Transforming the Meat and Dairy Industry through Environmental Litigation

In light of prevalent nationalist populism, what type of strategic litigation against the meat and dairy industry is likely to be most transformative? Activists formulating their strategy need to consider the interrelated questions of what interests to highlight, whom to sue, and what legal norms to invoke, whilst being aware that nationalist populists will try to use any judgement to their advantage.

This contribution demonstrates that a multitude of options exist, and posits that, to get proper answers, interdisciplinary research involving law and more empirical fields like environmental psychology is needed. The Dutch legal system is used as a case study because, firstly, Dutch nationalist populism is representative of a broader trend and, secondly, because the Netherlands has the highest livestock intensity of the entire EU.

Nationalist populism in context

In the Netherlands, the image of the farmer forms the epitome of nationalist populism. In public perception, one cannot be more “Dutch” than a hard-working farmer who lives in areas with relatively few immigrants and eats modest breakfasts of sliced bread with cheese or chocolate sprinkles. One of the most popular TV programs of the past two decades is the dating show Boer zoekt vrouw – farmer seeks wife. The largest party in the Senate is the BoerBurgerBeweging, Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB).

The BBB came into power for denying the nitrogen crisis. To briefly explain, many Natura 2000 areas in the Netherlands are situated close to factory farms. The latter emit large quantities of nitrogen with detrimental effects for the biodiversity in the Natura 2000 nature reserves. This is illegal under Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive, which includes an obligation to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats of certain species. In the past decades, Dutch administrative courts have repeatedly struck down the legality of national policies for not addressing the nitrogen emissions sufficiently. Especially impactful were two decisions in May 2019.

A few months later, a parliamentarian suggested that the Dutch livestock should be halved in size. Farmers’ protests followed, and the BBB was launched to voice the misinformation that nitrogen is not all that bad for biodiversity. In 2024, the BBB also became a member of the far-right coalition of four parties forming the current Dutch government. The BBB is ambiguous about climate change: “Opinions differ on how big the human influence is on the climate,” stated their electoral program. Its coalition member, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, Party for Freedom (PVV), wrote in its electoral program that “all climate policy should be put through the shredder”.

Because of internal quarrels, within eleven months, the coalition fell apart; it currently functions outgoing (demissionair) without the PVV, i.e., as a placeholder until a new government is installed. This can take quite a long time, because after the October 2025 elections, time will be needed to negotiate for a new coalition. In short, for those who hope to transform the meat and dairy industry into an environmentally sustainable and animal-friendly business, little is to be expected from the legislature.

Litigation and the populist playbook

In that light, resorting to the judiciary seems a logical step, especially since environmentalists obtained groundbreaking successes in the climate case Urgenda. The court of first instance, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court all held that the State should increase its GHG reduction goal. This result may be difficult to replicate in the context of the meat and dairy sector, but it is obvious that environmentalists are inspired by Urgenda, and it is therefore unsurprising that a wave of subsequent climate litigation has targeted the State, the oil company Shell, and the bank ING.

At the same time, such litigation strategies can face serious backlash. Research done by political scientists points out that inviting litigation is a deliberate strategy of populists. The “populist playbook” involves first violating the law, then waiting to be sued and convicted, only to vilify the judiciary, undermine its authority, and ultimately destroy the rule of law and reign in an autocratic manner. Whether populists are after power or, even more banal, extreme wealth, this global trend is also visible in the Netherlands. Recently, for instance, the BBB suggested reviewing the procedure for appointing administrative judges to “balance their political preferences” (whereas this procedure is not based on politics but on legal expertise).

Environmental activists should thus be cautious not to “help” the populists with their strategic litigation, even if the judiciary rules in their favor. Strategic litigation generally is aimed not only at obtaining favorable results in the courtroom, but also at raising awareness, steering public debates, and influencing public opinion.

Against this background, I posit that it is relevant to study (and I hope to co-undertake this study) the various litigation options available to environmentalists through the lens of empirical fields like environmental psychology. This way, it becomes easier to estimate the impact of a chosen route on public debates surrounding meat and dairy production. So, let’s look at the available options.

What interests to highlight?

The first question is what interests should be highlighted. The meat and dairy industry has negative effects on different stakeholders. First, as mentioned, nitrogen emissions are bad for local biodiversity. Animal feed harms local biodiversity as well: cows are fed mostly grass, which is effectively produced with the aid of pesticides, resulting in “green deserts” where nothing else grows.

Second, the pesticides used and sometimes the smell of the farms can impact the health of people working on and those living close to the farms.

Third, the feed harms the environment abroad. Cows are fed large quantities of soy, the production of which results in deforestation, mostly in South America. Moreover, the cows are fed minerals mined in African and South American countries. The reason for this is that cows in a natural environment would not eat so much grass, but rather herbs like clover to get enough minerals and proteins. Their monotone diet of grass and soy mix thus needs to be supplemented with ground cobalt, for example.

