HomeYour VoiceHerStoryYour MultimediaResource LibraryAbout WVMCode of ConductRegisterLog in


  • Latest Post
  • Post index
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Latest comments
  • Contact
  • Post Something
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 6
  • ...
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • ...
  • 165

Trump downplays domestic violence in speech about religious freedom

Trump downplays domestic violence in speech about religious freedom
Posted by jj on Sep 13, 2025 in Newsworthy
Trump downplays domestic violence in speech about religious freedom

"If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime," Trump said Monday. 

This story was originally published by The 19th.  September 8, 2025

Mel Leonor Barclay

Politics Reporter

President Donald Trump on Monday downplayed the severity of domestic violence crimes, saying that were it not for “things that take place in the home they call crime,” the administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., would have resulted in a bigger statistical reduction in crime.

“They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent.’ I said, no, no, no — it’s more than 87 percent, virtually nothing. And much lesser things, things that take place in the home they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. See? So now I can’t claim 100 percent but we are. We are a safe city,” Trump said.

The president’s comments were part of a speech he delivered at the Religious Liberty Commission’s meeting at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.

Domestic violence has long been recognized by the federal government as a national public health and safety crisis. A national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 4 in 10 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced physical or sexual violence or stalking by an intimate partner.

Next month marks the 25th annual Domestic Violence Awareness Month, which coincides with the 2000 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The law increased federal funding to combat domestic violence and other crimes that disproportionately affect women, recognizing the matter as a public health and safety issue, not a private domestic matter.

Next month marks the 25th annual Domestic Violence Awareness Month, which coincides with the 2000 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The law increased federal funding to combat domestic violence and other crimes that disproportionately affect women, recognizing the matter as a public health and safety issue, not a private domestic matter.

The federal government is by far the biggest source of funding for anti-domestic violence efforts, and since taking office, the Trump administration has sought to restrict nonprofits’ access to federal domestic violence grants. They have also laid off a top official and several teams working on the issue, threatening to destabilize domestic violence services and prevention efforts nationwide.

In a statement to The 19th, the White House said the president wasn’t “talking about or downplaying domestic violence.” 

“President Trump’s Executive Order to address crime in DC even specifically took action against domestic violence,” said Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House. The order urged the Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate housing providers who don’t comply with requirements to “restrict tenants who engage in criminal activity,” including domestic violence. 

The White House also pointed out that the administration barred transgender women from women’s domestic abuse shelters, a move that advocates warn makes trans women less safe.

“While President Trump is making America safer, the Fake News is whipping up their latest hoax in real time to distract from the Administration’s tremendous results,” Jackson said. 

Some groups focused on combating domestic violence criticized the president’s comments. 

“The DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence believes that intimate partner violence is a crime and more than a ‘little fight with the wife’ as President Trump stated earlier today. Per federal and local statute, domestic violence is a crime and one that is not only a precursor to domestic violence homicides, but also a common factor in community violence, including mass shootings, where perpetrators often have a history of committing domestic violence,” said Dawn Dalton, the coalition’s executive director. 

“The idea that domestic abuse is serious and criminal is not up for debate. Words cannot take us backwards and the days of treating domestic and sexual violence as ‘private matters’ are long gone. Any attempt to minimize these crimes does not change the impact of domestic violence and cannot change the reality of crime statistics in Washington, D.C.,” said Casey Carter Swegman, director of public policy at Tahirih Justice Center.

“By reducing domestic violence to a ‘little fight,’ President Trump revives a regressive view from an era when survivors were expected to endure abuse alone, without legal protections or public support, said Susanna Saul Director, Legal Programs at Her Justice, a nonprofit that provides free legal services to women living in poverty in New York City. “This does more than trivialize domestic abuse. It emboldens abusers to increase their violence and risks undoing decades of legal and cultural progress that have made safety a community responsibility, rather than a private burden.”

Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Wisconsin who has championed legislative efforts against domestic violence, said such crimes amount to “abuse that devastates families, endangers women and children, and takes lives every single day.”

“As a survivor of domestic violence, I found President Trump’s comments today downplaying domestic violence deeply offensive and disturbing,” she said in a statement. “Trump has a long history of violence against women that makes his dismissiveness unsurprising.”

