“It Would Be Kinder to Shoot Them” A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Animals Farmed Series in The Guardian

Lukas Leitinger

Supervisor: Núria Almiron Academic Year: 2019/20

Research project of the MA in International Studies in Media, Power, and Difference

Department of Communication Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Abstract This study conducted a critical discourse analysis on the Animals farmed series in The Guardian. To this end, the messages of the 196 articles from the launch of the series until April 20, 2020 and 8 articles from outside the series were analysed. Predominantly, the language of the series reinforces animal oppression by only asking how, not if, we should farm nonhuman animals. Some articles in the series show farmed animals’ suffering and workers’ ethical dilemmas, yet thorough challenges to animal oppression were only found outside the series. Thus, the study identified an underlying welfarist ideology throughout Animals farmed. Additionally, this study conducted a political economy analysis to explore the economic pressures behind the series. This analysis revealed links to the animal industry and philanthropy, which helps explain the findings. With these findings, the study contributes to critical animal and media studies and to journalism fighting animal oppression.

Keywords: farmed animals, animal oppression, newspapers, critical animal and media studies, critical discourse analysis, political economy, philanthropy

Type of Project: Research Report

2 Table of contents 1 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Overview ...... 4 1.2 History of animal farming ...... 5 1.3 Case ...... 8 2 Theoretical Framework ...... 9 2.1 Farmed animal oppression & lives ...... 9 2.2 Animal oppression and animal welfare ...... 12 2.3 Animal oppression and language ...... 13 2.4 Political economy and philanthropy ...... 14 2.5 Critical discourse analysis ...... 15 2.6 Literature review ...... 16 3 Methodology ...... 19 3.1 Problem statement and research questions ...... 19 3.2 Sample ...... 19 3.3 Data collection methods ...... 20 3.4 Data analysis procedures and methods ...... 21 3.5 Ethical issues and limitations ...... 22 4 Results ...... 23 4.1 Reinforcing animal oppression - welfarist ideology ...... 23 4.1.1 How, not if, we should farm nonhuman animals ...... 23 4.1.2 Suppression of farmed animals’ perspectives ...... 24 4.1.3 Supposed neutrality and distance ...... 26 4.1.4 Abuse and violence make news ...... 27 4.1.5 Representation of limited welfare claims ...... 28 4.1.6 ‘Ethical’ animal farming ...... 29 4.2 Challenging animal oppression ...... 31 4.2.1 Farmed animals’ suffering, sentience, and lives ...... 31 4.2.2 Challenges to the animal industry ...... 32 4.2.3 Workers‘ trouble with killing ...... 33 4.3 Challenges from outside Animals farmed ...... 33 4.3.1 Regular articles ...... 33 4.3.2 Opinion pieces ...... 34 5 Discussion ...... 34 5.1 Problems of the welfarist ideology ...... 36 5.2 Political economy and philanthropy ...... 38 6 Conclusion ...... 42 7 References ...... 44 8 Appendix ...... 48

3 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview The animal industry exploits and kills billions of nonhuman animals for food every year 1. Chickens, pigs, fishes, cows, sheep, goats, and members of many other species suffer in confinement and are killed while they are still young. This violence has long historical roots in human society. Despite these roots, the animal industry requires the continued acceptance of the majority of the human population to exist. However, more and more humans are challenging animal oppression and increasing the concern for farmed animals. This growing concern has recently resulted in a dedicated, philanthropy-funded series in The Guardian called Animals farmed. The series covers issues on intensive farming and its alternatives. Newspapers wield considerable influence on public opinion. Hence, the perspectives in news articles can impact readers’ acceptance of the animal industry. Therefore, better understanding how newspapers represent farmed animals supports the struggle against animal oppression. This study aims to inform journalists on how articles in Animals farmed challenge animal oppression or reinforce the violent status quo. The entire examined series contained 196 articles as of April 20th, 2020. This study analysed the whole corpus, plus 8 selected The Guardian articles from outside the series. On these texts, the study conducted a lexical and semantic analysis, as well as an analysis of suppressions and presuppositions. A critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach was chosen in this study because it can reveal underlying common-sense assumptions. Drawing together the dominant messages in the series explains whether the language used in the series reinforces or challenges animal oppression. Unlike most CDA, this study also incorporated a political economy analysis. This analysis revealed the economic pressures underlying the series. Several innovations mark the importance of this empirical study. Firstly, few studies have used a CDA approach on farmed animals’ representation in newspapers. The dedicated series provides a unique case compared to previous studies analysing articles across newspapers. Secondly, the study explored the potential of combining CDA with a political

