Government agencies in charge of food labelling in both Canada and the United States have not legally defined the term “humane,” instead leaving it up to producers or third-party non-government bodies to decide. And in some cases, no one is checking on-site to ensure compliance anyway.

In Canada, claims made on meat labels are overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). They are known as “method of production” claims, the agency tells Corporate Knights, and depend on a party’s ability to show that the labels are “complete, truthful, and not misleading.” To substantiate these method-of-production claims on meat, though, producers need only to provide “valid documentation,” which according to CFIA means “anything on which information that is capable of being understood by a person, or read by a computer or other device, is recorded or marked.” Verifying compliance with labelling claims, the agency states, “would not typically be at the farm level but rather through documentation.”

“Nobody inspects farms,” says Camille Labchuk, lawyer and executive director of Canadian animal law organization Animal Justice. In fact, the treatment of animals on farms is not under the jurisdiction of the CFIA, which only oversees transport and slaughter.

In the United States, the process and standards for claims regarding animal handling on meat products is much the same. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) oversees meat labelling. To apply terms such as “humanely raised” on a product, a company must submit documentation to the FSIS. However, the process remains similarly hands-off, with companies needing only to submit a form, a label sketch and written proof of practices. Again, there are no on-site inspections to verify the truth behind the claims.

Non-binding (or non-existent) audits

“The only thing that the guidelines require is that the company include how it chooses to define humanely raised, either on the package itself or links to where a consumer can find that definition on the company’s website,” Zack Strong, senior attorney and acting director with the Animal Welfare Institute’s farmed animal program, told Sentient in 2024. In some cases, he adds, “humanely raised” can mean that an animal is not caged, or is fed a vegetarian diet, or that producers are simply meeting standard industry conditions.

In August 2024, the USDA updated its guidelines for meat labelling, encouraging third-party auditing.

In Canada, third-party auditing or non-government certification programs are also considered “acceptable manners to substantiate a method of production claim,” according to CFIA.

RELATED

How expensive eggs and dead chickens show the major problems in poultry production

Canada’s plan to phase out animal testing suffers a setback

Cooking the books: The magical math of ‘climate-friendly’ meat

Third-party certifications (which are used for some JBS, Tyson and Maple Leaf products) offer varying degrees of animal welfare standards, with some requiring different levels of on-site auditing. However, these programs – such as American Humane, Certified Humane, GreenCircle – are not legally enforced.

For example, GreenCircle’s standards state that sows be raised without gestation crates, which currently is above industry standard, while at the same time allowing for “market pigs [to be] raised in open pens,” which it notes in finer print is “like most pigs in North America.” Ironically, Maple Leaf’s Greenfield meat – certified by GreenCircle – doesn’t come from animals raised on fields at all.

In a statement to Corporate Knights, a spokesperson for Maple Leaf Foods says the company’s auditing programs for chickens and pigs labelled humanely raised “exceed the requirements” for the national voluntary codes of practice “and related Canadian Pork Excellence PigCARE and Chicken Farmers of Canada Animal Care programs.”

But the reality is that without clear, enforced standards and proper farm inspections, shoppers are left to decipher the true meaning behind these claims, making it difficult or nearly impossible to make informed choices about animal welfare before paying the premium price.

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance journalist covering food, farming, animal and environmental topics for Canadian media. She is also a correspondent for Sentient, covering culture and misinformation.

The post ‘Humanely raised’ meat claims often don’t mean much appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Many articles have indicated that, in addition to millions of birds dying from avian flu, infected flocks have widely been killed en masse in an attempt to contain its spread. The livestock industry euphemistically calls this killing of infected animals “depopulation,” and around 150 million birds have been depopulated since the current crisis began.

I have studied industrial livestock production for many years and have seen its myriad problems flash in and out of the media – such as greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, food-borne illnesses, labour exploitation and animal suffering. But it’s rare for the sector to stay in the media for long.

The unusually heavy media coverage of expensive eggs, depopulated chickens and avian flu has highlighted some of the deep problems and risks of modern poultry production. Unfortunately, however, important context and dynamics have been regularly omitted.

Unpacking key omissions helps to better understand both the nature of these chronic risks of infectious disease and the perilous response of the Trump administration.

The spotlight on avian flu

Multiple strains of avian flu chronically circulate within populations of both wild and domesticated birds. Avian flu is prone to frequent mutations, and occasionally some strains become more virulent and spill over across species.

In addition to the problems with avian flu in poultry production, recent media coverage has also highlighted the virus’s broader dangers. Avian flu is currently ravaging many wild animal species around the world, reaching into extremely remote places and even zoos.

In the United States, avian flu recently spilled over into cattle – causing widespread illness after a mutation enabled intra-species transmission.