Rep. Debbie Dingell, another survivor of domestic violence, said Trump’s comments threaten to set back the clock on the national conversation around domestic violence. “We’ve been fighting for decades to remove the stigma around domestic violence, and this position from the president directly opposes those efforts,” she said. “Let me tell you, as someone who hid in a closet many times as a child, being tough on crime means keeping women and children safe in their own homes.”

 
 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Why Are Men Still Considered the Default?

Why Are Men Still Considered the Default?
Posted by jj on Sep 11, 2025 in Equal Representation, Newsworthy
Why Are Men Still Considered the Default?

June 02, 2025 | Sara Matzinger | Feminism

We live in a world where everything is built on the male default. Think about it: We say, “Hi guys,” to any group of people, but “Hi girls” is no longer neutral, and we refer to just “soccer” for men, but clarify “women’s soccer” when talking about women. This mindset makes women, despite being 50% of the population, the exception to the rule.

The “male default” mindset isn’t just annoying or unfair, though; women are all too often ignored at best and hurt or even killed at worst because of it.

The male default deeply affects women’s lived experiences. It creates a society in which it’s harder for women to get promotions or even access certain jobs because of their gender. For example, some employers avoid hiring women out of the fear they may become pregnant and therefore exit the workforce. Countless studies have found that women students, even when equally qualified, are significantly less likely to get funding, mentorship opportunities, and job offers than their male peers receive. Even when women do get hired, it is harder for them to access the spaces where decisions about women are being made; because they are less likely to be promoted, they are also less likely to end up in leadership roles where those decisions happen. And if women are not in those spaces to speak up about their needs, there is very little chance those needs will be known, let alone met.

But the male default goes deeper; it can even affect our safety and well-being. For example, car safety wasn’t tested on female crash dummies for decades and women are more likely to die or be injured in a car crash than men. Most medicine is only tested on men, a phenomenon Caroline Criado Perez explores in her book Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Criado Perez also explores how health issues that affect men are more researched than those that affect women; for example, PMS, which affects as many as 75% of women, has been researched five times less often than erectile dysfunction.

The fact is, women have different bodies than men, and those bodies often require different needs that are not taken into account by the male default. Men will never experience what it is like to birth a child, to breastfeed, or to live on a menstrual cycle. Those differences do not make women weak or complicated; they just make us not men. And we are equally worthy of living in a world in which those differences are considered and in which our safety and well-being in daily scenarios are taken into account.

The most important thing that we can do to combat the male default is simple: ask women what we need. And once we start acknowledging those needs, start researching them, and then using what we find to create solutions – only then can we truly start building an equitable world.

Until then, I am done pretending that everything is fine. Done pretending that living in a world built by and for men does not matter because it does. It matters. Women matter. So listen to us. Talk to us and stop making assumptions about us.

Originally published by Women's Media Center.

Leave a comment

Resisting Rule by Fear

Resisting Rule by Fear
Posted by jj on Sep 01, 2025 in Newsworthy
Resisting Rule by Fear

Lessons from Past Struggles on How to Confront Authoritarian Power in America

James B. Greenberg

Aug 31, 2025
 

Some people already speak as if the takeover is complete. They say the patterns of authoritarianism are set, that nothing can turn them back. I don’t share that view. History and anthropology both teach us that power is never as solid as it looks from a podium. It rests in daily life—in the way food, labor, care, and money circulate through a society. When rulers govern by fear, they seize those flows and try to choke them. Resistance begins when people take them back.

I learned this first not from books but from communities living under pressure. Families under threat don’t wait for permission. They build what they need to endure: meals shared across kitchens, rides arranged when buses are unsafe, neighbors taking in children, a spare room offered to someone in trouble. These practices may seem ordinary, but they are the front line against despair. Under Reconstruction, Black communities built schools and mutual aid societies despite constant violence. In the Depression, strike kitchens kept families alive so workers could hold the line. During the Civil Rights era, carpools kept the Montgomery boycott running for more than a year. Survival work is political work, because it denies fear the chance to scatter people.

