The Case for a Global Ban on Industrial Animal Agriculture by 2050

Introduction

Along with Emma Dietz and Toni Sims, I recently published an article making the case for a global ban on industrial animal agriculture by 2050. For purposes of this proposal, we define industrial animal agriculture as encompassing two categories: intensive operations (for example, factory farms that confine tens of thousands of animals indoors, increasing animal suffering and local pollution) and large-scale extensive operations (for example, cattle ranching operations that drive deforestation, increasing biodiversity loss and climate change). Our proposal thus excludes free-range animal farming that occurs at sufficiently small scales.

We propose a global ban on industrial animal agriculture by 2050 because this food system causes massive, unnecessary, and transboundary harm to humans, animals, and the environment. Addressing these harms requires international coordination, inspired by successful efforts to regulate or ban other harmful products or processes, ranging from mercury and tobacco to child labor and torture of enemy combatants.

This contribution summarizes the key legal rationale, precedents, and instruments for our proposed ban. I emphasize the value of linking this goal with other, related public health and environmental goals, and of pursuing this goal via a “just transition” that gradually scales down industrial animal agriculture while scaling up alternatives and supporting affected stakeholders through informational, financial, and regulatory policies.

The harms of industrial animal agriculture

Industrial animal agriculture, in both its intensive and large-scale extensive forms, causes significant environmental, public health, and social harms.

The environmental harms of industrial animal agriculture are staggering. Intensive operations produce waste in quantities that overwhelm natural absorption capacity, polluting the local environment with pathogens and heavy metals. Meanwhile, large-scale extensive operations, particularly cattle farming, drive deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, among other externalities. Globally, animal agriculture consumes 83% of global farmland and two-thirds of freshwater, yet produces only 17% of calories and 38% of protein consumed. It also generates 12–20% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, and is a leading driver of the biodiversity loss associated with our global food system.

The public health threats are equally alarming. Industrial animal agriculture significantly increases zoonotic disease risk, both by maintaining dense populations of farmed animals in intensive confinement (spawning swine and avian flu) and by destroying natural habitats, thereby bringing humans closer to wild animals. The routine use of antibiotics in factory farms drives antibiotic resistance as well. Moreover, processed meat is classified as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic, with consumption linked to diabetes and heart disease. Agricultural air pollution alone causes over 12,000 annual deaths in the US, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities near CAFOs.

Finally, the social costs to both workers and animals are devastating. Factory farm and slaughterhouse workers endure dangerous conditions. Physical health impacts include disease exposure, respiratory problems, and high injury rates, and mental health impacts include PTSD, anxiety, and substance abuse. Many workers are also migrants, refugees, and prisoners, which amplifies risk. Meanwhile, 80 billion terrestrial animals annually suffer severe pain and suffering as a result of extreme confinement, physical mutilation, family separation, and inhumane slaughter. The expanding aquaculture and invertebrate farming industries now extend these welfare concerns to fishes, octopuses, and other species.

Why a global ban on industrial animal agriculture is warranted

In light of these harms, a ban on industrial animal agriculture is warranted for five key reasons:

1. The harms of this food system are both intentional and foreseeable: The industry knowingly exploits workers and animals while contributing to disease outbreaks, extreme weather events, and other global threats.
2. This food system imposes these harms on vulnerable populations against their will, affecting not only voluntary participants but non-participating stakeholders, including members of other species, nations, and generations.
3. These harms are unavoidable at scale: More space per animal amplifies biodiversity loss and climate change, yet less space per animal amplifies animal suffering and concentrated waste. The only solution is reduced scale.
4. Industrial animal agriculture is unnecessary, as alternative food systems like plant agriculture, plant-based meats, and (possibly) cell-based meats can feed humanity while causing much less harm overall.
5. In light of these harms, we should not only end industrial animal agriculture but also ban it. A ban would serve both practical functions (preventing backsliding) and expressive ones (declaring these harms unacceptable).

Additionally, a global ban on industrial animal agriculture is warranted for five further reasons:

1. This food system produces transboundary rights violations; for example, it violates the right to health codified in international law through its contributions to climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and infectious disease emergence.
2. A global ban prevents free-riding. Without international coordination, some countries can accept the global benefits of abatement without accepting the local costs, leading to a collective action problem.
3. A global ban prevents leakage. Without international coordination, harmful operations can move from regulated countries to unregulated ones, leading to a relocation rather than a reduction of harm.
4. A global ban reduces administrative costs. Without international coordination, a proliferation of different regional standards will significantly increase the cost of compliance for companies.
5. A global ban supports global justice via differentiated responsibilities for different countries based on their past contribution to harm, their present capacity for food system reform, and other such factors.

Objections and replies

Granted, a proposed global ban on industrial animal agriculture will face objections. Consider three common objections that this kind of proposal faces.

First, some may object that a global ban on industrial animal agriculture is impossible. However, progress is already visible: Several European countries have banned specific confinement practices; California established minimum space requirements for animals on animal welfare and public health grounds (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023); and alternative proteins are rapidly improving, including plant-based meats and cell-based meats. Building further momentum towards a global ban will admittedly be difficult. But if governments implement the kinds of incremental informational, financial, regulatory, and just transition policies recommended below, they can achieve this goal despite this difficulty.

Second, others may object that banning industrial animal agriculture violates individual liberty. However, the right to liberty does not include the right to harm others against their will. Since industrial animal agriculture imposes massive harms on vulnerable populations against their will, banning this industry upholds liberal principles. Additionally, since alternative food systems would expand food options while reducing planetary burdens, the net result of a ban would be an expansion of individual liberty. We can also expect public support for a global ban on industrial animal agriculture to increase over time, as the harms of industrial animal agriculture become more widely understood and alternatives become more widely available.