Avian flu has also caused a small number of severe human illnesses in the United States (primarily workers in poultry operations). Although no human-to-human transmission is evident – a necessary condition for a pandemic – this potential remains a grave threat.

Key issues underplayed

Although the media coverage of egg prices, depopulated chickens and avian flu has cast a valuable spotlight on many aspects of modern poultry production, it has also tended to leave out some important elements.

Mentions in the media of many millions of chickens being killed to contain the spread of avian flu will surely sound jarring to some. But such figures pale in comparison to the 9.5 billion chickens slaughtered annually in the United States and the 76 billion slaughtered annually worldwide.

Poultry birds now comprise 70% of the total biomass of all birds on Earth. Most are produced in densely packed operations where reproduction, life and death have been greatly accelerated.

Modern chickens have been selectively bred to either put on weight (broilers) or produce eggs (layers) very quickly. Broilers reach slaughter weight in a mere six weeks. Layer hens produce nearly an egg a day for about a year or two before being slaughtered. These short life-cycles are rarely mentioned in coverage of depopulations.

The growing risk of avian flu mutations relate to both enormity of poultry bird populations – by far the biggest habitat for the virus – and the unhealthy conditions of life in large enclosures. According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, more than 97% of layers live in operations with at least 10,000 birds. More than 99% of broilers are grown in operations with annual sales of at least 100,000 birds.

This scale also relates to a question that has, with a few notable exceptions, received scant coverage: since infected populations cannot simply be shipped to the slaughterhouse, how are the birds actually killed?

A leading approach to depopulation is ventilation shutdown. This involves turning off the powerful fans needed to make the ambient conditions in large enclosures bearable and results in agonizing deaths.

Researchers are investigating ways to augment ventilation shutdown as part of a broader research agenda seeking to develop systematic ways to depopulate large operations. This agenda clearly illustrates that the livestock industry is acutely aware of the great risks of infectious-disease evolution within these spaces.

Undermining infectious-disease surveillance

In the 2024 election campaign, Republicans regularly pointed to high egg prices in efforts to highlight rising inflation. In early 2025, the continuing rise of egg prices has cast a glare on U.S. President Donald Trump’s failed promise to immediately solve inflation.

In response to scrutiny, the Trump administration initially tried to blame Biden for the depopulation of chickens. While such deflection might work for a time, Trump and his advisers realize they need a strategy to increase egg supplies.

This emerging strategy must be viewed in relation to Trump’s sweeping assault on state institutions and regulations – which includes undermining crucial capacity for infectious-disease surveillance. Trump made immediate cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and forced it to disengage with the World Health Organization. He has also promised big cuts to the National Institutes of Health.

In this context, it’s unsurprising that Trump is laying out a simple plan to increase the egg supply: rebuilding layer populations, reducing depopulations and trusting the livestock and pharmaceutical industries to find ways of containing avian flu – likely through vaccines and strengthened biosecurity.

It’s profoundly irrational to be weakening infectious-disease surveillance in the midst of the current avian flu crisis (and amid mounting infectious-disease risks more generally). It’s also hard to fathom how further empowering the leading actors in poultry production can be expected to resolve the risks of avian flu that are so bound up in the nature of modern production.

Pursuing this course might temporarily bring egg prices down, but it also inevitably means passing untold risks into the future.

Tony Weis is professor of geography and environment at Western University.

This story was first published by The Conversation. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Read the original article here.

The post How expensive eggs and dead chickens show the major problems in poultry production appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In the lead-up to Canada’s federal election this fall, the Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC) – an industry lobbying and marketing group that represents 2,800 chicken farmers – was busy promoting chicken as a climate solution. In an August 19 tweet, CFC pushed the idea that compared to the rest of the world, “Canadian chicken has one of the lowest carbon footprints of all.”

Around the same time, CFC released a poll by Abacus Data it had commissioned that found 82% of Canadians support the supply management system that chicken farming operates under. The industry group heralded the survey of 5,000 Canadians as proof that the “Canadian chicken sector is very popular heading into a federal election” and that “party support for the chicken sector will bolster the vote strength, attract opposition voters, and bring in swing voters.”

The tweet and survey were part of a larger effort by the chicken industry to push its products as the sustainable protein of choice for many Canadians. CFC first created a campaign called Let’s Talk Chicken to promote its Sustainability Excellence Commitment program a few years back. More recently, the group published a “Life Cycle Assessment” that claimed the carbon footprint of Canadian chicken decreased by 37% over the last four decades “due to major productivity gains and improvements in the feed to gain conversion ratio.”

But what exactly are these gains in productivity, and what does that feed conversion ratio mean for the environment? While raising chickens in our own country might sound wholesome on a food label, what, if anything, does that translate into for the animals and the planet?

Low-carbon poultry?