But survival is not enough. Authoritarian projects depend on more than a single man in office; they are fastened into contracts, finance, and logistics. Trump’s agenda leans on detention companies, data brokers, construction firms, financiers, and the flow of labor through ports, warehouses, and hospitals. Anthropology reminds us that these are not abstractions—they are the channels through which power moves. Political economy shows us how vulnerable they are. Strikes in 1877 spread along the railroads and froze an industrial economy. The Seattle General Strike in 1919 shut down a city. The Montgomery boycott bled bus companies dry. South African miners striking in the 1980s joined with international sanctions to push apartheid to the breaking point. Each case showed the same truth: power relies on circulation, and resistance gains leverage wherever those circuits can be slowed, redirected, or cut off.

Numbers in the street matter too, not as theater but as turning points. Authoritarian movements thrive on the appearance of permanence. Mass nonviolent action shatters that illusion. Selma in 1965 was not improvisation—it carried forward a long American tradition of disciplined, visible defiance, just as the shipyard strikes in Poland and the crowds in Manila did later. What made these moments powerful was not just the size of the crowd but the clarity of the line being drawn: a bridge, a ballot, a courthouse, a square. Protest untethered from institutions can fade. Protest anchored to them forces decisions in real time.

Repression, of course, is the standard reply. But repression does not always strengthen a regime. When people hold their ground and remain disciplined, violence can backfire. Bloody Sunday in Selma, the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, and photographs of fire hoses and police dogs unleashed on children did not produce obedience—they discredited the state. Anthropology teaches us that violence is symbolic as much as it is physical. The image of a government attacking its own citizens corrodes legitimacy. That is why training in nonviolence and de-escalation matters. It turns repression into evidence against the regime rather than proof of its strength.

No authoritarian project runs on a single man’s will. It is carried out by bureaucrats, contractors, financiers, judges, sheriffs, and local officials who choose to cooperate. When enough of them refuse, the system cracks. In Eastern Europe in 1989, police and soldiers refused to kill their neighbors. In the Philippines in 1986, key generals switched sides and Marcos fell. In the United States, Watergate ended not only because of public outrage but because officials chose resignation over unlawful orders. Authoritarian regimes weaken when insiders see the costs rising and are offered safe ways out. That means whistleblower channels, legal defense, and public pledges from professionals who commit not to participate in illegal orders. Defections don’t come from nowhere; they have to be prepared for.

Culture holds movements together in the long stretches when victories are distant. Under Pinochet, Chileans banged pots from their windows. Under Jim Crow, Black churches were not just spiritual centers but organizing hubs. In Poland, underground newspapers and clandestine theater reminded people that truth still circulated even under censorship. Cultural resistance may look symbolic, but it is what keeps fear from isolating people. It sustains morale, signals solidarity, and creates a memory that repression cannot erase.

The thread running through all these examples is that resistance works when it is both diffuse and organized. Too centralized, and a single arrest or assassination can stall a movement. Too scattered, and momentum dissolves into noise. The strongest model is federated: local groups that act autonomously but share tools, training, and communication channels. This is as true for Reconstruction mutual aid societies as it was for Solidarity’s underground press in Poland or the neighborhood committees that carried the Montgomery boycott. What survives decapitation is not a leader but an ecosystem.

Applied here, that means local pods providing legal aid, sanctuary, and rapid response. State hubs that train poll workers, coordinate legal observers, and protect digital security. National clearinghouses that share templates, track contracts, and keep a watchful eye on federal rules. Each layer reinforces the others. Street protests feed lawsuits with evidence. Strikes amplify consumer boycotts and divestment campaigns. Mutual aid reduces burnout so people can keep showing up. Blue states, with their economic weight, act as firewalls by passing shield laws, protecting data, and refusing unlawful federal demands. None of these by themselves can halt an authoritarian project. Together, they make governing by fear too costly to maintain.

That combination—survival networks, economic disruption, mass visibility, cultural defiance, insider defections—has beaten stronger regimes than this one. South Africa fell when local boycotts and strikes joined with international sanctions and business defections. The British empire lost India when economic boycotts, nonviolent mass action, and parallel institutions made the cost of holding on too high. Civil Rights victories here at home came from boycotts, marches, lawsuits, and freedom schools reinforcing one another until even reluctant politicians had to yield. These were not miracles. They were strategies, learned and repeated.

