By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The meat industry and its proponents worked hard in 2024 - not only to increase sales, but also to rebrand and remain relevant. While overwhelming climate science continues to point out the harmful impacts of animal agriculture, and plant-based competitors continue to challenge the status quo, meat promoters stepped up this year, crafting and perpetuating clever narratives to keep consumers hooked.

"Amidst a climate crisis driven in no small part by agriculture, there is a growing interest in healthy, sustainable food," Jennifer Molidor, senior food campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity, tells Sentient. "The industry has responded by flooding climate conferences with lobbyists promoting meat and dairy - in full force."

And that's not all. From promoting "beneficial" regenerative meat, to criticizing "ultra processed" plants, to promoting cow fat for skin care, to manipulating data, Big Meat sidestepped accountability to keep consumers coming back in 2024.

Disinformation Trend #1: Meat Is 'Natural'

One of the more popular PR messages regarding meat in 2024 was that animal products are healthier and more "natural" compared to "ultra processed" plant-based meat alternatives.

This messaging is not new. It's years in the making, with full-page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal back in 2021, and a $5 million Super Bowl commercial in 2020. Backed by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the ads vilified newly popular "fake meats" as full of "real chemicals," highlighting "scary" ingredients like methylcellulose - a generally harmless compound used in many foods.

CCF is led by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman, and is supported by "restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers," according to its website. Forbes once described it as a front group for meat, tobacco and alcohol companies.

The narrative of "natural" meat versus "processed" plants persisted into 2024. The marketing tactic conveniently ignores the fact that 99 percent of animals raised for food in the U.S. are factory farmed in inherently unnatural conditions, and undergo much processing to become meat, dairy and eggs.

But this natural meat fantasy didn't stop at food in 2024, spreading into lifestyle content, and feeding into a growing anti-technology, off-the-grid (though often still on YouTube), homesteading, carnivore and tradwife trend. Raw milk surged in popularity in 2024, as did eating raw meat, and using cow fat for skin care.

The FDA, CDC and New York State Department of Health put out statements this year warning of the health risks of consuming raw milk, and experts have taken to the media to warn of the risks associated with the carnivore diet, and with eating uncooked meat. Dermatology experts also told Sentient that the benefits of beef fat for the skin are minimal.

Though plant-based meat alternatives vary greatly when it comes to nutritional profiles, they are generally considered healthy. In fact, a 2024 review published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology found that risk factors for heart disease, such as LDL cholesterol and body weight, showed improvement when animal-based meats were substituted with plant-based meat alternatives.

Disinformation Trend #2: Meat Is 'Eco-Friendly'

Another pervasive meat message in 2024 was that beef - the highest-emitting meat - can somehow be good for the environment so long as raised on a farm that is regenerative, eco-friendly, carbon neutral or some other variation of such terms.

Regenerative agriculture, particularly holistic grazing, promises an alternative to our current food system that incorporates livestock in a way that can regenerate depleted soils. Such promises, however, fall short when it comes to actually curbing climate pollution.

Though regenerative agriculture aims to "bring back bovines," as described in the 2023 documentary Common Ground, this grouping of grass-fed cattle with wild ruminants like bison is not accurate - at least as far as the environment is concerned. "That's like comparing apples to oranges," Molidor told Sentient earlier this year. While there is some debate about this, bison tend to graze over further distances in ways that cause less damage to plants and waterways. Cattle, on the other hand, tend to stick close together and eat just one type of plant until it's gone.

The regenerative movement - which does offer some benefits for soil health - has also since been co-opted by the industrialized meat industry. A 2024 study by New Climate Institute found that 24 of the world's top 30 food and beverage producers, including Cargill, Danone and Fonterra, refer to regenerative agriculture in their sustainability communication.

That said, 2024 also saw a possible win in the fight against misleading claims about climate-friendly meat, with Tyson Food's Brazen Beef brand potentially no longer available for sale. After the U.S. Department of Agriculture rolled out a new "climate-friendly" beef label last year, Tyson soon rolled out its own version: Brazen Beef. Journalists and academics were quick to note serious issues with the claims on the product's label, particularly the claim (with no data in support) of a 10 percent reduction in emissions.