Research suggests that minimizing or forgoing meat consumption, in particular red meat, can be a key component to keeping climate chaos at bay. And polls show Canadians are taking that to heart, with one in four having considered cutting their beef consumption in the last year, according to a 2021 survey by the Agri-food Analytics Lab and Dalhousie University. However, as beef consumption in Canada has decreased in recent years, chicken consumption has boomed by almost 20 pounds per person since 1998. As of 2020, chicken is the most consumed meat in Canada. Of the nearly 834 million land animals slaughtered in Canada in 2019, around 90% of those are meat chickens. So how has CFC managed to make farming those hundreds of millions of animals more eco-efficient?

“It just means they are cramming more chickens into barns,” says Nicholas Carter, an environmental researcher and the co-founder of Plant Based Data.

Being small and monogastric (having one stomach rather than multiple methane-belching stomachs, as cows do) naturally lessens chickens’ impact. Chickens also require less food, water and space per animal. However, in an effort to boost both profit and efficiency, modern animal agriculture has become increasingly industrialized and intensified. Though the number of chicken farms in Canada has dropped since 1976, from more than 99,000 to fewer than 3,000, the average number of chickens per farm has increased sevenfold, from fewer than 900 to more than 6,000 today. Growing a greater number of animals faster for maximum yield has been the central goal. This increase in efficiency has brought with it an additional bonus: a reduced carbon footprint. This is thanks to faster-growing birds who require less food and water and produce less waste over their shorter life-spans. Canadian chicken farmers now claim to have a smaller carbon footprint than the majority of the world’s chicken farmers.

Despite efficiency gains made by using fast-growing birds, chickens remain the greatest consumers of feed crops such as soy, corn and other grains on the planet, according to WWF, requiring copious amounts of land and water. The CFC acknowledges that “feed production contributes to half of the total carbon footprint” and that “GHG emissions are mainly caused by fertilizers and diesel use to produce feed crops.” The association also points out that 62% of the entire sector’s total energy use comes from renewable sources, but that’s not because barns are powered by solar panels. The group clarifies that “chicken feed accounts for the bulk of renewable energy consumption” – meaning the grains being fed to chickens are being counted as a renewable energy source for the sector because the sun that helps the crops used as chicken feed grow is a renewable input.

Mounting calls for better chicken

Sylvain Charlebois, the director of Dalhousie University’s Agri-food Analytics Lab, says public pressure and changing expectations have forced the chicken industry to put more focus on sustainability. But, he adds, “more Canadians are conflicted these days. While they benefit from industrialized farming, they are increasingly questioning farming methods and how their food is made.”

And the chicken industry is aware of that tension in the mindset of Canadian consumers. But instead of making meaningful change, says Camille Labchuk, an animal rights lawyer and the director of Animal Justice, the industry has “consistently tried to greenwash and humane-wash their cruel processes.”
There have been international efforts made by animal advocates to push individual businesses to switch to slower-growing chickens by 2024 through an initiative called the Better Chicken Commitment. More than 200 companies, including Nestlé, Campbell’s, Burger King and Starbucks, have signed on to the commitment, but compared to the U.S., Canadian companies have been slow to join the program.

Even so, in an email to Corporate Knights, the CFC claims slower-growing chickens would have a greater impact on the environment, requiring more water and feed and producing more waste. Thus, it appears that when it comes to chicken meat production, environmental efficiency is at direct odds with animal welfare.

Canadian animal welfare laws include exemptions for standard farming practices. Instead of being overseen by the government, the daily treatment of animals on farms is governed by a voluntary code of practice created by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), a group mainly made up of industry stakeholders. The CFC claims farmers are held accountable by third-party audits, but as Labchuk explains, audits are industry-controlled, not conducted by the government or animal welfare organizations. “Any private audits the chicken industry conducts on itself are meaningless, and a poor substitute for public oversight.”

Is the chicken local?

CFC’s Raised by a Canadian Farmer marketing campaign was developed to push back against public concerns around conditions on “factory farms,” a term commonly used to refer to large, industrialized facilities raising animals for food. “Over 90% of Canadian chicken farms are family owned and operated,” says the CFC, implying that family-owned farms cannot be factory farms, and leaving out the huge spike in the average number of chickens per farm in Canada in recent decades.

Though the eat-local trend has gained traction in recent years among conscious consumers looking to support Canadian farmers, sourcing animal meat locally “has very little impact on the actual environmental footprint,” says Carter, adding there are much better sources of eco-friendly protein, such as beans and peas. For example, chicken meat production emits about six kilograms of greenhouse gases per serving, whereas production of beans – another high-protein food grown in abundance in Canada – emits around one to two kilograms per serving. So while chicken has a smaller carbon footprint than beef, many suggest a total shift away from all industrial animal farming will be necessary for the world to reach net-zero.

