News

Animal ag sees wins and losses after election

The Animal Agriculture Alliance says local activists ballot initiatives had mixed results during the most recent election.

Hannah Thompson Weeman points to petitions in California and Colorado.

“On the very positive side, both measures in Denver and the measure in Sanoma County all failed,” she says. “Any of the measures that would have actually had a tangible and immediate impact did not pass.”

Thompson Weeman tells Brownfield 65 percent of Denver voters opposed a ban on meat processing plants within the city and a proposed ban on selling new fur also failed. An impact study on the loss of processing found the ban would cost the state economy more than $860 million.

Eighty-five percent of voters in Sonoma County, California voted against banning large livestock facilities that would have impacted at least 20 farms currently in operation.

But a ban on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), defined as a farm operation where animals are kept for more than 45 days in one year, in Berkley, California did pass, and Thompson Weeman says its precedence is one her organization is following.

“They have a list of about 10 to 20 cities they’ve talked about on podcasts that they want to go to next with farm bans, processing plant bans, meat taxes, sustainability requirements, and just a ton of things that they plan to throw at the wall,” she shares. “Unfortunately, this isn’t going to go away and we’re going to see more of these initiatives in other cities.”

Thompson Weeman says transparency and being outspoken across the animal agriculture community is the best way to build trust in science-backed farming practices.

Brownfield interviewed Thompson Weeman during the recent National Association of Farm Broadcasting Convention in Kansas City, Missouri.