"In order to claim a 10 percent reduction, you need to establish scientifically a baseline that everyone agrees is the common amount that beef produces," New York University environmental scientist Matthew Hayek told Corporate Knights Magazine. "There doesn't seem to be any data that the company itself, or the government who it created that certification in conjunction with, is able to provide."

Tyson was subsequently sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for misleading consumers about its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The suit asked the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to ban Tyson from making "false or misleading marketing claims." It remains before the court.

At the time this story was published, the webpage for Brazen Meats was not functioning, and the product appeared unavailable for sale, raising questions about the future of the brand. Sentient contacted Tyson about the status of the Brazen line, but did not receive a response by email. We also called Tyson's consumer relations hotline, and were told by the representative, "I don't see anything active with that name." It also appears that a New Jersey meat packer that sold Brazen Beef no longer lists the product on its website.

Caroline Leary, chief operating officer and general counsel for EWG tells Sentient that despite the Brazen Meats webpage being down, the group "remains committed to holding Tyson accountable, by demanding transparency to ensure that consumers are not deceived by false promises of sustainability," which still exist elsewhere on its site.

Disinformation Trend #3: Meat Feeds the World

Inflation and food insecurity were also pressing issues in 2024. Meat, dairy and egg industries were there to capitalize, particularly at climate conferences held throughout the year.

At COP28 last spring for example, the Guardian reports that meat lobbyists "celebrated the cut-through of their message that industrial animal agriculture has an important role to play in addressing global hunger." It adds that U.S. Pork Board representative Jamie Burr also stated that COPs provide an opportunity for U.S. agriculture groups to show how they "feed the world."

At COP29 last month, the strategy was the same, according to a report by DeSmog. Documents produced by the industry-funded Global Meat Alliance, obtained by DeSmog, encouraged members "to stick to key comms messages, including the idea that meat is beneficial to the environment and will help to 'feed the world.'"

A spokesperson for the Global Alliance for the Future of Food told the Guardian in April that the idea that industrial agriculture is "critical to address hunger" is one of the greatest myths used by the industry to fend off criticism. Animal agriculture in fact contributes to world hunger, due to the inefficient use of arable land and resources to grow crops for animals, instead of people. Not only that, but the industry's framing around food insecurity ignores how many climate researchers limit "eat less meat" recommendations to global north populations like the U.S., who consume far more than the global average. Studies suggest that food insecurity could actually be addressed, in-part, by transitioning to a more plant-based food system. Reducing the massive amount of land needed to grow food to feed livestock could lead to more crops being fed directly to people. One study theorizes that if everyone in the U.S. went vegan, an additional 350 million people could be fed.

Disinformation Trend #4: Trustworthy Academic Research Supports Meat

The year 2024 also saw the meat sector lean even further into academia as a means to appear credible and sustainable.

As environmental scientist Jonathan Foley writes for Project Drawdown: "The livestock industry has spent enormous sums telling us fictitious stories of 'environmentally-friendly' beef," including, he notes, "documentaries, think tanks, university labs, and social media influencer campaigns touting so-called 'solutions' to beef's environmental footprint."

In 2023, the Guardian exposed The Master of Beef Advocacy, or "MBA" program, created by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, to help meat promoters influence and educate the public on the "sustainability" of beef. That same year, the National Pork Board funded a nearly $8.5 million program with researchers from a variety of U.S. universities, to research and improve the industry's reputation by boosting public "trust" in pork factory farms. And the year prior, The New York Times exposed how the UC Davis Clear Center did not disclose just how much industry funding it received to promote the environmental friendliness of meat and dairy, under the guise of public sector science.

In 2024, the meat industry took this method of information manipulation a step further, targeting another major competitor: cultivated meat. Once again backed by Richard Berman, another "think tank" was created, the ironically named Center for the Environment and Welfare, this time under the guise of helping "consumers, companies, and stakeholders navigate issues related to sustainability and animal welfare." In 2024, the group conducted "research" and published media op-eds to thwart the progress of cultivated meat.

The Bottom Line

In 2024, the meat industry's aggressive rebranding efforts, fueled by clever messaging and industry-backed research, sought to counteract competition from more sustainable plant-based alternatives.

