gas is used to generate electricity and heat.

We don’t deny the basic fact that anaerobic digesters capture methane, nor do we deny the urgency of reducing methane pollution. The problem is that FFG subsidies promote the entrenchment and expansion of industrial animal agriculture while doing nothing to address one of the most significant methane emissions from animals—enteric fermentation.

Despite its greenwashed veneer, FFG doesn’t meaningfully address the harms of factory farming; instead, it obfuscates the pollution problem while funneling public money to some of the worst offenders in industrial agriculture.

Subsidies for Factory Farm Interests

Federal and state subsidies and incentives for FFG have exploded in recent years. In 2024, we received government data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Analysis revealed that the 2023 federal value funneled to FFG exceeded $150 million, including grants, low-interest loans, and tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In 2023, programs like the USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which includes funding for truly necessary programs like on-farm wind and solar, saw an over 2,600 percent year-over-year increase in biogas-related grants after the IRA’s passage.Unsurprisingly, private investment is surging alongside these subsidies. FFG companies are cashing in on tax credits and government-backed loans, projecting tens of millions of dollars in benefits in the coming years.

A System by and for the Biggest Polluters

The nature of FFG collection means that some of the worst CAFO practices—like mass animal confinement and manure cesspools—are necessary to make such operations viable. Accordingly, subsidies for FFG disproportionately benefit the largest and most environmentally destructive factory farms. For example:

• Our analysis of three years of state grants shows that dairy digester projects funded by the state of California were “fed” by an average of ~7,500 cows.
• Similarly, in a national dataset, FFG operations “fed” by pig manure reported operations involving between 14,000 and nearly 80,000 animals.

These subsidies not only support the status quo but may actively encourage the expansion of CAFOs and potentially drive out small, independent pasture-based farmers. This “reverse Robin Hood effect” of FFG means public funds are being diverted to the wealthiest agricultural corporations and interests.

Doubling Down on Subsidizing CAFOs

The federal government is doubling down on public incentives for FFG despite major critiques from legislators. In 2024, for example, a coalition of 15 members of Congress sent a letter to then Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack expressing concern over the USDA’s inclusion of FFG in climate-related programs. Their concerns were clear: Incentivizing FFG risks consolidating the agricultural sector and contradicting climate goals. Secretary Vilsack’s response—which Farm Forward received via FOIA request—failed to meaningfully address these concerns while reaffirming a commitment to using manure digesters. Given his past role as a lobbyist for the dairy industry, Vilsack’s support for these subsidies is hardly surprising.

Advocating For Smaller-Scale Farmers Instead

In recent weeks, many farmers, including smaller-scale farmers, have reported that climate funding has been paused following a presidential executive order. Essential initiatives like on-farm solar, which can help smaller farms be more sustainable and offset electricity costs, are up in the air.

Unlike large agribusinesses that can absorb financial setbacks, these farmers operate on much thinner margins, making the sudden funding halt a potential death knell for pro-climate initiatives. Struggling smaller-scale and local farmers would be left holding the bag for the major financial burdens of previously subsidized climate programs they cannot afford on their own.

The new administration has expressed interest in addressing the lack of healthfulness in the food system via its push to “Make America Healthy Again.” One good way to start would be to ensure that promised payments get to smaller-scale farmers. Why? To support ways of raising animals for food far better for our public health than factory farming’s outsized contributions to pollution, the antibiotic resistance crisis, and pandemic risk.

Conclusion

Climate interventions that entrench and expand industrial animal agriculture won’t cut it. Instead of facilitating well over a billion dollars into factory farm interests, we should:

• Invest in plant-based food systems that reduce reliance on industrial animal farming.
• Push for legislation like the Farm System Reform Act to phase out massive, confined factory farming and support independent farmers transitioning to sustainable practices.

FFG is not the climate solution it claims to be. Perhaps there’s a world where certain iterations of biogas could be a meaningful part of a serious climate strategy—it’s not inconceivable. Our concern is not with the notion of using waste for heat and electricity but with how we see it manifesting: massive subsidies for large-scale agricultural polluters, little oversight, factory farm expansion, and industrial profiteering.