Anthropology tells us that authoritarianism is not just about politics; it is about the control of life itself—food, labor, care, and information. Political economy tells us that those controls run through contracts, supply chains, and capital. History tells us that when people resist together—caring for one another, slowing the flows of money and labor, showing up in disciplined numbers, and offering insiders a way out—authoritarian projects lose their grip.

That is where we are now. We do not need to invent new tools. We need to put proven ones into practice where we live: aid networks that blunt fear, boycotts and strikes that hit where leverage is real, marches that defend institutions in plain sight, lawsuits that hold the line in court, professional codes that set limits, and a thousand small refusals that never make the news but make it harder to govern by threat.

Some insist it is already too late. I think the opposite. The end of the story is not written because politics is not measured only in decrees and offices. It is measured in actions that change what tomorrow looks like—who is sheltered, who is defended, who refuses, who defects. Authoritarianism feeds on the belief that nothing matters. Resistance grows when people make many things matter at once. That is how societies outlast repression. And it is how this country can still outlast the project now before us.

Suggested Readings

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 1951.

Chavez, Leo R. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013.

Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Frost, Amanda. You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to Donald Trump. Boston: Beacon Press, 2021.

Golash-Boza, Tanya Maria. Deported: Immigrant Policing, Disposable Labor, and Global Capitalism. New York: New York University Press, 2015.

Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2017.

Vélez-Ibáñez, Carlos G. The Rise of Necro/Narco-Citizenship: Belonging and Dying in the 

Southwest North American Region. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2025.

Thanks for reading James’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Leave a comment

The Animal Feed Industry’s Impact on the Planet

The Animal Feed Industry’s Impact on the Planet
Posted by jj on Aug 12, 2025 in Economic Justice, Health and Safety, Environment, Newsworthy
The Animal Feed Industry’s Impact on the Planet

The diet of factory-farmed animals is linked to environmental destruction around the globe.

By Vicky Bond

In some parts of the continental United States, you might drive through a nearly unchanging landscape for hours. Stretching for miles and miles, vast swaths of soil are dedicated to growing crops—corn, grains, fruits, and vegetables that make up the foundation of our food system.

The process seems highly efficient, producing enormous quantities of food every year. But only a small percentage of these crops will go toward feeding humans. According to a 2013 study conducted by researchers at the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, a mere 27 percent of crop calorie production in the United States actually feeds humans. So what happens to the rest?

Some crops are used for the production of ethanol and other biofuels. But the vast majority—more than 67 percent of crop calories grown in the U.S.—are used to feed animals raised for human consumption.

Rather than feeding people, these crops feed the billions of chickens, cows, pigs, and other animals who live and die on factory farms. And that’s a problem.

The issue is that feeding humans indirectly—essentially, making animals the caloric middlemen—is a highly inefficient use of food. “For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef,” writes Jonathan Foley, PhD, executive director of the nonprofit Project Drawdown, for National Geographic. “Finding more efficient ways to grow meat and shifting to less meat-intensive diets… could free up substantial amounts of food across the world.”

This shift in growing and consuming food more sustainably has become especially important, with up to 783 million people facing hunger in 2022, according to the United Nations. Research indicates that if we grew crops exclusively for humans to consume directly we could feed an additional 4 billion people worldwide.

Farming has always loomed large in American politics, history, and identity. But the idyllic farming we may imagine—rich piles of compost, seedlings poking through the soil, and flourishing gardens of diverse fruits and vegetables—has transformed into factory farming, a highly industrialized system far removed from earth and soil. Animal feed is essential for the sustenance of this industry—supplying the cattle feedlots, broiler chicken sheds, and egg factories that increasingly make up the foundation of our food system.

What Factory-Farmed Animals Eat

Take a moment to picture a farm animal enjoying dinner. Are you imagining a cow grazing on grass or perhaps a chicken pecking at the ground, foraging for seeds and insects? In today’s factory farming system, the “feed” these animals eat is far removed from their natural diets. Rather than munching on grass or insects, most animals on factory farms eat some type of animal feed—a cost-effective mixture of grains, proteins, and often the addition of antibiotics designed to make them grow as quickly as possible.