1 The use of language in describing other animals’ situation is both important and challenging. Acknowledging the generalizations of vast numbers of different individuals into one term, I will use ‘farmed animals’ from hereon to include all nonhuman animals used for food. ‘Farmed’ instead of ‘farm’ animals is chosen to highlight the exploitation done to them, which does not define them, similar to using ‘enslaved people’ instead of ‘slaves’. The term ‘animal industry’ in this study covers all operations exploiting farmed animals. Additionally, I use ‚fishes‘ over the impersonal mass noun ‚fish‘ to highlight the individualities (Balcombe 2016)

4 economy analysis, two approaches that generally remain separately. Thirdly, the connection between philanthropy, animal advocacy, and newspapers has not been studied before. These mark the main justifications for this study. The theoretical framework of this study is situated within critical animal and media studies. Decolonial, feminist, critical disability, and anti-capitalist perspectives inspire this study. According to these perspectives, the binary human-animal category works to dominate and exploit those outside the colonial, ‘ideal’ conception of ‘human’. Hence, this study understands animal oppression in a wider system of domination that we need to challenge as such. To better understand The Guardian series, critical perspectives on mass media and philanthropy inform the political economy analysis. The framework also describes the CDA approach, especially the modifications to CDA required to study animal oppression. In order to support the framework and inform the study, the relevant literature is reviewed. After outlining the theoretical framework, the methodology section describes the textual analysis applied in this study. Next, the results section explains how the articles reinforce animal oppression by only discussing how animals should be farmed, not if. The results section goes on to show the limited challenges to animal oppression from within the series, as well as some more bold challenges from outside the series. The discussion begins with reflecting on the underlying welfarist ideology identified in the series. To put the results in context, the discussion features a political economy analysis of the series, focusing on philanthropic funding. Finally, the conclusion explores the implications for journalists and further avenues of research provoked by this study.

1.2 History of animal farming While humans have been farming other animals for thousands of years, this marks only a small part of human history. For most of our history, humans sustained themselves through gathering and foraging, and only started hunting 90,000 years ago (Nibert 2013). Conventionally, human lives before the advent of agriculture are understood as a constant struggle for food and survival. In stark contrast, Marshall Sahlins ([1972] 2017, 1) showed that pre-agricultural humans fulfilled their little needs at the time while allowing plentiful leisure time, in what he described as the “original affluent society”. This realization provides an essential backdrop for the following times with animal farming. Around 10,000 years ago, the advent of agriculture transformed the lives of both humans and other animals. Contrary to popular belief, humans cultivating plants had to work harder and faced higher risks than their predecessors (Harari 2014). Alongside plant