By propping up factory farming, the government is perpetuating a system that threatens public health, rural communities, animal welfare, and the very climate it purports to protect. It’s time to redirect these subsidies toward a more humane and sustainable food system.

For more details, see our recent reports and the Vox article:

Gaslit by Biogas: Big Ag’s Reverse Robin Hood Effect

Biogas’ Plot: Fueling Factory Farms in the Midwest

Big Oil and Big Ag are teaming up to turn cow poop into energy — and profits. The math doesn’t add up

Factory farming isn’t inevitable. Giant, filthy, cramped animal farms are not simply the consequence of technological advancement in agriculture. Industrial farming is a system built by companies with the help of friendly governments; public policies and taxpayer subsidies play a critical role in propping up factory farming. Farm Forward opposes public funding of factory farms and greenwashing technologies like biogas, which serve to entrench and expand factory farming. Earlier this year, Farm Forward joined a coalition, the Michiganders for a Just Farming System, opposing a proposed bill (Senate Bill 275) in the Michigan legislature that would enrich industrial animal agriculture at the expense of smaller-scale farmers, Michigan communities, and truly clean energy solutions.

This proposed legislation is another case of public policy being used to calcify the status quo of large-scale, confinement agriculture. SB 275 would classify farm-derived biogas as a clean fuel source, which would allow it to qualify for participation in a lucrative carbon credit market. Factory-farmed animals, particularly cows and pigs, produce vast volumes of waste that emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, along with other pollutants. Biodigesters (also called anaerobic digesters) can capture some of the methane produced by manure waste, which can be burned to produce modest amounts of electricity. While biodigesters may reduce some methane emissions, the purpose of the technology is not primarily to solve climate change. The technology is used by the meat and dairy industry as well as the fossil fuel industry to create government programs to profit from their polluting practices. The pattern is so clear that it’s commonly referred to as “brown gold” by dairy producers.

Michiganders Oppose Propping Up Factory Farms

According to a recent survey conducted by Data for Progress for Farm Forward, a plurality of Michiganders (47 percent) have an unfavorable view of large-scale factory farms, whereas 89 percent have a positive view of small family farms. What’s more, Michiganders are supportive of climate legislation, but with a catch: they are less likely to support climate legislation like factory farm biogas when they learn that it’s a boon for industry.

If SB 275 is passed by the Democratic House and Senate and signed by Governor Whitmer, Michigan factory farms may be eligible for tens of millions of dollars in lucrative credits, enriching an industry that most Michiganders have a negative view of.

In the poll, Democrats’ support for SB 275 dropped by 22 points after respondents learned that industry heavily influenced the bill. The prime backer of SB 275 is a group called Clean Fuels Michigan, which represents numerous companies and interests, from Amazon to BP to Delta. Conversely, SB 275 has virtually no support from environmental groups within the state.

Those survey results should be no surprise. Good climate legislation should leverage public investment in the technologies and industries that stand to make a meaningful impact on climate change and improve local environments. Enriching factory farms does neither of those things. Michiganders want to invest in climate solutions to reduce greenhouse gasses, improve air and water quality, support sustainable farmers, and benefit rural communities. So do we. That’s why we oppose SB 275 and efforts to greenwash factory farms.

Instead, we should push for legislation like the Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act, which moves the US closer to a more sustainable and humane food system.

Millions of Americans buy meat products marketed as “raised without antibiotics.” Globally, the market for antibiotic-free meat is growing significantly, likely in response to consumer concerns about the overuse of antibiotics on farms and how that impacts public health. In 2022, Farm Forward published an explosive investigation that found an antibiotic in meat labeled as “raised without antibiotics.” Following that investigation, we have pushed for changes to government regulation to ensure that meat labels and marketing are accurate. While we believe that the USDA must step in forcefully to regulate antibiotics in meat, we aren’t waiting for the government to act.