The ingredients in animal feed don’t just matter to the animals’ health. They also impact human health—especially since the average American consumes 25 land animals yearly. Researchers have noted that animal feed ingredients are “fundamentally important” to human health impacts. As author and journalist Michael Pollan puts it: “We are what we eat, it is often said, but of course that’s only part of the story. We are what what we eat eats too.”

So, what are the main ingredients used in animal feed today?

Corn and Other Grains

In 2019, farmers planted 91.7 million acres of corn in the U.S. This equals 69 million football fields of corn. How can so much land be devoted to a single crop—especially something many people only eat on occasion?

The answer is that corn is in almost everything Americans eat today. It’s just there indirectly—in the form of animal feed, corn-based sweeteners, or starches. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer, consumer, and exporter of corn. And a large percentage of all that corn is used for animal feed, supplying factory farms across the country.

While “cereal grains”—such as barley, sorghum, and oats—are also used for animal feed, corn is by far the number one feed grain used in the U.S., accounting for more than 96 percent of total feed grain production. Corn supplies the carbohydrates in animal feed, offering a rich energy source to increase animals’ growth.

Unfortunately, what this system offers in efficiency it lacks in resilience. Numerous researchers have expressed concern about the vulnerability of the food supply that is so reliant on a single crop. “Under these conditions, a single disaster, disease, pest, or economic downturn could cause a major disturbance in the corn system,” notes Jonathan Foley in another article for Scientific American. “The monolithic nature of corn production presents a systemic risk to America’s agriculture.”

Soybeans

When you think about soybeans, you might imagine plant-based foods like tofu and tempeh. However, the vast majority of soybeans are used for animal feed. Animal agriculture uses 97 percent of all soybean meal produced in the United States.

While corn is rich in carbohydrates, soybeans are the world’s largest source of animal protein feed. Similar to corn, Americans might not eat a lot of soybeans in the form of tofu, tempeh, and soy milk—in fact, 77 percent of soy grown globally is used to feed livestock, and only 7 percent of it is used directly for human consumption, states a 2021 Our World in Data article—but they do consume soy indirectly through animal products like meat and dairy.

Soy production comes at a high cost to the environment. It is heavily linked to deforestation, driving the destruction of forests, savannahs, and grasslands—as these natural ecosystems are converted to unnatural farmland—and “putting traditional, local livelihoods at risk.” Critical habitats, like the Cerrado savannah in Brazil, are being razed to clear space for soybean production to meet the global demand for animal feed. More than half of the Cerrado’s 100 million hectares of native landscape has already been lost, with livestock and soybean farming being major contributors to this destruction.

“Most soybean-driven land conversions in Brazil have happened in the Cerrado,” said Karla Canavan, vice president for commodity trade and finance at World Wildlife Fund, in 2022. “The corridor [Cerrado] is like an inverted forest that has enormous roots and is a very important carbon sink. … Unfortunately, more than 50 percent of the Cerrado has been already converted into soybean farmlands.”

It’s a common misconception that plant-based soy products like tofu drive global deforestation. In reality, the vast majority of soy is used for animal feed. To fight this tragic habitat destruction, it’s far more effective to replace meat with soy-based alternatives.

Animal Protein and Waste

Editor’s note: The following section contains graphic descriptions that may disturb some readers.

It’s not just plants like corn and soybeans that go into animal feed. The factory farming industry has a long history of feeding animals waste and proteins from other animals. In 2014, outrage ensued when an investigation by the Humane Society of the United States revealed that pig farmers were feeding animals the intestines of their own piglets. At a huge factory farm in Kentucky, workers were filmed eviscerating dead piglets and turning their intestines into a puree that was being fed back to mother pigs.

This wasn’t even an isolated atrocity. The executive director of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians in 2014 commented that the practice was “legal and safe” and was meant to immunize the mother pigs against a virus called porcine epidemic diarrhea, according to the New York Times. Pigs aren’t the only animals who are effectively turned into cannibals by the factory farming industry.