5 agriculture, human groups moved “from hunting to capturing and controlling the reproduction of several species of other animals to exploit them as food and other resources” (Nibert 2013, 26). This human-nonhuman relationship is generally understood as benign or even mutually beneficial under the term ‘domestication’. Additionally, the general understanding of ‘domestication’ considers it beneficial to humanity’s progress. However, a closer look at the consequences for nonhuman animals, as well as the majority of humans, reveals a violent picture instead. Humans have been and still are systematically exploiting nonhuman animals for food, transport, and other services. Through “capturing, controlling and genetically manipulating other animals for human use, […] their bodies and minds are desecrated to facilitate their exploitation” (Nibert 2013, 28). For these reasons, Nibert proposed the term ‘domesecration’ instead of ‘domestication’, highlighting the violent and oppressive nature of this relationship. The farmed animals discussed in this paper are, therefore, a result of domesecration. On top of the systemic violence towards other animals, domesecration enabled and promoted violence towards humans. Using domesecrated animals provided food, transport, and military force, which allowed groups such as the Eurasian nomads and the Roman empire to invade and raid vast areas (Nibert 2013). Beyond enabling, keeping large numbers of domesecrated animals promoted such violence by requiring water and grazing areas for sustenance (Nibert 2013). Thus, domesecration both enabled and promoted violent and stratified social systems. For roughly the last 500 years, domesecration tightly linked to colonialism and capitalism. The expansion of ranching was a driving factor for the Spanish and Portuguese, and later British colonisations of the Americas that killed and displaced millions of native Americans (Nibert 2013). On the backs of exploited humans and nonhumans, the violent plunders of the Americas produced the resources required for the establishment of capitalism (Nibert 2013). From the beginning, domesecration provided profitable (and violent) industries for capitalist growth. As such, capitalism and domesecration reinforced each other in concentrating wealth and power to the elites. This link between domesecration and capitalism and their reinforcing growth continued up to the present. Globally, the animal industry killed over 77 billion farmed land animals in 2018 and between 304 and 772 billion farmed underwater animals in 2017 for food (FAOStat 2018; Fishcount 2019b; 2019a). At the same time, the industry uses vast resources and causes pollution and human conflicts throughout the world (Nibert 2013). This

6 violence towards both nonhumans and humans, historically and presently, provides the background for the current situation of the animal industry. Writing the history of domesecration in terms of oppression and violence leaves out the farmed animals’ agency. Nibert (2013) acknowledged this limitation in his work and instead focused on systemic factors such as those described above. While Nibert’s work provides a crucial systemic analysis, it runs the risk of presenting domesecrated animals purely as passive victims. Presenting nonhuman animals only as victims of exploitation removes their agency and, subsequently, their status as active individuals. Hribal (2007a) critiqued this tendency in human-animal historical writing and argued for writing ‘history from below’. Here, nonhuman animals are understood as active agents, labourers, and resistors (Hribal 2007a). Although this is not a historical paper, the tension between structural forces (Nibert) and nonhuman agency and resistance (Hribal) will be further explored in the theoretical framework to inform the analysis for this study. One way to ensure farmed animals are not just passive victims is to refer to them as workers. Hribal (2007a) recalled the once common belief that farmed animals are active agents who work and resist their exploitation. Further, farmed animals have long been known to refuse their work and mistreatment, as indicated by the myriad of measures invented to incentivise or control them. Both their labour and resistance bear striking parallels to human workers, hence Hribal (2007a) argued that farmed animals are part of the working class. Nonhuman and human workers as a common class in mutual struggles both signals their agency and inspired early critiques of animal oppression. The direct experiences of humans’ own and nonhumans’ struggles, together with revolutionary education, inspired the modern Pythagoreans in the 17th and 18th centuries, who were radical for their time (Hribal 2007a). Next, the significant political changes of the American and the French revolutions caused some people in them to extend the struggle to animal oppression (Hribal 2007a). Towards the end of the 19th century in England, Henry S. Salt developed many of the arguments that paved the way for the modern animal liberation movement, which took off in the second half of the 20th century (Phelps 2007). These form a rough trajectory of the more radical critiques of animal oppression in the last centuries. Alongside the more radical voices, moderate perspectives that focused on preventing cruelty gained traction. Instead of farmed animals’ agency, the focus here was pity and avoiding unnecessary harm (Hribal 2007a). These perspectives did not challenge animal oppression directly but instead marked a welfarist stance of merely improving the conditions

7 for farmed animals. In this moderate form, the animal advocacy movement grew substantially and achieved a range of legal reforms. The tensions between the radical and the moderate factions continued until the present. From its start in the 1970s until the early 1990s, the animal rights movement grew and continued the utopian energy of the 1960s social movements (Phelps 2007). In the following decades, the movement’s professionalization and the growth of non-profits worked to contain more radical perspectives (Wrenn 2019). These struggles and developments set the stage for the concern for nonhuman animals today. As a result, the debate about farmed animals has made it into a dedicated series in a major UK newspaper.