Starting in 2023, Farm Forward reached out to a number of food companies and retailers—including companies like Trader Joe’s, Walmart, Publix, and more—to urge them to protect consumers and improve farmed animal welfare. Specifically, Farm Forward sent leaders of these companies a letter asking them to:

• Mandate that their suppliers test their “raised without antibiotics” meat products for antibiotics at certified, independent labs with high sensitivity (i.e., parts per billion).
• Discontinue sales of products from suppliers who fail to provide assurance of accurate labeling.

Companies that sell meat—including retailers, restaurant chains, and food service providers—should take action to ensure that they maintain consumer trust.

Retailers like Publix, Walmart, and Trader Joe’s sell products with labels like “Raised Without Antibiotics” and “No Antibiotics Ever.” Some companies go further and claim that they sell mostly or only products raised without antibiotics. Retailers like Sprouts Farmers Market and Panera Bread, which have reputations for being committed to more “natural” foods, have explicit antibiotic policies for meat products (e.g., see Sprouts’ page for its beef butcher shop, which claims cattle “and are never given antibiotics or added hormones … ever!”). Unless companies test animals to ensure antibiotics aren’t present, we believe consumers should be skeptical of those claims.

We’ve reached out to these companies encouraging them to take action on the usage of antibiotics in their supply chain. If they’re going to market products as antibiotic free, then they ought to put in the effort to verify that the claims are true.  As companies respond we will update you about whether the companies have policies in place to ensure that you can trust their “antibiotic free” labeling and marketing.

Among the companies we have engaged with are:

• Applegate
• Aramark
• ButcherBox
• Compass Group USA
• Food Lion
• Harris Teeter
• Meijer
• Natural Grocers
• Panda Express
• Publix
• Sprouts Natural Grocer
• Sweetgreen
• Target
• The Fresh Market
• Trader Joe’s
• Walmart
• Wegmans

Protecting consumers from deceptive labels on meat products—i.e., humanewashing—should be a high priority for regulatory bodies and those tasked with protecting the public from unscrupulous marketing practices. As such, Farm Forward sent around a dozen state attorneys general a letter imploring them to encourage retailers in their state to improve antibiotic testing and accountability practices among their suppliers.

Over the summer, Farm Forward released the results of our collaboration with polling firm Data for Progress concerning the practice of humanewashing. The survey of 1,100 American adults revealed an escalating demand from the public for transparency and accountability in meat labeling and that meat companies that humanewash risk eroding the trust and support of their customers. Further revealed was the importance to Americans that companies ensure the accuracy and verifiability of their claims about animal welfare and antibiotic usage.

Our report with Data for Progress comes in the wake of a class action lawsuit against Whole Foods Market (WFM) alleging the national grocer falsely advertised its beef as “no antibiotics, ever,” after antibiotic residue was found in WFM’s beef supply chain.

Then, earlier this year, the USDA announced new guidelines for companies seeking to label their products as “humanely raised,” “free range,” and “raised without antibiotics.” These new guidelines include a recommendation that meat companies test animals who are going to be marketed as “raised without antibiotics.” Still, the USDA has not yet required meat companies to test their products (e.g., for antibiotic residue).

The USDA’s announcement is an important step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to encourage grocery retailers and meat companies to ensure their products are accurately marketed. To this end, in our letter to state attorneys general, we informed them of these developments, and—in order to protect consumers better—we asked them to encourage retailers in their state to improve testing for antibiotic residue in their meat products.

Specifically, we hope retailers will:

1. Require that their suppliers conduct regular testing on a statistically significant percentage of their meat products labeled “raised without antibiotics” for the presence of antibiotics, using reliable and independent laboratories, testing with a high level of sensitivity (i.e., parts per billion);
2. Implement corrective actions for suppliers who fail to meet “raised without antibiotics” standards and policies.

The time to implement these testing practices is perfect—the USDA just released the details of its new pilot testing program for beef marketed as “raised without antibiotics” in an effort to strengthen transparency and verification practices. Read the full text of the letter here.