Farmers were only prohibited from feeding cow meat to other cows following concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), more commonly known as mad cow disease. The U.S. Department of Agriculture notes on its website that BSE may have been caused by feeding cattle protein from other cows. The practice was banned in 1997—but, notably, only because of the risks to human health and not out of concern for the cows.

Antibiotics

Another key ingredient in animal feed likely doesn’t come to mind when you think about animal nutrition. This ingredient is antibiotics, commonly used in the food given to animals across the country.

On factory farms, animals are confined in extremely crowded, filthy facilities—the perfect conditions for spreading illness and disease. Not only do antibiotics allow animals to survive the conditions in these facilities but they also encourage animals to grow unnaturally large and fast. Drugs are administered through food and water, starting when the animals are just a few days old.

The meat industry’s excessive antibiotic use has directly been linked to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a massive threat to human health. As bacteria are killed off, the surviving that remain gradually learn how to survive the attacks, becoming resistant to antibiotics over time.

AMR means that conditions that should be easy and affordable to treat—like ear infections—can become life-threatening. It’s “one of today’s biggest threats to global health, food security, and development,” according to the World Health Organization, states a News-Medical article, and it’s projected to kill four times as many people per year as COVID-19 did in 2020, according to the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.

Additives and Preservatives

Along with the mixture of corn, soybeans, and a cocktail of antibiotics, animal feed may also contain a plethora of additives and preservatives. The Code of Federal Regulations provides a long list of additives legally permitted in animals’ food and drinking water. These include “condensed animal protein hydrolysate” (produced from meat byproducts of cattle slaughtered for human consumption), formaldehyde, and petrolatum—to name a few.

Unfortunately, many of these additives and preservatives have been linked to adverse human health impacts. For example, formaldehyde, which is classified as a known human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, is commonly used in animal feed to reduce salmonella contamination. In 2017, following concerns about farmworkers being exposed to the harmful substance, the European Commission voted to ban feed producers from using formaldehyde as an additive in animal feed.

Animal Feeding Operations

To understand the true impact of animal feed, we must look at animal feeding operations. Of all the animals in our food system today, 99 percent live on factory farms—enormous, vertically integrated operations designed to make as much profit as possible (at the expense of animals, people, and the environment). The transition to using animal feed has been closely intertwined with the transition to this type of large-scale factory farming.

The official term for a factory farm is concentrated animal feeding operation or CAFO. As the name implies, these operations are laser-focused on feeding large numbers of animals until they reach “slaughter weight,” after which they are killed and turned into products.

The faster an animal reaches slaughter weight, the more quickly the industry profits. So factory farms have dialed in on the most efficient way to feed animals in the shortest amount of time. Rather than grazing on pasture, animals are confined in stationary cages or crowded sheds and given feed that will increase their growth rates—even while it hurts their health.

Take cows, for example. Along with sheep and other grazing animals, they are known as “ruminants”—because they have a rumen, an organ perfectly designed to transform grass into protein. But the industry feeds cows corn instead of grass because it brings them to “slaughter weight” much faster than grazing. Sadly, this high-starch diet can disturb a cow’s rumen, causing pain with severe bloat, acidosis (or heartburn), and other types of stomach upset.

When it comes to feeding animals on factory farms these are some key industry terms to know:

  • Growth rates: This is the rate at which an animal grows or how quickly the animal reaches “slaughter weight.” Sadly, most factory farm animals are bred to grow so quickly that their health suffers. Chickens raised for meat frequently develop bone deformities, muscle diseases like white striping, and heart problems. Many chickens have difficulty walking, or even just standing due to painful lameness as a consequence of their fast growth rate.
  • Feed conversion ratio: This is the ratio between the amount of feed an animal eats and the amount of body weight that an animal gains. In other words, a feed conversion ratio is the industry’s effort to feed animals as little as possible to make them grow as quickly as possible.
  • Selective breeding: This is the practice of breeding two animals to produce offspring with a desired trait. For example, the poultry industry breeds birds who quickly develop outsized breast muscles. In the meat industry, selective breeding is generally used to optimize both feed conversion ratio and growth rates.