As the inevitable impacts of climate change - along with other issues like bird flu - usher us into 2025, "it's going to be increasingly difficult," Molidor says, "for the meat and dairy lobby to rebrand their way out of these serious environmental and human harms."


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

CLARIFICATION: In the initial release of this story, the photo caption included a typo that resulted in an unintentional racial slur. In discussions with every staff member involved in the story, it was clearly a typing error, with no intention of including an offensive term. We deeply apologize for the error. (9:35 a.m. CST, June 23, 2025

From poultry to beer, Minnesota has an avid interest in producing food with ingredients and practices mindful of the state's water resources and the latest recipients of specialized grants are taking charge.

The grants were awarded by the "Continuous Living Cover" program under the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Food manufacturers and others in the supply chain use the funds to develop larger markets for crops that help stabilize the soil in which they are planted.

Sandy Boss Febbo, co-owner of Bang Brewing in St. Paul, said their grant allows them to use more "Kernza," a sustainable alternative to wheat. She called it a "beautiful grain."

"Once we tried it and saw how well it performs in beer and what it lends to beer flavor profiles, we were hooked," Boss Febbo explained.

Boss Febbo pointed out crops like Kernza have root systems that keep nitrates from flowing into waterways, preventing algae blooms and providing other environmental benefits. One catch is Kernza is more expensive than traditional beer ingredients. This legislative session, Minnesota lawmakers approved $450,000 for future grants under the cover crop program.

Boss Febbo noted the state aid is not just for the processing of Kernza at her brewery. Marketing is a key strategy as well. Bang Brewing plans to retrofit a van with a mobile tap setup so they can travel to licensed events around Minnesota and spread the word about this largely unknown crop.

"Agricultural practices have a massive impact on the health of our land and water," Boss Febbo emphasized. "To bring that message, to get more people involved and more people supporting, that is really our goal."

According to program backer Friends of the Mississippi River, other grantees include a hazelnut company, as well as a farm raising chickens on forested pastures. The farm will also use its grant money to help market its product to schools, retailers and restaurants across Minnesota.

With more than 95,000 farms, Missouri ranks among the top farming states in the nation. Now, a national agriculture group is warning that bills moving through Congress could hurt rural communities.
According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Senate's reconciliation bill, sometimes called "The Big Beautiful Bill Act," would deepen hunger and hinder small farmers. At the same time, the group contends the House's 2026 spending plan slashes funding for conservation, research and local food programs.

Mike Lavender, the coalition's policy director, said the consequences of these cuts will be felt directly by those working the land.

"These cuts, even to relatively small programs, are going to mean that fewer farmers have access to resources and information that help them have a successful livelihood, help their business work and help them be successful in providing for their family," he said.

Supporters have said the bills promote responsible budgeting by cutting spending and boosting efficiency. The Senate's agriculture bill awaits full debate, while the House's 2026 funding bill has cleared committee.

Nearly 90% of Missouri's farms are family-owned. Lavender said his organization has been working closely with members of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee to make sure they understand the importance of these programs for farmers across the country.

"Don't do what the House did. Don't undercut farmers, don't undercut rural communities by reducing funding for these programs," he said, "but rather they deliver funding for these programs based on demand, and we know there's a high demand and a high need for these programs across the country."

Lavender added that the 2026 spending bill has "one bright spot" in its support for direct purchases from local producers, but he said that's overshadowed by cuts that hurt those very farmers.


get more stories like this via email

By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Missouri News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

An estimated 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. live in what the government calls Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. But what exactly makes something a CAFO, and are they the same as factory farms? Generally speaking, CAFOs are large industrial facilities where hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of farmed animals are densely packed in sheds or feed yards. They're an example of what's also called intensive farming, in which the goal is to produce the maximum amount of product using the least amount of physical space.maximum amount of product using the least amount of physical space.

"They work like an industry," John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, tells Sentient. "The basic characteristics of an industrial operation is to specialize. You specialize in just doing one thing, so you can do it more effectively. And once you specialize, then you can routinize the process. And once you routinize, you can mechanize, and once you mechanize, then you simplify the whole production process, so that you can consolidate into larger and larger operations."

