Archive: Farmed Animals

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is extremely disappointed by the revised meat and poultry guidelines released yesterday by the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Although the USDA touts that these updated guidelines will protect consumers from “false and misleading labels,” AWI believes that the department should require—not merely “strongly encourage”—companies to use independent third-party certifiers to substantiate claims such as “humanely raised,” “pasture raised,” and “raised without antibiotics.”

“While the revised guidelines are a small step in the right direction, they remain insufficient to combat misleading label claims used to market meat and poultry products,” said Zack Strong, acting director and senior attorney for AWI’s Farmed Animal Program. “When consumers see claims such as ‘humanely raised,’ they expect that the animals involved received better care than the industry status quo. The USDA continues to allow companies to essentially make up their own definitions with no repercussions—harming animals, consumers, and higher-welfare farmers.”

AWI has issued multiple reports over the last decade documenting how the USDA routinely allows producers to manipulate the system by making higher-welfare claims on their packages and charging a premium without improving the treatment of animals raised under their care.

Last year, a group of US senators sent a letter urging the department to fulfill its obligation under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to protect the public from misleading food labels. The letter cited a recent AWI report, which found that 85% of analyzed animal welfare claims on meat and poultry products lacked adequate substantiation.

In 2016, AWI petitioned the FSIS to clarify the “free range” claim beyond “continuous, free access to the outside” which has been interpreted to mean anything from birds having easy access to large, grassy fields to birds crammed indoors with only a small exit onto a patch of bare concrete outside. Now, more than eight years later, the FSIS has responded to AWI’s petition by refusing to change the definition of “free range.”

The FSIS did more clearly define “pasture raised” in its updated guidelines, responding to a petition filed by Perdue Farms and supported by AWI. Under the guidelines, pasture raised now means that the majority of an animal’s life was spent on “pasture” (i.e., land mostly “rooted in vegetative cover with grass or other plants”). However, the FSIS still does not require companies to submit specific documentation demonstrating compliance with the new definition. Instead, the agency only strongly encourages producers to do so.

Similarly, companies are only strongly encouraged—not required—to support “raised without antibiotics” claims by instituting their own sampling program to test for antibiotics or using a third-party certifier, despite recent sampling by the FSIS that found antibiotic residues in about 20% of cattle destined for the “raised without antibiotics market.” The agency notified the companies of its findings but did not release their names.

Overall, the updated guidelines continue to allow companies to use their own documentation to substantiate claims instead of using independent third-party certifiers, such as Animal Welfare Approved, Global Animal Partnership, and Certified Humane, which adhere to higher, more holistic standards. For instance, producers who submit a simple statement to the FSIS that their animals were fed vegetarian diets are entitled to use the label “humanely raised.”

According to AWI’s research, however, a majority of consumers who frequently purchase meat or poultry products believe that producers should not be allowed to set their own definitions for claims about how farm animals are raised and that farms should be inspected to verify such claims.

“The USDA’s updated guidelines are largely meaningless in effecting real change,” concluded Strong.

To help consumers avoid contributing to animal suffering, AWI publishes “A Consumer’s Guide to Food Labels and Animal Welfare.”

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is pleased that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards Council has rejected an appeal filed by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and other national animal agriculture groups that would have prevented a sprinkler requirement for certain industrial animal agriculture facilities from being included in the upcoming 2025 edition of NFPA 150, Fire and Life Safety in Animal Housing Facilities Code.

In January, the NFPA Technical Committee on Animal Housing—which oversees development and revisions of NFPA 150—took an important step toward strengthening protections for farmed animals by requiring sprinkler systems in medium- to large-sized commercial agriculture facilities in states or localities in which the code has been adopted.

As of 2025 in these jurisdictions, medium- to large-sized commercial facilities that are newly built or undergoing major construction would be required to install sprinkler systems, unless exempted by a local fire authority. Depending on the species and size of the animals at the farm, this would cover buildings housing anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of animals or more.

For nearly a year, the NPPC and its allies have fought vociferously to remove this lifesaving sprinkler requirement from the 2025 code. Following approval of the requirement in January, industry representatives filed a motion to have the language stricken, which failed in a vote of 161–210 at the NFPA’s annual Technical Meeting in June. In a last-ditch effort, the groups filed an appeal, which AWI opposed. The appeal was denied Friday.