Animal Feed Industry Impacts

Overall, factory farming is incredibly resource-intensive and harmful to the environment. From agricultural runoff to water waste and pollution, CAFOs are responsible for some of humanity’s worst climate impacts.

“Livestock farms generate about 70 percent of the nation’s [United States] ammonia emissions, plus gases that cause global warming, particularly methane,” according to the Public Broadcasting Service. The practice of growing crops for animal feed is one of the worst drivers of environmental destruction—leaving biodiversity loss, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions in its wake.

Deforestation

Growing crops necessary to feed huge numbers of animals to support human meat consumption requires vast amounts of land, which results in massive deforestation. Forests worldwide are systematically being cleared and replanted with monocrops (such as the corn and soybeans mentioned earlier) to meet the demand for animal products—and therefore, animal feed.

Brazil, for example, is the world’s biggest beef exporter. In the Amazon rainforest—nearly two-thirds of which is part of Brazil—crops for animal feed are one of the primary drivers of deforestation, damaging an essential habitat for countless species. Deforestation rates have averaged nearly 2 million hectares yearly since 1995 in the Amazon, or about seven football fields every minute.

Meanwhile, farmland expansion accounts for 90 percent of deforestation worldwide, “including crops grown for both human and animal consumption, as well as the clearing of forests for animal grazing,” according to a July 2022 article in Sentient Media.

Deforestation eliminates one of our best defenses against climate change as healthy, intact forests provide a crucial ecosystem service: carbon sequestration. Forests safely store more carbon than they emit, making them powerful “carbon sinks” critical to maintaining a stable climate. When we destroy forests for farmland and other uses, we remove that carbon sink and release all the carbon into the atmosphere that had been stored there.

Biodiversity Loss and Extinction Threat

Naturally, deforestation goes hand in hand with biodiversity loss—of which animal agriculture is also a key driver. A 2021 study found that land use conversions to support the “global food system” are a primary driver of biodiversity loss. Tragically, researchers project that more than 1,000 species will lose at least a quarter of their habitats by 2050 if meat consumption continues at the same rate.

At the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal in December 2022, delegates warned that if our land-intensive eating habits don’t change, more and more critical species will go extinct. As author and journalist Michael Grunwald points out in the New York Times: “[W]hen we eat cows, chickens, and other livestock, we might as well be eating macaws, jaguars, and other endangered species.”

Water Use

Along with vast amounts of land, growing crops for animal feed requires enormous quantities of water. In the U.S. alone, more than 60 percent of freshwater was used to grow crops in 2012, and around 2.5 trillion gallons per year of water was used for animal feed in the same year. Corn, soybeans, and the other grains used in animal feed require about 43 times more water than grass or roughage, which animals could access if they were allowed to graze.

Soil Degradation

The intensive farming practices required to grow vast amounts of crops—like corn and soybeans—even take a toll on the soil.

Healthy soil contains millions of living organisms, which naturally replenish and recycle organic material and nutrients. Soil filters water, stores carbon, and allows for carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles that are critical for life on Earth.

But intensive farming practices, like growing “monocultures” (huge amounts of one crop like corn or soybeans), can degrade soil and deplete critical nutrients. Not only do these farming practices prevent soil’s natural processes but they can also reduce the amount of carbon stored in soil—a huge problem in the face of climate change. Intensive agriculture, closely intertwined with factory farming, damages the soil beyond repair.

Change Is Possible

The impacts of our animal-based food production system are far-reaching and complex. The intensive farming practices that supply animal feed for factory farms are destroying our water, air, and soil—and harming countless animals raised in food supply chains. But there is hope. It’s not too late to build a better food system from the ground up.

The movement to build a healthier food system is growing every day. Around the world, people are advocating for systemic change—from plant-based food options to better treatment of farmed animals. In fact, according to a March 2022 article in Phys.org, “switching to a plant-based diet in high-income nations would save an area the size of the EU worldwide.” Moreover, if just one person follows a vegan diet, an average of 95 animals will be spared each year, according to the book, Ninety-Five: Meeting America’s Farmed Animals in Stories and Photographs.