The argument for farming more like an industrialized factory came from agriculture researchers in the mid-20th century, according to agricultural economist Jayson Lusk, and it wasn't seen as a bad thing. Getting bigger was a way for farms to become more efficient and, therefore, more economically sustainable. Unfortunately, that efficiency comes with a multitude of tradeoffs, for animals, workers and the environment.

What Is a CAFO?

The term "CAFO" was created by the U.S. government in the 1970s as part of a federal effort to reduce water pollution. It began in 1972, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act. This law authorized the EPA to regulate point source pollution, or water pollution that comes from a single identifiable source; while the law didn't include the acronym "CAFO," it did mention "concentrated animal feeding operations" as an example of point source pollution.

Ikerd says the amount of water pollution a farm emits is directly tied to how densely concentrated the animals on the farm are.

"If you have the animals dispersed out across the land, as they were before we had CAFOs, then you're not concentrating the waste in one place," Ikerd says. "When you concentrate the animals, then you concentrate the manure, and the urine and all the waste from the animals."

In 1974, the EPA formalized and expanded upon this designation, issuing a rule that defined CAFOs as a subset of AFOs, or (non-concentrated) animal feeding operations.

The difference between an AFO and a CAFO is important, as CAFOs are subject to more stringent regulations.

AFOs vs. CAFOs

The size designation of any given AFO depends on a number of factors, the primary one being the number of animals in the facility and the species of animal in question. For instance, a dairy AFO is considered large (and therefore a CAFO) if it has over 700 dairy cows; a turkey AFO, meanwhile, needs 55,000 or more turkeys to qualify as a CAFO.

There are a few other factors that determine whether a facility qualifies as a CAFO. With pig farms, the weight of the animal is taken into consideration. On chicken farms, the size designation depends on whether the birds are being farmed for meat or eggs.

Manure Processing

There's another important factor in determining whether or not a farm qualifies as a CAFO, and that's the manner in which it processes and stores manure. This is because manure storage plays a big role in determining how much water pollution a CAFO creates, and managing water pollution was the government's impetus for coining the term "CAFO" in the first place.

Each year, industrial livestock operations create a staggering amount of manure and other farm animal waste; 941 billion pounds, according to a Food and Water Watch report from 2024.

For poultry farms, the threshold to qualify as medium- or large-sized is lower if the facility uses liquid manure handling systems, as these systems are more prone to leakage, and thus polluting nearby waterways, than dry systems.

Finally, the director of the EPA has the authority to designate individual facilities as CAFOs on a case-by-case basis, should they determine that the facility in question is a significant contributor to water pollution.

Are CAFOs the Same as Factory Farms?

Unlike "CAFO," the term "factory farm" isn't a legal term with a statutory definition. It's more of a general concept that's used colloquially to describe CAFO-like facilities.

Merriam-Webster defines a factory farm as one in which "large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost." That's a simpler, less specific and potentially more expansive definition than the government's definition of a CAFO; depending on how one interprets the word "large," it's easy to imagine a facility that meets the dictionary definition of factory farm but doesn't technically qualify as a CAFO.

Ikerd, however, defines "factory farm" a bit differently. He says that it's a "farming operation that basically functions like a factory."

"You put [the animals] into this factory-like setting, and then you apply certain routine procedures to them that are specified by the people that are contracting with them," Ikerd says. "And then you come out with a finished product on the other end, whether that's meat, or milk or eggs."

CAFOs, by the Numbers

According to the EPA's latest numbers, there are 21,179 CAFOs in the United States.

Most U.S. states have at least one CAFO, but they're not evenly distributed across the country. Iowa is home to the most CAFOs (around 4,025), and another five states have over 1,000 CAFOs in their borders. The majority of states (28) have between 100 and 1,000 CAFOs, while a small handful have under 10.

How CAFOs Pollute the Water

CAFOs generate an estimated 941 billion pounds of manure each year, and dealing with that manure is a major challenge for farm operators. Typically, it's either stored on-site in a lagoon or similar structure until it can be sprayed onto nearby crops for use as untreated fertilizer.