“The sad irony is that the industry’s efforts to thwart progress on strengthening fire protections on farms have taken place during a year that will likely be one of the deadliest for animals in barn fires in at least a decade,” said Allie Granger, policy advisor for AWI’s Farmed Animal Program. “In fact, in the short time between the NFPA’s Technical Meeting and the rejection of this appeal, five fires have occurred on large commercial farms, killing tens of thousands of animals.”

In total, more than 8.2 million farmed animals have been killed in fires since 2013, when AWI began tracking these statistics.

“Despite repeated efforts by the NPPC and other groups to overturn the results of the code development process, raise doubt about the need for sprinklers in large facilities, and downplay the deadly problem of fires within their industries, the NFPA Standards Council has upheld this requirement in the 2025 code,” Granger said. “We look forward to continuing to work with the NFPA to further strengthen protections for the billions of farmed animals nationwide who are at risk of dying in barn fires.”

More than 1.5 million farmed animals perished in barn fires in 2024, accounting for 60% of the deaths reported in the last three years, according to an Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) report released today.

The report’s third edition tallies the number of animals killed in these incidents from 2022 through 2024. Last year saw the largest number of animal deaths from a single barn fire in more than a decade: 1.2 million hens in Illinois. Additionally, an exceptionally large number of cattle died in barn fires during the last three years, due primarily to a single 2022 fire at a Texas dairy operation that killed 18,000 cows. This was the deadliest reported fire involving cattle since AWI began tracking barn fires in 2013.

All told, at least 8.3 million farmed animals have died in barn fires in the last 12 years, but the real death toll could be substantially higher. Fire departments and municipalities are not required to report the number of animals killed in fires, and media reports result in an incomplete picture, demonstrating the need for more consistent reporting requirements and a centralized mechanism for tracking animal fatalities.

Compared to other animals living in confinement, farmed animals in the United States receive considerably fewer protections—they are excluded from minimum standards of care under the federal Animal Welfare Act, for instance—and there are no federal laws specifically designed to protect them from barn fires. Only five states have adopted the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 150, Fire and Life Safety in Animal Housing Facilities Code, a voluntary code that offers the most comprehensive level of fire protection for farmed animals while they are on farms. For the first time, under the 2025 edition of the code—which would need to be adopted by state or local jurisdictions to take effect—medium- to large-sized commercial facilities that are newly built or undergoing major construction are required to install sprinkler systems, unless exempted by a local fire authority.

No farm is immune from the devastation that a barn fire can bring; incidents range in size from several animal deaths at small, family-owned farms and backyard barns to large-scale fires at industrial facilities that kill hundreds of thousands of animals. It is clear, however that the high death toll is being driven primarily by fires occurring at massive operations housing several thousand to over 1 million animals.

At commercial egg and broiler operations, one fire can—and has—killed more animals in a single day than the number killed by all other fires combined in a year. Of the 328 barn fires reported since 2022, the 10 largest—all involving chickens—were responsible for over 90% of deaths. This is not surprising given that chickens account for around 95% of all farmed animals raised for food in the United States and, in industrial settings, are densely packed together in much higher numbers than are other farmed animal species.

“The sad reality is that hundreds of thousands of farmed animals die from fires every year, and the lack of mandated fire protection in farmed animal housing undoubtedly makes these tragic situations much worse,” said Allie Granger, policy advisor for AWI’s Farmed Animal Program, who authored the report. “The death toll will likely continue to rise unless this problem is addressed by the country’s largest poultry and livestock farms, where millions of animals remain at risk.”

As in previous years, barn fires during the most recent three-year period most often occurred in the Upper Midwest and Northeast during winter months—suggesting that colder weather is a significant factor in the prevalence of barn fires. New York and Wisconsin recorded the most barn fires (31 each), followed by Pennsylvania (28), Ohio (23) and Illinois (22).

In many instances, the destruction from a barn fire is too severe to determine an actual cause. In the vast majority of cases in which a report indicated a suspected or determined cause, improper use of or a malfunctioning heating device or another electrical malfunction was cited, according to AWI’s research.

Many fires could be prevented or their impacts mitigated with proper inspection, maintenance, and detection/suppression systems, the report concludes.

“Trapped by the thousands inside burning enclosures, farmed animals endure unimaginable suffering,” Granger said. “It is the responsibility of state and local authorities, as well as farmers and industry groups, to require and implement stronger fire protection standards on farms to help animals avoid this terrible fate.”