In the spring, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Marie-Claude Bibeau announced new federal funding to help Canadian chicken producers become even more efficient. The program will provide nearly $350 million in funds over 10 years, in part to help chicken farmers increase efficiency, productivity and environmental sustainability. Though part of the program’s mandate is also to respond “to consumer preferences,” including “improving animal welfare,” there is no indication that would mean increasing standards beyond existing NFACC codes.

Though this multimillion-dollar investment is likely to shrink the carbon footprint of the protein we eat, through improvements in areas such as lighting and heating efficiency, Carter says it is also likely to lead to greater animal welfare concerns. “I don’t think most Canadians want more factory farming, more intensive animal agriculture,” he says, “and that’s really how the industry is getting more efficient.”

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also a co-host of the Canadian animal law podcast Paw & Order.

The post Are sustainable poultry claims all they’re cracked up to be? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Early numbers suggest noteworthy increases in the purchase of plant-based foods during the pandemic. New vegan products are being brought to market almost weekly. And advancements in cultured “clean” meat may soon result in mass production.

These technological innovations mean that meat can be created for those who wish to consume it without needing to kill animals. Diverse investors, including Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Leonardo DiCaprio and leaders of major agribusinesses, recognize the opportunity to more efficiently and sustainably produce products. As a result, we will see a serious decline — if not the complete elimination — of industrial animal agriculture.

Given its significant contributions to climate change and the depth and breadth of the animal suffering it causes, the demise of factory farming will have many social benefits. New humane jobs will be created in urban areas developing food, undoubtedly. But what will happen to rural economies and to farmed animals?

Fewer but happier animals

The end of factory farming will lay the foundation for a rural resurgence and the development of more just and sustainable communities. And there will be fewer but healthier and happier animals not destined for slaughterhouses.

1. There will be a revival and reshaping of family farms.

Factory farming has led to a steep and continuous decline in the number of family farms. In contrast to the rigid corporatized and mechanized status quo, the end of industrial animal agriculture will be a boon for family farming and a meaningful chance to diversify.

Canada is already a world leader in pulse proteins that include lentils and chickpeas. There will be new demand for organic and veganic farming, more plant-based crops and the ingredients needed for the new lab-created products. Some consumers may still want meat from dead animals, so small-scale animal farming may find a market.

Boutique dining tourism that brings people onto farms and face-to-face with food cultivation could also thrive. Ideally, the well-being of the migrant workers who make so much fruit and vegetable farming possible will be taken much more seriously, too. This is sorely needed.

2. Green care will be expanded.

The term green care isn’t well known yet, but it makes sense: it refers to a range of organized and formal beneficial interactions with nature. Animal-assisted therapy, therapeutic horticulture and care farms are all examples of green care.

Farms can be re-imagined as places for children’s and adults’ learning, health care and job training. This will both provide valuable services and generate new green and humane jobs of different kinds in rural communities.

Some of these farms already exist, and normally involve out-of-pocket fees in countries like Canada. The removal of factory farms from the rural economy will create new opportunities to more deliberately and thoughtfully expand green care, regulate it and integrate it with existing education, health care and One Health programs akin to what is being done in northern Europe. This would make it more accessible, diverse and equitable.

3. Farm animals will be raised for pleasure.

Many people already work and interact with horses for leisure, sport, companionship and sheer joy. Some similar opportunities exist for farmed animals like chickens, rabbits, goats, pigs, cattle and sheep.

Sub-cultures can celebrate and showcase heritage breeds, for example, and the beauty of these animals — without the subsequent death sentence.

More farms may also become non-profit sanctuaries where animals can flourish without any expectations.

4. Some rural spaces will be rewilded.

As British writer George Monbiot and others have argued, there are many environmental reasons to allow some areas to regenerate and be repopulated with native plant and animal species.

Known as rewilding, it could allow for certain carefully planned opportunities for expanded recreation and learning in the country (hiking, birding) and some modest, strategic eco-tourism, including Indigenous-led initiatives and partnerships.

But definitively returning some land to other species is one small way to begin to make amends for the immense damage we have done to animal families, cultures and habitats.

Sustainable, vibrant spaces

In contrast to today’s large, windowless facilities that intensively confine hundreds of millions of animals indoors and litter Canada’s rural landscapes, rural regions would become more sustainable and vibrant spaces for humans and animals to thrive and co-exist.

Rather than harming rural economies, the end of factory farming is an invitation to revive reciprocal practices as well as develop compelling new possibilities rooted in interspecies respect. It is a clear opportunity to create new income sources and humane jobs for diverse people.

After factory farming, we will all be better off.

Kendra Coulter, Chancellor’s Chair for Research Excellence; Chair of the Labour Studies Department; Member of the Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists; Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Brock University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Corporate animal agriculture’s days are numbered. What comes next? appeared first on Corporate Knights.