In June, the USDA announced modest, but encouraging, reforms to the regulations around meat labeling, offering new  guidelines companies must follow if they want to label their products as “humanely raised,” “free range,” or “raised without antibiotics.” These changes are a promising development considering how widespread the phenomenon of humanewashing is across the meat industry. In fact, our recent collaboration with Data for Progress revealed that deceptive labeling of the meat industry is central to how the industry maintains public support; for example, the results showed that the majority of American consumers report that they would be more skeptical of meat companies upon learning that a company engaged in humanewashing.

While the new guidelines from the USDA are a step in the right direction, we think that much more needs to be done for meat labels to meet the public’s expectations. Specifically, we think that the current USDA proposal to “recommend” companies submit more evidence to verify their animal-raising claims and “encourage” third-party certifications to verify such claims, is not sufficient to protect consumers from misleading labels. We think, for example, meat labeled “raised without antibiotics” must be required to submit regular, high-sensitivity testing for antibiotics—something that our recent survey confirms the public already expects.

In response to the USDA’s announcement, Farm Forward sent a letter to Sandra Eskin, the Deputy Undersecretary of Food Safety at the USDA, sharing our concerns and offering actionable recommendations that would help ensure consumer trust in meat labeling. Specifically, we recommended that the USDA:

1. Require meaningful third-party certifications to verify animal raising claims like “humanely raised” and “pasture raised;”

2. Update labeling expectations to require a comprehensive written explanation of a producer’s interpretation of the claim and how their practices significantly surpass the minimum industry standards;

3. Strengthen the definition of “pasture raised” poultry to align it better with consumer expectations (i.e., slow-growing birds living their lives on vegetated pasture);

4. Require companies applying to label their meat as “raised without antibiotics” to verify that the claim is accurate through high-sensitivity testing.

We will continue to work with the USDA to ensure that animal raising claims on meat at least meet consumer expectations. You can read the full letter to the USDA here.

Humanewashing—the collection of marketing tools employed by meat companies that lead to widespread and foundational misunderstandings about animal welfare in animal agriculture—is an existential threat to efforts to move beyond factory farming. For the last few years, Farm Forward has commissioned large-scale surveys of American residents focused on consumer deception and its consequences. Consistently, the surveys’ results show that the expectations that consumers have about what certain labels signify—whether it be about animal welfare, antibiotic use, or environmental sustainability—are not aligned with the facts on the ground.

This year, we partnered with the research firm Data for Progress to test some of our hypotheses about consumer understandings of everything from “pasture raised” to Global Animal Partnership’s “Animal Welfare Certified” label. The results of our 1,100-person survey of American adults indicate that consumers have baseline expectations for meat companies and retailers that aren’t being met, and that companies risk eroding the trust of their consumers if they continue to humanewash.

Humanewashing

To get a deeper understanding of how Americans view animal product labels, we tested the appeal of different animal raising claims and certifications, including but not limited to “humanely raised,” “antibiotic free,” and “pasture raised.” Americans, by and large, viewed such labels favorably, often with at least 3 in 4 viewing them positively. This would be a fine result if such labels actually meant what they claim to; instead, they often lack meaningful substantiation and regulation. Third-party animal welfare labels that are also deeply flawed, like Animal Welfare Certified and One Health Certified, were perceived less favorably (likely due to less familiarity) but were still viewed positively by around 50 percent of American adults.

For another question, respondents were presented with an image of an actual Animal Welfare Certified (GAP Step 2) poultry farm: half said that the image matched their expectations either “not very well” (30 percent) or “not at all” (20 percent). This result aligns with the conclusion from our 2021 survey that significant numbers of consumers were incorrect about what labels like “cage-free” and American Humane Certified actually mean. For example, in that survey, nearly 40 percent of respondents thought that a cage-free label signifies that a chicken was raised continuously on pasture; it signifies nothing close to that.

These results exemplify one of the most common manifestations of humanewashing: the tendency of the reality behind animal welfare labels to clash sharply with consumer expectations.