Nutrient Runoff

Manure lagoons can be prone to leaks and malfunctions, especially during storms, and even a light rain can wash the fertilizer on cropland into nearby rivers, lakes and streams. This is what's known as nutrient runoff, and it's especially common when manure is overapplied as fertilizer, which Ikerd says is common on CAFOs.

Algal Blooms

The impacts of CAFO-sourced water pollution has severe consequences for humans, animals and the environment. Along with other pollution, it leads to harmful algal blooms, an overgrowth of algae that can cause mass fish die-offs and extensive damage to aquatic ecosystems. Harmful algal blooms can also contaminate drinking and recreational water, and have been linked to at least one fatal case of paralytic shellfish poisoning in a human.

Disease Risk & Antibiotic Resistance

Livestock manure can also contain infectious bacteria, such as E.coli and salmonella, that can end up in the air and water nearby CAFOs, and even nearby fruit and vegetable farms.

The antibiotics that farmers administer to animals on CAFOs are also fueling the world's antibiotic resistance problem, a public health threat that kills over one million people every year.

How Are CAFOs Regulated?

Facilities that meet the government's definition of a CAFO have to abide by a few modest requirements relating to its manure and waste management.

First, any CAFO that discharges pollutants into waters of the United States - a legal term that we'll discuss in a moment - is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These permits place limits on the amount and type of pollutants that the CAFO in question is allowed to discharge. The EPA defines a pollutant as "any industrial, municipal and agricultural waste."

Second, any CAFOs with a NPDES permit - and all large CAFOs, regardless of whether they have a permit - must present the EPA with a nutrient management plan. This is simply a description of the procedures the CAFO will use to manage the manure, animal parts, wastewater and other potential pollutants it produces, and ensure that they don't contaminate nearby water in excess of the limits imposed by the NPDES.

Environmental Loopholes to CAFO Regulation

There are some loopholes in this system. The first concerns which types of waterways a CAFO isn't allowed to discharge pollutants into without a permit. EPA rules use the phrase "waters of the United States" (WOTUS), a legal designation created by the Clean Water Act that's been subject to significant litigation and modification over the decades, most recently in 2023.

The nuances of WOTUS designations are incredibly complex and technical, but broadly speaking, the term covers most major and permanent waterways while excluding some smaller, unofficial and impermanent ones.

As a result, there are some CAFOs that don't need to obtain an NPDES permit, or abide by any limits that such a permit would impose. CAFOs that discharge their waste into non-WOTUS designated waterways are exempt from permitting, and so are those whose waste indirectly ends up in waterways. This latter category includes farms that store their manure in lagoons or apply it as untreated fertilizer to crops.

This might sound like a small loophole, but it has enormous implications. According to the EPA's own data, less than one-third of all CAFOs in the U.S. have an NPDES permit. In Iowa, the state with the most CAFOs, less than four percent are NPDES-permitted.

If CAFOs violate the terms of their NPDES permit - and they often do - the EPA can fine them. But this brings us to another problem with the regulatory framework around CAFOs: When the water is polluted, it's tough to figure out exactly where that pollution came from.

"It's very difficult to prove a violation, and link a violation to a particular CAFO," Ikerd explains. "If you've got pollution in a stream, it's very hard to bring that back to one particular operation. So you've got to go through the process of saying, 'it came from this particular operation rather than another,' and that's really made it difficult to enforce."

Some states have created their own permitting regimes for CAFOs that go above and beyond the EPA's requirements. Oregon, for instance, allows its state environmental agency to require NPDES permits for all enclosed animal farms, regardless of their size. As a result, the state has issued more than twice as many NPDES permits as there are CAFOs within its borders.

Some Community Groups Are Pushing Back on New CAFOs

The rising number of CAFOs in the United States are driven by a growing global population with a massive appetite for cheap meat. But a relatively new phenomenon is emerging in communities across the United States: small groups of residents who oppose the construction of new CAFOs are working together to block factory farm expansion. And some of them, like one that formed in Linn County, Oregon, are even finding success. Of course, it's highly unlikely that the CAFO industry will be put out of business anytime soon, but still, the nascent anti-factory farm movement is one to watch.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email