1.3 Case The Animals farmed series in the UK newspaper The Guardian presents a unique case for research. With 24 million readers in the UK, The Guardian has the highest readership among quality newsbrands (PAMCo 2019). The series is located in the ‘Environment’ section shared between the UK and International online editions of The Guardian and does not appear in the US and Australia editions. In cooperation with the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, the series publishes investigative reports and news articles on “modern factory farming, food production and animal welfare” (The Guardian 2018). From its launch in February 2018 to April 20, 2020, the series had issued 196 articles. The Guardian being from the UK makes for an interesting context. In fact, the modern animal advocacy movement was born in the UK (Wand 2003). For this case, the UK history with direct action activism becomes relevant. Direct action such as hunt sabotage and raids of vivisection labs and factory farms has played an essential role in the UK. These strategies rescued many nonhuman animals, caused enormous economic harm to the animal industry, and lead to a heated discussion about whether the activists are ‘terrorists or freedom fighters’ (Best and Nocella 2004). As in other places, the state’s efforts to brand activists as terrorists left a mark on public perspectives on animal activism, especially direct action. Nevertheless, the number of vegans in the UK has almost doubled in 2018 (VeganTrade 2018), which makes for an interesting time and place for this debate. As with other series in The Guardian, Animals farmed receives external funding. In this case, the funding comes from the US-based Open Philanthropy, which funds “farm animal welfare” projects among many other focus areas (Open Philanthropy 2015). Open Philanthropy renewed the original two-year grant for $886,600 for another two years and $900,000 in January 2020 (Open Philanthropy 2020b). The philanthropic funding is a crucial

8 factor for the series’ political economy, which forms part of the analysis. While a dedicated series in a major newspaper indicates the prominence of the debate, critical analysis has to determine whether the series challenges animal oppression. To do so, this study analysed the discourse on farmed animals in the news articles. 2 Theoretical Framework

This study takes its normative, ethical perspective broadly from the scholar-activist field of critical animal studies (CAS). Thus, it takes a clear stance against animal oppression, which is analysed in the light of other oppressions. As stated in one of the founding documents of CAS, “hierarchical ideologies and institutions are viewed as parts of a larger, interlocking, global system of domination”, therefore CAS advocates an “anti-capitalist, and more generally, a radical anti-hierarchical politics” (Best et al. 2007, 2). This CAS field recently expanded to include communication analysis. Specifically, the new field of critical animal and media studies (CAMS) emerged from both CAS and critical media studies (CMS) (Almiron, Cole, and Freeman 2016). Here, CAS was enriched by the critical media and communication perspectives, while vice versa challenging the anthropocentric bias of CMS. By analysing animal oppression in the media through a critical lens, this study draws from a range of CAMS theories while simultaneously expanding the growing research area. This section first locates animal oppression within social issues by drawing from different critical perspectives to define the problem for this study. Next, the framework is expanded to how language and political economy connect to animal oppression, a key focus of CAMS. Next, the approach for this study, critical discourse analysis, is introduced. Lastly, this section reviews the academic literature to contextualise the study in existing work.

2.1 Farmed animal oppression & lives One of the central ideas promoted by CAS is that the oppression of farmed animals is part of an interlocking system of domination. As described in 1.2, animal oppression and capitalism share a tight historical link. In fact, the word ‘capitalism’ stems from the Latin ‘caput’ for ‘head of cattle’, as farmed animals were early private property at the start of capitalism (Sanbonmatsu 2017; Curl 2018). The link is so strong that “animal liberation and capitalism … are mutually incompatible modes of civilizational development” (Sanbonmatsu 2011, 26). Human and nonhuman oppression have always been interlinked, and so is the struggle