Consumer Trust

Meat companies and grocery stores should take note of these results. We also directly tested levels of trust in response to the humanewashing phenomena: After reading the definition of humanewashing, a majority of adults (57 percent) said that learning that a company engaged in humanewashing would make them much or somewhat less likely to support their brand. Misleading consumers might work for a time, but it is unlikely to continue to succeed as consumers become more aware of standard industry factory farm practices.

We also thought it was important to test a specific, identifiable instance of humanewashing: Whole Foods’ “raised without antibiotics” marketing, the subject of a class action lawsuit. After learning that beef sold at Whole Foods and marketed as “raised without antibiotics,” Animal Welfare Certified and USDA Organic tested positive for an antibiotic, 71 percent of respondents said it would make them lose trust in their grocery store if they were discovered to be selling products treated with antibiotic drugs marketed as “raised without antibiotics.”

After being exposed throughout the survey to information about misleading labeling, respondents became increasingly skeptical about the accuracy of animal product labels with regard to their animal welfare claims; the percentage of respondents who were skeptical of these labels—and thought they were often misleading—sharply increased from 49 percent at the beginning of the survey to 65 percent by its end. Put another way, when consumers learn more about what meat labeling and marketing actually mean, they are less supportive of companies that humanewash. Consumer distrust may create pressure advocates can use to push companies to better meet consumer expectations.

Transparency and Accountability

As mentioned above, the USDA requires little, if any, verification or substantiation of the animal-raising claims it approves for use. (The USDA’s recent move to rethink labeling guidelines is a step in the right direction). Currently, someone purchasing a meat product—say, one labeled “raised without antibiotics”—can never be certain that this is actually the case.

Accordingly, we also wanted to test Americans’ support for increased accountability in the meat industry. An overwhelming majority would support stronger regulations on this front: 88 percent of respondents said that it is either very important (57 percent) or somewhat important (31 percent) for companies to provide independently verified information about how they treat animals. Additionally, 81 percent of Americans support increasing the rigor of regulations for animal product labeling; the survey also found that there is widespread support for increasing the transparency and rigor of antibiotic labeling on meat products in particular, with 87 percent of Americans in favor. These popular changes would likely both reduce animal suffering and weaken the profitability and stability of the factory farm model, which relies on weak regulation.

Conclusion

Our partnership with Data for Progress has provided further evidence for something we’ve suspected for a while: there is a significant disconnect between consumer expectations and the reality of animal treatment in the meat industry. Beyond that, our results also showed that the revelation of this deception erodes the consumers’ trust in some of their favored grocery stores. This fact, alongside widespread support for stronger transparency and accountability within the meat industry, should be a wake-up call for retailers and meat producers that humanewashing can backfire and damage consumer trust in not only products but in the producers and retailers themselves.

Farm Forward’s online survey was conducted by Data For Progress from June 23 to 25, 2023. The total sample size was 1,149 U.S. adults. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults (aged 18+).

A key goal of the project to move beyond factory farming in the U.S. should be to accelerate the enactment of state and local policy to hold the meat industry accountable for the harm it inflicts on people, animals, and the environment. To further this goal, Farm Forward is collaborating with Yale Law School’s CAFE Law and Policy Lab and other NGOs to develop innovative policy approaches that can be enacted at the state and municipal level to challenge factory farming practices. A coalition of nonprofits will work collaboratively with Yale law and other graduate students to research and understand modern legal and policy challenges for those working to challenge factory farming. The insights and findings generated by the students will complement and support existing policy efforts, providing valuable resources for activists, citizens, and policymakers at the state and local levels.

A critical feature of this work is the theory of change under which we’re operating: the complex problem of industrial animal farming will require a collective, diverse, and intersectional method of policy decision-making and reform, and no single justice area (e.g., environmental justice, labor rights, animal protection, or farmer advocacy) should be advanced at the sacrifice of another.

Like climate change and wealth inequality, factory farming is a wicked problem; its harms to people, animals, the climate and environment are varied, mutually reinforcing, and resistant to change; it doesn’t have a singular, let alone an easily identifiable solution. It’s a unique phenomenon that manifests itself politically, economically, and culturally and therefore requires a nuanced approach that isn’t reducible to only one framework or mode of understanding.