Fourth, such deforestation and mining practices can harm the rights of indigenous and local communities abroad.

Fifth, the meat and dairy industry poses health risks more generally because the animals live in tiny spaces, cramped upon each other. This risks the spread of zoonotic diseases: illnesses in animals that can jump to humans and potentially cause pandemics, like chicken flu, and “mad cow disease” BSE. COVID-19 was also a zoonotic disease. To fight such diseases, the animals are given antibiotics on such large scales that harmful bacteria become antibiotic-resistant, undermining the availability of antibiotics to humans when needed.

Sixth, the meat and dairy industry is a significant contributor to climate change. This is due to the mentioned deforestation practices and to the methane emissions from the cows’ burps and farts.

Seventh, as already apparent from some of the things mentioned above, the animal welfare of the livestock is depressingly bad.

Eighth, especially in slaughterhouses, seasonal workers are facing poor working conditions. They are staying with too many people in one room and are working excessively long hours.

Whom to sue and what legal norms to invoke?

The first question of “What interests to highlight?” is interrelated with the second and third questions, “Whom to sue?” and “What legal norms to invoke?”. A case against an individual farmer is likely to be met with less sympathy than one directed against the State, as farmers are mostly victims of decades of regulatory failures.

Administrative law against governmental agencies

Administrative law can only be invoked against governmental agencies, like municipalities or provinces. This was done in hundreds of nitrogen cases by an NGO called Mobilization for the Environment, consisting of a small team led by a retired chemist, Johan Vollenbroek. Whereas such cases have governmental agencies as their defendant, administrative permits for private activities are often under dispute, making other private parties an indirect party to the proceedings. This can be seen as well with a case on the enforcement of animal welfare rules for chickens initiated by the NGO Wakker Dier.

Tort law against the State    

Tort law can be a powerful tool against the State. This was showcased not only by the mentioned Urgenda case (about climate change), but also by a recent case won by Greenpeace about nitrogen. The court ordered the State to realize the 2030 nitrogen reduction goal laid down in national law, on pain of a penalty sum. The latter is highly unusual: following a principle of “constitutional courtesy”, the Dutch judiciary rarely imposes penalties on the State because it is usually assumed that the State will uphold court judgements. In the case of the nitrogen crisis, however, recent history seems to show that the opposite is true, the court notes in §5.96. Whether the judgement will be upheld remains to be seen.

In a case about smell nuisance against the State, tort law appeared to be less powerful. Due to the smell of a pig farm, its neighbors regularly vomited once they left their homes, but according to the court, only an “extremely bad” smell was unlawful, not a “very bad” one.

Cases against corporate players     

The Dutch NGO Milieudefensie has also looked into the contributions of larger corporate meat and dairy players to deforestation. Suing them is probably difficult, however, not only because the facts are difficult to prove, but also due to a lack of norms to hold them accountable. The recent European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive will be significantly weakened, and there is no national due diligence legislation in force in the Netherlands. Holding financial companies accountable for their role in supporting the meat and dairy industry will be even more difficult because of even more indirect causal links. In response to Milieudefensie’s deforestation research, however, two of the businesses under scrutiny pledged to improve.

Yet another option is to complain about greenwashing, for instance, about misleading claims on animal welfare. This can be done by appealing to the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, implemented in the civil code, or before a non-judicial “Commercial Code Commission”. A new EU Green Claims Directive is underway.

Insights from empirical studies     

Choices must be made because, in legal proceedings, a congruence is required between the interests of the claimant, the duties of the defendant, and the remedies requested, which can only be granted when the right applicable norms are invoked to support the claim. A general lawsuit about the entire meat and dairy policy will likely fail due to the doctrine of the separation of powers; it is not up to the judiciary to redraft this policy, nor should it be. Neither does it seem to be an option for green-hearted activists dedicated to the rule of law to not resort to courts at all: norms thrive when being reaffirmed, and those in their right should be awarded justice.

Choosing one option over the other may elicit different reactions in the general public. My hypothesis is that, even if the direct result of, for example, a greenwashing case is only incremental (the relevant advertisement has to be pulled back), emphasizing animal welfare may be most transformative for public opinion.

One study shows that highlighting cruelty towards animals “works” better than pointing to the risks of zoonoses. Thinking about animal welfare is a bigger incentive than thinking about health for people to make dietary changes, another study shows. Awareness about animal welfare is generally low. Interestingly, environmental psychologists have found that appealing to animals’ mental capacities speaks more to people than an appeal to how they are physically similar to us. Moreover, when people are not practicing what they are preaching (for example, eating factory-farmed products while claiming to attach to animal welfare), this does not indicate cognitive dissonance per se, but rather an impending social tipping point: people move when they think others do, too, social psychologists found.

Working with researchers from other disciplines who have a more complete overview of such insights, in the coming years, I hope to undertake a comparative study into this matter.