9 against them (Nibert 2002). This marks the necessity for the anti-capitalist commitment of CAS, required for both nonhuman and human liberation. Crucially, animal oppression is not merely a human-animal issue, as demonstrated by Ko and Ko (2017). Drawing from decolonial, anti-racist and feminist traditions, their black vegan theory analyses the ideological root of oppressions, rather than the consequences. Specifically, they show how white, human supremacy depends on a particular understanding of ‘human’ as white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, etc. Thus, the logic of the human- animal binary oppresses different ‘not-quite-humans’, which do not fit with the particular understanding of ‘human’. Only a few privileged people are considered fully human, and ‘animality’ is used to justify violence and oppression against others. This shared logic underlying human and nonhuman oppression connects them at the root. While many critical scholars use speciesism (the bias against members of other animal species) as their analytical starting point, Ko and Ko have a different approach. They problematise the comparisons of speciesism being ‘like’ sexism and racism and instead show how they stem from a common root of oppression. Thus, through the shared ideological root of white, human supremacy, these seemingly separate issues are firmly tied together. Therefore, the term animal oppression in this study is part of a racist, colonial system of domination, rather than a mere human-animal issue separate from racism and sexism. Hence, this study focuses on animal oppression rather than speciesism. In the same book, Ko (2017a) criticised the use of scientific evidence to show similarities between humans and nonhumans as an advocacy strategy. As with racism, emphasising differences is part of the racist project, but that does not mean that the opposite, emphasising similarities, is the solution. Emphasising similarities with farmed animals usually entails natural science sources that prove sentience, capacity for suffering, or joy, which should spark moral concern. For Ko, this wrongly assumes that oppression stems from observable differences or the lack of evidence for similarities between groups. Instead, drawing from Diamond (1978), Ko argued that the justification for violence is already in the concepts ‘animal’ and ‘black’. As such, emphasising scientific evidence and similarities does not get to the root of the problem. Hence, we should analyse and overturn the ideological root of oppression, namely white, human supremacy. From a different perspective, Corman (2017) also critiqued similarity arguments, and more specifically, the emphasis on suffering in animal advocacy. Corman acknowledged the value of intersectional studies focusing on oppression and suffering. However, these perspectives run the risk of presenting farmed animals merely as passive victims. Crucially,

10 as Hribal (2007a) has convincingly demonstrated, farmed animals are active agents who both work and resist their exploitation. To actively represent farmed animals, Corman (2017, 257) suggested referring to cognitive ethologists who “attempt to meet other animals on their own terms, in their own worlds”. In making these points, Corman draws from critical disability studies, which provide valuable lessons for understanding animal oppression. Discussing suffering alone creates a narrative of passive victims, a well-known issue in disability politics that needs more acknowledgement in the animal oppression debate (Taylor 2017). Beyond the suffering focus and victimization, animal oppression shares a fundamental link to disability. In fact, animal oppression is often justified on the lack of certain ‘human’ traits or abilities, such as language or rationality, clearly following ableist logic (Taylor 2017). Thus, “ableism helps construct the systems that render the lives and experiences of both nonhuman animals and disabled humans as less valuable and as discardable” (Taylor 2017, 77). The comparison of farmed animals to the ‘ideal human’ (white, able-bodied, etc.) reveals the racist logic explained by Ko & Ko and the ableist logic explained by Taylor. These understandings may help detect underlying ideologies in newspaper discourses. While both Ko and Corman argued against focusing on similarities with humans and scientific evidence for suffering, they proposed different alternatives. For Ko, critical attention should focus on the ideological roots, while for Corman, they should also ensure an active representation of farmed animals, showing their unique cultures and individualities. However, these do not have to conflict with each other, and can both feature in CAS research and advocacy. Both the structural, ideological focus of Ko and the active representation suggested by Corman make up the complicated situation of animal oppression. Also, both approaches call for solidarity (S. Ko 2017b, loc 1462; Corman 2017, 261), a non-hierarchical political commitment to farmed animals that this study follows. Highlighting farmed animals’ agency does not require hiding the suffering inherent in animal oppression, a prevalent tactic of the animal industry. Evidence of suffering should be complemented with stories about nonhuman cultures, personalities, and agency, in what Corman (2017, 252 emphasis in original) called an “including but beyond suffering approach”. While human interpretation of nonhumans’ actions is always limited, this should call for humility, not retreat from telling their stories (Corman 2017). Nonhuman animals have their own feelings of joy, empathy, and morality (Bekoff 2007), and we should represent them as much as possible in their own rights.