Finally, some may object that banning industrial animal agriculture would harm farmers, workers, consumers, and others who depend on the industry. However, while a transition will likely cause disruption, the harms associated with disruption can be mitigated, and they pale in comparison with the harms associated with the status quo. We advocate for a “just transition” modeled on energy sector transformations, phasing out harmful practices while supporting affected communities. Examples include a Netherlands initiative to buy out farmers and US initiatives to support career transitions for ranchers. While this approach may be difficult, it represents the best pathway available to a just future food system for all.

Precedents for a global ban on industrial animal agriculture

Fortunately, governments regularly work together to address massive, unnecessary, and transboundary harms of this sort, creating a number of precedents for our proposed ban.

For instance, regarding environmental issues, the Montreal Protocol successfully phased out ozone-depleting substances; the Minamata Convention is phasing out mercury use; and dozens of other agreements address pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, and other issues. Recent proposals include a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, already endorsed by over 100 cities and 13 countries. These precedents apply to this context in part because industrial animal agriculture contributes significantly to the very environmental problems these treaties address, suggesting that parallel approaches to food system reform could succeed as well.

Regarding health issues, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, ratified by 183 countries, regulates tobacco through advertising bans, age restrictions, and warning labels, accelerating national tobacco control legislation. Other examples include drug regulation and disease reporting. The World Health Assembly recently adopted a pandemic accord as well, though critics argue that it inadequately addresses animal welfare and disease spillover. These precedents apply in this context too, since industrial animal agriculture is a leading driver of public health problems like antimicrobial resistance and disease emergence.

Regarding social issues, the ILO Minimum Age Convention (176 countries) protects children from exploitation by setting working age limits; the Forced Labor Convention (181 countries) suppresses compulsory labor, updated in 2014 to close loopholes; and a number of other precedents are available. While the social harms addressed by these international agreements differ from those associated with industrial animal agriculture, they demonstrate that countries can work together to address harmful processes (not merely harmful products) based on social and ethical concerns (not merely health and environmental concerns).

For a case study of international coordination to address environmental, health, and social harms, consider agreements regarding military activity. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (191 countries), Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, and the Geneva Conventions regulate both weapons and conduct. Like military activity, food production serves a valuable purpose, yet particular means towards this end (worker and animal exploitation) and side effects of this activity (pandemics and climate change) are unacceptable when alternatives exist. This parallel supports similar international action on industrial animal agriculture.

A pathway to a global ban on industrial animal agriculture

We propose 2050 as a target for a global ban on industrial animal agriculture, with wealthier countries aiming for earlier targets, as this approach aligns with existing climate and biodiversity targets. For instance, more than 107 countries have set net-zero emissions targets for 2040–2070, with the US and EU aiming for 2050, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework seeks to restore biodiversity by 2050. Since addressing industrial animal agriculture is essential for meeting these targets, a similar timeline is appropriate.

Countries can work towards this target via incremental informational, financial, regulatory, and just transition policies. Regarding informational policies, governments can enhance transparency by ending “ag-gag laws” that criminalize whistleblowing and undercover investigations in this industry. They can also require accurate food labeling and advertising with standardized information about production methods and impacts. And they can support the development of monitoring systems and a global database on industrial animal agriculture.

Regarding financial policies, governments can shift subsidies from industrial animal agriculture to alternative food systems. They can also use “full-cost pricing” to internalize the environmental and public health costs associated with food production through taxation, increasing the relative cost of production for harmful systems. International coordination is important here as well: Instead of investing in further industrial animal agriculture operations in developing countries, development banks can invest in humane, healthful, sustainable alternatives.

Regarding regulatory policies: Following nuclear non-proliferation models, governments can first halt expansion of industrial animal agriculture through moratoriums on new intensive or large-scale extensive farms, and they can then phase down existing operations. Some governments are already attempting this: The Netherlands targets 30% animal reduction by 2030, while Berkeley, California, recently voted to ban factory farming. Setting closure targets that can produce a complete phase-out by 2050 mirrors successful coal phase-out strategies.

Finally, regarding just transition policies, governments can support farmers, workers, consumers, and communities through job retraining, economic diversification, and more. Food security for vulnerable groups can involve cash transfers and subsidies for plant-sourced foods. Internationally, higher-income countries can lead reduction efforts and support lower-income countries through financing, capacity building, and technology transfer, potentially through “Just Food Transition Partnerships” modeled on energy sector initiatives.

Conclusion

While immediate negotiation of a global ban remains unrealistic given current global tensions, governments can begin with the incremental policies outlined here. Critical opportunities include the post-2030 UN development agenda, national or regional climate pledges, national biodiversity strategies, pandemic prevention treaties, and antimicrobial resistance initiatives. Governments can impose moratoria on new industrial farms, set reduction targets, and form “coalitions of the willing” similar to the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Sub-national actors can contribute through advertising bans, procurement policies, and local regulations.

The question is not whether industrial animal agriculture will end — no industry this inhumane, unhealthful, and unsustainable can last forever — but when and how. Governments must work together to ban this industry, since it imposes massive, unnecessary, and transboundary harms and rights violations on vulnerable populations against their will. The international community owes it to all species, nations, and generations to pursue this goal via incremental informational, financial, regulatory, and just transition policies, and to achieve it alongside other, related climate and biodiversity goals by 2050.