Hundreds of veterinarians and veterinary students from across the country are urging the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) to revise its guidelines regarding methods of killing farmed animals during emergencies. The veterinary professionals and students are calling on the AVMA to do more to deter the use of particularly cruel killing methods such as inducing heat stroke in hens, suffocating pigs and cattle with water-based foam, and bludgeoning piglets.

In a letter submitted last week, the 868 signers, including 504 AVMA members, urged the association to revise its draft “Guidelines for the Depopulation of Animals.” The guidelines apply to the large-scale killing of animals in emergency situations, such as the ongoing disease control efforts in response to the current bird flu outbreak. While the standards are voluntary, the US Department of Agriculture typically relies on them to facilitate the mass killing of animals, which has resulted in taxpayer-backed indemnity payments to producers totaling $1.25 billion since 2022.

“As the leading voice for America’s veterinarians, the AVMA needs to be at the forefront of deterring killing methods that result in severe suffering for millions of animals. While we acknowledge some important improvements in this draft, it requires several key changes to ensure animal welfare is prioritized by the USDA and farm operators,” said Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, DVM, a veterinary medical consultant for the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and AVMA member. The letter was drafted by veterinarians and others who have expertise in depopulation, and signatures were collected by the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare.

One controversial killing method called ventilation shutdown plus heat (VSD+) involves sealing a barn, turning off the airflow, and adding heat and sometimes steam to raise the temperature as high as 170 degrees. The process can take hours and cause extreme distress to the animals inside. Federal records show that, from February 2022 to November 2024, over 76% of poultry (about 86 million chickens, turkeys, and ducks) were killed in bird flu depopulations that used VSD+ alone or in combination with another method.

For years, AWI has urged the AVMA to reclassify VSD+ as “not recommended” for any species. Yet the association’s proposed guidelines continue to recommend VSD+ for birds in “constrained circumstances” under a tiered ranking system.

The recent letter calls on the AVMA to downgrade VSD+ from Tier 2 to the bottom Tier 3 in its draft guidelines—as it does for pigs—and explicitly state that VSD+ is “not recommended.” Tier 3 methods are defined as those for which there is “limited to no evidence to support their use,” or for which the “evidence may be contrary to good animal welfare.”

The letter further asks that two additional cruel killing methods be downgraded to Tier 3: Water-based foam, which suffocates pigs or other livestock by painfully blocking their airways, and manual blunt force trauma, which typically involves striking a piglet in the head with a hammer or swinging the animal against the floor or a wall.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) appreciates that the US Department of Agriculture has developed a revised strategy to address the staggering impacts of the current bird flu outbreak, yet the five-point plan continues to incentivize producers to maintain massive flock sizes and overcrowded conditions that encourage disease transmission while undermining animal welfare.

“While the USDA’s strategy shows some potential, it remains fundamentally misguided and a disservice to higher-welfare farmers, animals, and public health,” said Zack Strong, director of AWI’s Farmed Animal Program. “We would welcome an opportunity to work with the administration to ensure its approach is as effective and humane as possible.”

The current outbreak, involving a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus, is the largest and most expensive animal health crisis in US history. It has sickened or killed thousands of wild animals, infected hundreds of dairy herds, and led to the deaths of more than 166 million domestic chickens, turkeys, ducks, and other birds. Seventy humans have also been infected, and one has died.

According to the USDA, from February 2022 through November 2024, poultry producers have received $1.25 billion in taxpayer-backed indemnity and compensation payments in response to HPAI infections. Department records also reveal an alarming trend of reinfections on commercial operations. Through January 2025, 79 commercial poultry operations have been infected at least twice, including 17 that have been infected three times and six that have been infected four times. On these 79 operations—which alone have received nearly $337 million in indemnity payments—nearly 40 million birds have been killed in flocks that have been “depopulated” (killed en masse) in response to HPAI infections.

AWI generally supports some aspects of the department’s revised HPAI response plan and strategy, such as bolstering farm biosecurity and devising ways to reduce depopulations. We also appreciate the USDA’s hyper-focus on HPAI vaccines for poultry, and strongly encourage the department to research and develop a safe, effective vaccination and surveillance program. In other areas, however, the department’s strategy is deeply flawed, because it fails to consider certain prevention and response measures that could more effectively mitigate disease spread and dramatically improve the welfare of affected birds.

Inadequate prevention measures

One key prevention measure that the USDA’s strategy neglects to address is conditioning indemnity payments on reduced flock sizes and stocking densities. As AWI raised in letters to a National Academies of Science planning committee and the USDA’s Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS), research suggests that larger flocks (such as those housing 100,000 or more hens in a single barn) and more crowded conditions generally raise the risk of HPAI infection and transmission.