Moving beyond factory farming with public policy

Over the past ten years, the farmed animal protection movement has invested heavily in two strategies—alternative protein and corporate welfare campaigns. While these strategies have significant merit and should be pursued, they are not the only strategies available to the animal advocacy movement. An axiom of our collaboration with Yale Law School is that state and local policy specifically should be explored to meaningfully address the social costs of industrial animal agriculture. This is consistent with Farm Forward’s goal: to build the will, including political will, to end factory farming. To that end, numerous promising efforts across the U.S. should inspire optimism.

For example, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act late last year, which introduced a swath of new protections and regulations for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). More recently, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced the Transparency in Depopulation Act, which would “prevent federal funding from being used for some of the most inhumane methods of animal slaughter.” While policies of this sort are unlikely to become law in the near term, they galvanize meaningful attention to the issue at the highest level of government.

And in a surprising—and uplifting—move, the Supreme Court decided to uphold California’s Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale of pork from farming operations that use gestation crates for sows regardless of where in the U.S. the pork was produced.

Several promising policy proposals introduced or implemented outside of Washington DC also challenge the institutional power of CAFOs. One particularly exciting multi-state effort is the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), which pushes large institutions, like municipalities, to filter their food procurement through five domains: local economies, health, valued workforce, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. Values-based procurement policies of this type have been adopted by a number of cities across the U.S., from Los Angeles to Chicago to Boston.

Many other promising initiatives and developments are taking root across the country. Citizen activists and state lawmakers have proposed statewide CAFO moratoriums; controversial ag-gag laws have been struck down in a number of states; the US’ only octopus farm had the most controversial components of its operation halted; cities have proposed comprehensive plant-based procurement policies. In addition, consider all of the work being done by environmental justice groups and labor organizations (among many others) to oppose the political and economic power of CAFOs throughout the U.S.

Conclusion

Among the great number of diverse approaches and strategies employed by the farm animal protection movement today, advocating for robust social policy addressing the different dimensions of harm caused by CAFOs is undoubtedly among the most promising.

The harms of factory farming are not isolated to one group but rather are inflicted upon workers, farmers, animals, neighboring communities, the environment, the climate, and public health. This collaboration between Farm Forward, Yale, and other NGOs signifies a commitment to an intersectional approach to ending factory farming, which centers the importance of building diverse coalitions for the broader effort of building political will.

Last month, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD)—an institution designed to bolster consumer trust in advertising by investigating claims made by businesses—recommended that One Health Certified (OHC) discontinue its animal welfare claims.

The NAD’s ruling is a major victory for our efforts to fight humanewashing from objectionable certifications created by the meat industry.

In a market bursting at the seams with misleading certifications, this ruling is a welcome step toward more accountability and integrity among meat producers.

What is One Health Certified?

One Health Certified is the brainchild of one the largest U.S. chicken companies and is the meat industry’s most recent efforts to greenwash, humanewash, and healthwash factory-farmed products. OHC is one of several certification schemes at the center of Farm Forward’s humanewashing campaign since late 2020. OHC uses the language of the legitimate One Health concept to assert its ostensible superiority for animals, health, and the environment. However, OHC enshrines bottom-of-the-barrel industry practices, particularly concerning animal welfare. Contrary to the welfare practices consumers expect from such a certification, OHC allows high stocking densities for poultry, provides no environmental enrichment, and utilizes fast growth for poultry. By any reasonable definition, an OHC farm is still a factory farm.

Farm Forward’s 2021 consumer survey shows that consumers mistakenly believe OHC ensures higher welfare conditions than factory farming norms. We found that 30 percent of Americans incorrectly think that the OHC label signifies that birds are raised on pasture. And 42 percent incorrectly believe that the label signifies that animals were subject to no physical modifications.

Unsubstantiated Animal Welfare Claims

The NAD’s recommendation that OHC discontinue its animal welfare claims aligns with Farm Forward’s view that OHC was created to confuse conscientious consumers. According to the NAD’s analysis, OHC “provided no evidence that its animal welfare standards meet or exceed the highest industry standards for animal care….”

