Losing Forward in the Fight to End Factory Farming

History shows us that most important reforms succeeded only after initial defeats. These defeats spread awareness of the issue, coalesced support around a specific objective, and taught movement organizers valuable lessons. 

The movement to end factory farming faces a long, uphill road to victory, but with the loss of Measure J this November in Sonoma County, the movement is one step further along the path. Success is built on failure. 

In September of 2023, volunteers with the Coalition to End Factory Farming began collecting signatures to get a bold factory farm ban on the ballot in Sonoma County. There are dozens of factory farms in Sonoma County, including some owned by national poultry giant Perdue Farms, as well as a massive duck factory farm that has been exposed for criminally abusing animals and polluting local waterways with animal waste.

After the proposed factory farm ban qualified for the ballot in March 2024, it was named Measure J. Industry opposition to Measure J was fierce. The opposition spent millions of dollars fearmongering about the measure; they outspent the Yes on J campaign by a ratio of 8-to-1. This is because the factory farming industry knows that the public cares deeply about protecting animals and our environment and they were desperate to obscure the truth with their own green-washed and humane-washed depiction of the largest animal farms in Sonoma County. 

The industry also had powerful elected leaders on their side. The County Board of Supervisors went to unprecedented lengths to hinder Measure J’s chances, including removing critical language from the ballot question and pressuring elected officials in every city in the county to oppose Measure J. This led some councilmembers to speak out about the pressure campaign.

As a result of these strong attacks on Measure J and our own shortcomings responding effectively with enough credibility, Measure J lost decisively at the ballot box. 

While it’s incredibly disappointing that this opportunity to alleviate animal suffering and protect our environment fell short, we've always known that ending factory farming will take time -- and losses -- along the way. 

As celebrated gay rights activist Evan Wolfson describes it, we must “lose forward.” During the fight for marriage equality, Wolfson says that even losing campaigns created “the opportunity to enlist more support, build more coalitions, and make it possible for more candidates and non-gay opinion-leaders to move toward fairness.”

We saw many of these types of wins in the Measure J campaign, from generating over 100 news articles about Sonoma County factory farms to bringing out new volunteers who have been inspired and transformed by the experience. Measure J also formed connections between new coalition partners, including some who are now working together on environmental litigation against Sonoma County factory farms to stop water pollution. As for helping leaders move toward fairness, the campaign motivated some local elected leaders to call for better enforcement of existing animal cruelty laws and more transparency in the food system. 

For example, Sebastopol city councilmember Stephen Zollman said, “What is the big secret? If everything is hunky dory in our farms, then let’s see. Open the doors. Let us see.”

Evan Wolfson says losing forward is about ending in a better place for the inevitable next battle. The awareness, education, and momentum we created through the Measure J campaign has laid an important foundation that we can build on going forward. Individuals, community groups, journalists, and elected leaders are all more informed about the harms factory farms are causing in our community. Internally, all of us involved learned so much about how to run an effective political campaign, making us much more prepared for the next one. 

Some key learnings include: 

• The campaign’s initial stages needed more time than we gave them in our hurry to address an urgent problem. This includes building coalitions, identifying the best spokespeople, and fine-tuning the measure text for clarity. 

• Simplicity is critical in the policy. A more complicated measure text creates more confusion and gives more footholds for misinformation. If the measure text is self-explanatory, it can quickly dispel misinformation that is being spread about what the measure does. In the case of Measure J, we used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s definition for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), which is the only government definition for what is commonly called a factory farm. There are multiple sizes of CAFOs and the smaller sizes must meet additional criteria to be deemed a CAFO. The multi-part definition is based on the confinement area and length of confinement, the number of animals confined, and for medium CAFOs, the way that animal waste is handled. While it is clear-cut and objective, this multi-pronged definition left a lot of room for confusion because of its complexity and some terminology that isn’t self-explanatory to the average voter. We may have been able to write a clearer definition ourselves, using plain language, but it would not have had the objectivity and credibility of the EPA behind it. 

• Face-to-face conversations are one of the most effective tactics for building support for a measure and even changing people’s preconceptions, BUT rather than jumping directly into deeper tactics like one-on-one deep canvassing, it is highly important to establish a widespread, public-facing presence to help shape people’s first impression of the measure. If you don’t, you leave that key first impression for most of the public available for the opposition to take. 

• The opposition’s playbook is full of dirty tactics including spreading blatant lies with no factual basis, and we must respond by calling out their deception. We can still run a clean and fact-based campaign while strongly and swiftly condemning the opposition for lying, fearmongering, and even paying tens of thousands of dollars to an environmental group for their support. The public deserves to know about these dirty tactics. 

Knowing what we know now, and with the concrete skills we developed through this campaign, we will only be stronger in future work, whether it’s through the ballot box or other tactics. Many community leaders have already come together to discuss possible legislative solutions to pursue next. 

How do we make sure this loss is a step in the right direction? We must face it head on, learn from it, and build off of it. We have to acknowledge the disappointment of this loss and recognize where we fell short, while also celebrating the many wins that came from this campaign. We must bring people together to reflect on what we learned, hear feedback from the community, build trust through connection and strengthen our coalitions with groups who share similar concerns to us. 

We must keep moving forward. 

Gay marriage lost at the ballot box in states across the country over 30 times before it finally succeeded. These so-called failures aren't historical footnotes – they're blueprints for success. Each campaign cycle educates voters, refines proposals, and builds broader coalitions.

Before the 19th Amendment was ratified, there were 54 ballot measures to adopt women's suffrage in 30 states. Most lost. Women obviously weren’t allowed to vote on this question. Similarly, with Measure J, the animals who are most harmed by factory farming can’t vote to protect themselves, nor can future generations vote on issues today that affect the planet they will live on. 

We wish change would come sooner for their sakes most of all. But we know this is a long-term fight and we are committed to continuing the struggle to end factory farming no matter how long it takes. We have to keep trying, even if we, too, are destined to lose 30 times before we win.