“Dozens of commercial operations—usually housing tens of thousands to several million birds—continue to become infected, use cruel methods to depopulate flocks, receive millions of dollars, restock at high rates, and go through the cycle all over again,” said Allie Granger, policy advisor for AWI’s Farmed Animal Program.

The department’s approach to biosecurity audits also falls short. The USDA promises to expand its auditing of biosecurity measures that poultry farms are supposed to have in place to be eligible for depopulation indemnity payments. However, the department recently published an interim rule explaining that the only operations subject to virtual or in-person audits—not just paper audits—are those that exceed certain size thresholds (e.g., commercial operations where more than 100,000 meat chickens or 30,000 turkeys are raised annually) and have either already been infected or are located near recently infected premises. This might help reduce repeat outbreaks on the same property, but it does nothing to incentivize other facilities to enact protocols to prevent or help contain infections in the first place.

No mention of inhumane depopulation methods

Regarding HPAI infection response, conspicuously absent from the USDA’s strategy are any restrictions on how infected flocks will be depopulated. In June 2023, AWI petitioned APHIS to require producers to develop, as a prerequisite for indemnity payments, written plans explaining how they intend to kill their birds as quickly and humanely as possible should an infection occur. HPAI infections are no longer an unforeseeable or unlikely occurrence and must be planned for accordingly. Incentivizing producers to plan ahead would not only improve animal welfare but also speed up response times and help the USDA meet its goal of carrying out depopulations of infected flocks within 24 to 48 hours to prevent further viral spread.

AWI has also called on the USDA to research, fund, and make more readily available depopulation methods that use nitrogen gas. These methods are far more humane than the increasingly ubiquitous practice known as ventilation shutdown plus (VSD+) which involves raising the temperatures inside poultry barns until the animals die of heatstroke—often enduring pain and distress for hours or even days. Unlike many higher-welfare depopulation methods, VSD+ requires little or no advance planning or preparation, making its use far more likely if it is not expressly prohibited—or at least disincentivized—by USDA policy.

By mid-January 2025, approximately 143 million birds had been killed in bird flu–related depopulations. According to AWI’s analysis, about 103 million (72%) of these were killed on commercial operations in which VSD+ was used either alone or in combination with other methods. Of the 79 operations with multiple infections, more than half (42) repeatedly used VSD+ to depopulate their flocks; many received multimillion-dollar indemnity payments each time.

“It is critical that the USDA end its policy of compensating producers who rely on VSD+ to slowly kill tens of millions of infected animals,” Strong said. “The department must instead incentivize more humane alternatives.”

Neglecting farmers and disregarding states’ prerogative to protect animal welfare

One component of the USDA’s strategy commits to removing “regulatory burdens” on the poultry industries. Speaking to reporters recently, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins cited California’s Proposition 12 as an example of state legislation that could be rolled back. Proposition 12 is an initiative approved by a wide margin of the state’s voters that established minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens and other farmed animals and prohibited the sale of noncompliant products. Undermining such laws would jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of farmers who have already adapted to these requirements. Further, it would disrupt states’ centuries-long tradition—recently recognized by the US Supreme Court—of enacting laws designed to protect animal welfare. Moreover, overturning democratically enacted state protections would do nothing to mitigate the spread of HPAI or increase the supply of eggs.

Repeat violators of the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) continue to escape meaningful enforcement by the US Department of Agriculture, resulting in continued animal cruelty and suffering, according to a new report released today by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI).

The report, titled “Humane Slaughter Update: Federal and State Oversight of the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter,” builds on previous AWI reports by analyzing federal and state slaughter plant inspection records from between 2019 and 2022, during which time an estimated 38.5 billion birds and 660 million livestock (cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats) were killed for food in the United States alone.

The records offer a rare and important window into the myriad problems associated with US slaughter operations, including using excessive force to herd animals; mistreating disabled animals; failing to properly stun animals on the first (or even second, third, or fourth) attempt; and (consequently) shackling, hoisting, or cutting animals while they remain conscious.

Despite this egregious abuse, the USDA has declined to initiate any criminal prosecutions for inhumane slaughter against any of the more than 800 licensed federal plants since at least 2007 and remains unwilling to report incidents to local law enforcement officials for potential prosecution under state anticruelty laws. No state has pursued criminal prosecution of an individual or company for engaging in inhumane slaughter during this period, either, according to AWI’s analysis.