This isn’t the first time OHC has been called out for its dubious claims: in late 2021, national grocer Giant Eagle announced that it would phase out OHC chicken from all of its stores following a dialogue with Farm Forward and after a coalition of dozens of interested groups came together to produce a multi-sector critique of OHC’s standards.

Grocery stores across the U.S. are awash with misleading labels that prevent consumers from making choices at grocery stores that align with their values. Help stop this deception by signing our petition to ALDI, urging the chain to drop the deceptive OHC label.

Read the full Better Business Bureau ruling here.

In response to the New York Times’ recent deep dive into the harmful realities of the modern poultry industry, Farm Forward’s executive director, Andrew deCoriolis, penned a letter applauding the video series for “laying bare the nightmare that is the U.S. chicken industry.” And in a historic first, the letter introduced the word “humanewashing” to the Times’ readers, spotlighting how, for years, the poultry industry has systematically exploited the goodwill of consumers with misleading labels and claims including “all natural” and “humanely raised.”

Sandwiched between Farm Forward’s response and another thoughtful letter calling for change was a brief diatribe from the National Chicken Council (NCC)—the largest trade association for the chicken industry and one of the most notorious humanewashers out there. The NCC complained that the Times piece was merely propaganda intended to increase the price of chicken, offering the rebuttal: “The proper care of our chickens is not only an ethical obligation, but also makes good business sense.”

That is a rather stunning claim, given the NCC’s track record of deceiving consumers: In 2017, it rolled out the “Chicken Guarantees,” a set of industry-wide standards meant to assure consumers that meat chickens raised in the U.S. are not confined to cages and have not been given steroids or hormones. While likely true, these claims are deceptive: cages are not used to raise chickens for meat in the U.S., and federal law prohibits administering steroids or hormones to chickens raised for meat. The Chicken Guarantees add a bold check-mark to meat packaging offering consumers a false sense that standard practices have been certified as humane. This is akin to a hypothetical paint company stamping a “verified lead-free” label on its cans to paint them as somehow cleaner and greener, despite lead having been banned in paints since the 1970s.

And then there’s the NCC’s connection to One Health Certified (OHC)—one of the most egregiously misleading labels found on grocery shelves today. OHC trumpets a holistic set of standards, but in reality, the label can adorn poultry products that merely meet the standards established by NCC—which are essentially bottom-of-the-barrel practices. And given that NCC’s members constitute 95 percent of all chicken produced in the United States, these practices are nearly universal. The mastermind behind OHC, Mountaire Farms—whose CEO is the current vice chairman of the NCC—uses the label to obfuscate its abysmal environmental record, like its recent $200 million settlement for polluting the water of thousands of Delaware residents. Further, Mountaire has faced ongoing fines and violations for its abhorrent and dangerous working conditions.

Not even Earth Day is off-limits for the NCC, which co-opted the holiday this year with a webpage and a slew of infographics proclaiming that chicken is “climatarian diet-friendly.” Big Poultry’s myriad ills, from its enormous water usage and pollution to its public health nightmares like antibiotic misuse and pandemic potential, were apparently not worth mentioning.

The NCC’s business isn’t in sustainability or animal welfare; it’s in marketing products to consumers who care about sustainability and animal welfare. So when NCC leaders assert that treating chickens humanely makes “good business sense,” closer scrutiny reveals that what they mean is that making us believe chickens were treated humanely makes good business sense. After all, poultry companies get to rake in the profits without changing factory farming practices.

According to Farm Forward’s recent findings, they have largely been successful in that endeavor. American consumers are widely confused about the true meaning of welfare labels; for example, 30 percent of Americans incorrectly believe that OHC indicates that the animal was raised continuously on pasture. The reality, however, is that today’s certifications and marketing claims largely mask factory farmed products. Yet consumers expect otherwise—45 percent of Americans believe that OHC should mean the animal was raised on pasture.

We’re working to unmask the deception and create a more transparent food system. Join the movement to end humanewashing by signing up for our newsletter below.