11 Many farmed animals form lifelong friendships if given the chance. For example, Hope, a pig who could not walk due to a bad leg and Johnny, a younger, healthy pig, formed a close relationship in a sanctuary. Johnny cared for and comforted Hope, brought her food, and stayed by her side. After Hope died of old age, Johnny “died suddenly and unexpectedly within a couple of weeks after Hope, perhaps of a broken heart” (Masson 2007, loc 733). Such meaningful insights into farmed animals’ lives represent their potentials more fully. Additionally to farmed animals’ emotional lives, focusing on their actions moves away from the passive victim perspective. Especially important for the discussion on animal oppression is escape, a direct form of resistance. One successful escapee was Emily in Massachusetts, a cow exploited for ‘dairy’ and sent to the slaughterhouse at the age of three (Hribal 2007b). Instead of getting killed in the slaughterhouse, Emily jumped over a 1,5m fence and ran into the forest. For six weeks, Emily roamed the area and ate alongside a herd of deer. During that time, Emily gained nationwide fame and was allowed to live out her life free from exploitation on a big pasture. Such stories of resistance transform the passive victim narrative towards active agents resisting their exploitation. In summary, this section defined animal oppression by balancing the structural and ideological factors with farmed animals’ lives and agency. Understanding animal oppression’s link with capitalism, white supremacy, and ableism reveals it as far more than a depoliticised human-animal issue. At the same time, understanding animal oppression requires a centring of the farmed animals themselves, through their lives and actions. This combination makes up the core issue of this study, which is explored in the newspaper discourse of Animals farmed.

2.2 Animal oppression and animal welfare The debate on animal oppression entails a constant struggle between liberationists and welfarists. Liberationists take a clear stance against animal oppression and seek to abolish the animal industry. Conversely, a welfarist approach does not challenge animal oppression or the animal industry directly. Instead, welfarists strive for gradual change and improving the conditions for farmed animals. Another approach, working for gradual improvements and legislation with the end goal of ending the animal industry, has been termed ‘new welfarism’ (Francione 1996). However, these welfarist approaches have severe limitations when it comes to animal oppression. According to the CAS view, welfarist approaches and the underlying welfarist ideology do not challenge, but rather reinforce animal oppression. The animal industry

12 participates in creating these legislations, and the lives of ‘humanely’ farmed animals are generally not improved substantially (Nibert 2013). Even in the most ‘humane’ conditions, farmed animals get killed for human benefit. Hence, the welfarist approach uses euphemisms such as ‘humane slaughter’, which implies that killing a farmed animal is not wrong in itself. Thus, it follows that the welfarist approach does not challenge farmed animals’ subordinate status and oppression. In line with the CAS principles (Best et al. 2007), the stance against animal oppression in this study rejects welfarist or reformist approaches. Instead, it aims to end the animal industry and animal oppression.

2.3 Animal oppression and language Language can uphold and normalise animal oppression, which makes it a core research area in CAMS. A fundamental work on the role of language and the links between animal oppression with sexism is The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (Adams [1990] 2010). Adams ([1990] 2010, 66) described how both farmed animals and women (among other groups) become “absent referents” in the violence inflicted on them. Turning farmed animals into absent referents happens through the literal butchering, the change in language when eaten, and the animal metaphors for human experiences (Adams [1990] 2010). As such, the absent referent concept expands the focus from the literal violence to how language enables it, which is at the core of this study. The concept provides an essential perspective for analysing how newspaper articles reinforce animal oppression. Building on The Sexual Politics of Meat, Dunayer (2001) conducted the first systematic study of the role of the English language in animal oppression. In Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, Dunayer analysed the language used for the animal industry among other forms of exploitation. Additionally, Dunayer explored how the use of pronouns, such as the objectifying ‘it’ and animal metaphors normalise animal oppression. In addition to the critical analysis of the use of language, Dunayer proposed a thesaurus with alternative terms. Dunayer’s work has had a lasting effect on the language used in CAS, such as using ‘nonhuman animals’ and avoiding ‘farm animals’ or ‘pets’. Dunayer grounded her work on language in a political economy analysis. Hence, she identified how the industries profiting from animal oppression spread the terminology that reinforces animal oppression. In summary, Dunayer’s work has set the groundwork for analysing animal oppression and language, grounded in a political economy analysis.