Concerned citizens and consumers can also hold corporations accountable for animal abuse and environmental degradation—by pressuring companies to adopt more sustainable practices. Already, several large meat producers and fast food and supermarket chains have stopped keeping pigs in gestation crates after people expressed “disgust” at the practice. According to the New York Times, “[T]he tide is turning because consumers are making their preferences known.”

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life.

Vicky Bond is a veterinary surgeon, animal welfare scientist, and the president of The Humane League, a global nonprofit organization working to end the abuse of animals raised for food through institutional and individual change. She is a contributor to the Observatory. Follow her on Twitter @vickybond_THL.

Facedook is currently limiting the number of friends and groups with whom we can share our posts.  So to ensure you receive all posts from us, sign up on our website womensvoicesmedia.org  Not only will you receive our posts but you can access other kinds of information if you choose to do so.

Leave a comment

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Posted by jj on Jul 30, 2025 in News, Background, Intersectional Issues
SPEAKING  TRUTH  TO  POWER

For more stories of remarkable women, see HERSTORY on womensvoicesmedia.org

Leave a comment
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 6
  • ...
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • ...
  • 165

Women's Voices Media

Women's thought, women's opinions, women's facts presented in a feminist point of view. We endorse works that present in an empirical and logical style.

Search

Categories

Women's Voices Media

  • Editor Byline
  • Home Page
  • Intro
  • Newsworthy

Your Voice

  • Background
  • ERA and CEDAW
  • Economic Justice
  • Education
  • Elections
  • Environment
  • Equal Representation
  • Health and Safety
  • Intersectional Issues
  • Intersectional Issues
  • Intro
  • Judicial System
  • My Voice
  • Politics & Elections
  • Reproductive Rights
  • Social Justice
  • Tech
  • Violence

HerStory

  • Background
  • Intersectional Issues
  • Social Justice
  • Women In Education
  • Women In Politics
  • Women In Science, Technology, & Math (STEM)
  • Women In Sports
  • Women In the Arts
  • Women In the Law
  • Women Not Categorized
  • Women in Business
  • Women's Health & Reproductive Rights
  • Womens Rights

Your Multimedia

  • Art
  • Background
  • Events
  • Intersectional Issues
  • Just Interesting
  • News
  • People
  • Welcome

Women's Resource Library

  • Current News
  • Diverse / Uncategorized
  • ERA and CEDAW
    • CEDAW
    • ERA
  • Environment
    • Air / Atmospheric Polution
    • Alternate Power Sources
    • Climate Change
    • Destruction of Forests and Habitats
    • Sustainability
    • Water Resources
      • Fracking
      • Waste Disposal
  • Equal Representation
    • In Business and Corporations
    • In Education (K-20)
    • In Government
    • In Law Enforcement
    • In Sports
    • In the Justice System
    • Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
  • Equality and Justice
    • Ableism
    • Ageism
    • Child Care
    • Economic Equality
    • Homelessness
    • LGBTQA Discrimination
    • Poverty and Hunger
    • Racism
    • Sexism
  • Gender Studies
  • General Science
  • Girls & Young Women
  • Health and Safety
    • HIV / AIDS
    • Health Insurance
    • Maternal and Infant Care
    • Medical Research
    • Paid Sick and Parental Leave
    • Pregnancy Accommodations
    • Sex Transmitted Diseases
    • Substance Addiction and Abuse
      • Opioid Crisis
      • Physician Over-prescription
  • Herstory
  • Independant Media
  • Politics
  • Reproductive Rights
    • Abortion Rights
      • Roe v. Wade
    • Contraception
  • The Arts
  • Violence
    • Ableism
    • Child Abuse
    • Date Rape
    • Domestic Violence
    • Elder Abuse
    • Genital Mutilation
    • Gun Safety and Control
    • Harrassment
    • LGBTQA - Abuse and Assault
    • Racism
    • Rape / Assault
    • Sex Trafficking / Sex Slavery
    • Women In Prison
  • World Issues

XML Feeds

  • RSS 2.0: Posts
  • Atom: Posts
What is RSS?

Women's Voices Media
This collection 2025 by Janice Jochum
Copyright 2019 United Activision Media, LLC
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
• Contact • Help • Free blog engine

Open Source CMS
Cookies are required to enable core site functionality.