AWI worked diligently for passage of the original HMSA in 1958 and for a 1978 amendment that provided for enforcement, and has filed multiple petitions and lawsuits over the years to try to compel the USDA to properly enforce the law. Unfortunately, the USDA’s longstanding position is to encourage voluntary industry adoption of many of the best practices related to humane handling, which has proven to be ineffective. Shamefully, the USDA also interprets the law to exclude birds, despite the fact that these animals constitute the vast majority of animals killed for food in this country.

“By keeping slaughter operations hidden, the meat and poultry industries can shield consumers from the horrific conditions endured by billions of farmed animals each year,” said Zack Strong, the report’s co-author and director and senior attorney for AWI’s Farmed Animal Program. “Our analysis shows a pattern of blatant disregard for animal well-being at slaughter and a lack of follow-through from the one federal department empowered to change it.”

In one example, over the course of about a year and a half, federal inspectors documented 122 instances of dead “bob veal” calves (typically less than three weeks old) found in transport trucks arriving from California to the Ida Meats slaughter plant in Idaho. Inspection reports indicated that approximately 4,000 calves suffered and died during these incidents; yet, the records offer no evidence that the USDA initiated an investigation, attempted to contact the trucking company or calf supplier, or notified local law enforcement.

In another example, over the course of about two years, USDA personnel in the Swift Pork Company slaughter plant in Iowa documented nearly 250 occasions of excessive use of electrical prods, paddles, pokers, and other animal handling implements. Inspection records indicate that the abuse was occurring both on-farm and at the slaughter plant, with tens of thousands of animals affected. While the USDA did report the situation to the Iowa state veterinarian, there is no evidence that the department or the veterinarian notified local law enforcement about the potential criminal mistreatment.

Although the USDA has declined to pursue criminal prosecution, it has taken stronger administrative actions against slaughter plants. From 2019 through 2022, nine federal plants were suspended or threatened with suspension three or more times within one year: Abattoir Associates in Spring Mills, PA; Alaska Interior Meats in North Pole, AK; Bay Area Ranchers’ Cooperative in Petaluma, CA; Nelson’s Meat Processing in Milton, WV, Northwest Premium Meats in Nampa, ID; Powell Meat Company in Clinton, MO; Pudliner Packing in Johnstown, PA, The Pork Company in Warsaw, NC; and Working H Meats in Friendsville, MD.

In theory, the economic consequences of a plant being suspended should serve as a deterrent to future offenses. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, since plants—particularly large ones—are typically shut down for only a short period of time, often less than one day.

Other key findings in AWI’s report:

• Federal humane slaughter enforcement has remained relatively stable, while state enforcement continues to rise, but the level varies dramatically by state. For instance, 10 of the 29 states operating meat inspection programs issued no plant suspensions for humane slaughter violations from 2019 through 2022, while two states (Ohio and Wisconsin) issued more than a dozen suspensions. Alabama has not provided state enforcement records to AWI over the past decade.
• “Custom-exempt” plants, which kill and process animals for personal noncommercial use, are essentially excused from regular federal and state inspection. In fact, years may go by without a custom plant’s slaughter operations being observed for compliance with humane handling and slaughter requirements. In one example from 2020, an inspector at the custom Sanchez Slaughterhouse in Hawai’i documented a large hog being shot five time before the animal was rendered unconscious for slaughter. After each unsuccessful attempt, the worker prolonged the animal’s pain by leaving the stunning area to retrieve another cartridge from a nearby vehicle. The worker commented to the inspector: “It’s custom, guy. No need to worry about it.” The plant was issued a notice of suspension by the USDA, but the incident reveals a lack of worker knowledge about humane handling requirements.
• Similarly, federal and state inspection personnel continue to demonstrate unfamiliarity with the federal humane slaughter directive, as evidenced by their failure to consistently take appropriate enforcement actions (e.g., merely engaging in nonregulatory discussions with plants over federal humane slaughter violations).

Among AWI’s recommendations:

• The USDA should revise the federal humane slaughter regulations, such as by requiring that all animal stunning devices be routinely tested, workers be formally trained in humane handling and slaughter, and functional backup stunning devices be available.
• To hold repeat offenders properly accountable, the USDA should establish a policy of escalating penalties, including longer suspension periods.
• The USDA and state departments of agriculture should cooperate with state and local law enforcement agencies in pursuing criminal animal cruelty charges for incidents of willful animal abuse.