Can factory farming be stopped?

Animal Freedom wrote this article around the year 2000. Back then, pushing back factory farming seemed a utopia. Since then, part of what we proposed has become policy in some countries. The core of the story is still relevant.

Can the growth in scale be reversed?

Factory farming on today's scale does not go back far. Which factors have driven this development? Factory farming is the result of several developments and players working together.

The players: feed industry, bank and farmer

First of all there is the animal feed industry. It wants to sell as much feed as possible at the lowest possible cost. With large pig and chicken units, a feed truck can drive efficiently. Feed companies also made it easy for farmers to start an intensive unit. They helped to finance and build the sheds and arranged the permits. The farmer only had to sign on the dotted line.

The banks were more than willing to lend the money. It concerns huge sums: a modern shed easily costs millions. The banks earn well on the interest. For the farmer it then becomes essential to raise as many animals as possible in as short a time as possible. Only with maximum turnover can the loan be repaid.

All parties seem to have the same goal: big business and efficient production. Only the animals pay the price. So does the environment, when manure is spread on the land up to the limit of what the soil can take. Often even beyond that.

Because the animals are so many and stay such a short time, the farmer hardly bonds with them anymore. The animals become means of production. Their welfare is reduced to the point where suffering is not directly visible and still makes sense in terms of cost.

The government: a double role

The role of governments is ambiguous. On the one hand the export of pork and poultry brings in money. On the other hand the government pays to limit the damage to the environment. Meanwhile fewer and ever larger companies in the food and feed industry decide how the market works. Governments increasingly hand over control.

The consumer: less influence than you think

The influence of consumers is limited. Even if everyone in a country bought organic eggs or higher-welfare meat, exports would keep factory farming profitable. Countries such as the United States, Brazil, Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands export a large part of their meat. Consumers abroad have little idea how the animals lived.

Through subsidies and the costs of pollution and animal diseases, taxpayers already pay a large part of the price of meat and dairy. That makes a fair price for responsibly produced food look unattractively expensive.

Inspection: too little, too late

The urge for unlimited growth squeezes the interests of the animal. In many countries a farm is inspected for animal welfare only once every few years, or even less often. The European Court of Auditors concluded in 2018 that EU animal welfare rules are not always properly enforced. Read more in It takes long to improve the lives of farm animals.

Are fast food chains like McDonald's responsible for animal suffering?

Everyone who eats meat from factory farms shares responsibility for the abuses in those farms. The same applies to shops and supermarkets that sell this meat.

That responsibility grows when eating a lot of meat is made even more attractive. For example by keeping prices low, by opening more and more outlets or by targeting children in advertising. In this sense McDonald's and other fast food chains are more responsible than other sellers. They increase the consumption of factory-farmed meat.

It would be a good idea to oblige fast food chains to buy their meat in the country where they sell it. Even better would be if they switched voluntarily to organic meat. Or to plant-based burgers, which many chains now sell as well.

Can factory farming be stopped?

The romantic image of the farm

Lack of public protest allows factory farming to keep growing. Why are we afraid to draw the line? Perhaps because of the romantic image of the farm we have learned since childhood. Many older people played on a farm when they were young. They remember a farmer with a few animals he knew by name. The smell of hay and straw. Helping to feed the animals. Who would dare to restrict these hard-working people? Who would deny them a good income?

Young people mostly know the farm from a petting zoo or a school trip. That has little to do with the reality of a factory farm. Milk and meat were promoted for decades as essential for health, with slogans such as "Got milk?". We now know that dairy is not essential. A plant-based diet can provide everything you need, with vitamin B12 as a supplement.

It is important to realise how deeply the romantic image and the advertising are rooted. Otherwise the contradictory information about livestock farming only feeds indifference. Then the situation gets worse step by step.

Fewer animals, less export

Countries that export a lot of meat would do well to give up that position. Read more in Farmers produce for export: close the borders. Why not exchange it for a more desirable and responsible industry? When exports stop, factory farming becomes less profitable. Farmers can be freed from their debts by buying up their production rights. By not admitting new players. By gradually reducing the number of rights. As described above, this is already happening in some countries.

With the present number of farm animals, their welfare cannot be guaranteed. The number of animals must go down, ideally to the level that just meets national demand. In the short term foreign producers might take over this gap in the market. But a country cannot point at others while it sets a bad example itself. Instead of promoting animal-unfriendly products, a country can become a promoter of animal-friendly products.

An exception in the free market

Animals and animal products should be an exception in the free market. Just as with child labour, human trafficking and drug trafficking, the most immoral country should not be allowed to set the rules. Import and export should be restricted, or better still abolished. Above all, the subsidies that artificially keep this industry alive should be abolished.

To protect vulnerable parts of a country, whether nature reserves or animals, a country should be protected against itself by trade restrictions. That means a small economic loss. But it brings an enormous moral gain.

Sources: FAO, Hidden costs of global agrifood systems worth at least $10 trillion (2023); Accountancy Vanmorgen, societal costs of Dutch intensive livestock farming (2023, in Dutch); European Court of Auditors, special report 31/2018 on animal welfare in the EU. Updated in October 2026.