13 2.4 Political economy and philanthropy Political economy analysis helps understand the drivers of both the animal industry and the mass media, and thus marks a cornerstone of both CAS and CAMS (Best et al. 2007; Almiron, Cole, and Freeman 2016). While the economic drivers of animal oppression were already discussed in 1.2, this section concerns the political economy of communication. Herman and Chomsky ([1988] 2008) developed the propaganda model to explain how mass media, specifically newspapers, function in a capitalist society. Instead of direct censorship, the model’s five filters of 1) size, ownership and profit orientation, 2) advertising, 3) sourcing, 4) flak, and 5) ideology limit the perspectives that make it into news articles. According to Herman and Chomsky, and confirmed by the research of a long list of political economists of communication (e.g. Winseck and Jin 2011; McChesney [1999] 2015), the mass media helps manufacture consent for the political agenda of powerful groups. As Open Philanthropy externally funds the Animals farmed series, the political economy analysis requires a critical perspective on philanthropy. Philanthropic funding can misdirect the radical aims of social justice organizations to align with the political agenda of their wealthy funders. King and Osayande (2017) have shown how philanthropic funding encouraged people of colour organizations to stop calling for reparations and wealth redistribution to attract wealthy, white donors. Thus, as wealthy capitalists fund philanthropic organizations, their work is unlikely to challenge the status quo of concentrated wealth linked with white supremacy. Philanthropic organizations such as the Ford Foundation also worked to co-opt the black power movement away from anti-capitalist ideas (Allen 1990). Along similar lines, Barker (2008) argued how liberal philanthropy promoting a ‘nicer’ form of capitalism channels social movements to discredit more radical alternatives. Philanthropy limiting radical discourse aligns closely with the propaganda model for mass media because both are closely tied to political agendas of the wealthy. As King and Osayanda (2017, 88) put it, “philanthropy is not progressive and never has been”. While none of these works on philanthropy considered farmed animals, this study asks whether parallels can be drawn to philanthropy and animal oppression. The critical scholars mentioned above have shown how philanthropy contains calls for real social change. If philanthropy promotes ‘nicer’ capitalism instead of questioning it, does it also promote ‘nicer’ animal oppression? As with capitalism, animal oppression mainly benefits a wealthy elite (Nibert 2013), so these aligned interests suggest a similar phenomenon in the political economy analysis.

14 2.5 Critical discourse analysis This study applies a critical discourse analysis (CDA) perspective, as theorised by Fairclough (2013) and Van Dijk (1993). CDA research has almost entirely excluded nonhuman animals from their analysis (Stibbe 2012). Stibbe (2012) was the first to critique this anthropocentric bias and theorise how CDA can analyse animal oppression. The CDA employed in this study aims to continue in this non-anthropocentric vein. Due to CDA’s roots in the critical approach, it takes a clear normative stance in favour of the oppressed. As such, it rejects the supposed neutrality, which in the face of oppression serves to reinforce the status quo. In contrast to other approaches, CDA is not primarily motivated by the contribution to disciplines and theories, but rather by social issues, and includes a clear, socio-political goal (Van Dijk 1993). For this study, the socio-political goal and normative stance are against animal oppression, as outlined in section 2.1. Similarly, the CAS principles reject “theory-for-theory’s sake” and instead advocate linking theory to practice and political commitment (Best et al. 2007, 2). Thus, CDA is a suitable approach for CAS that fits into the communication focus of CAMS. At its core, CDA focuses “on the role of discourse in the (re)production and challenge of dominance [emphasis in original]” (Van Dijk 1993, 249), whereas dominance is the exercise and abuse of social power. While the original conception only considered social power between humans, farmed animals are a large, exploited group and therefore victims of dominance as well. Van Dijk (1993) explains power as controlling both action and cognition, emphasising how discourses work to influence the minds of the oppressed group. On the oppressed group of farmed animals, the industry exerts power coercively, rather than ideologically (Stibbe 2012). However, “the coercive power used to oppress animals depends on the consent of the majority of the human population” (Stibbe 2012, 20). Thus, this study analyses how discourse and ideology work to manufacture or challenge the consent for animal oppression among the human population. For discourse to contribute to dominance or social power, it requires a theoretical connection to the social world. In CDA, discourse is understood as both shaping social structures while at the same time reflecting it (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002). Fairclough (2013, 164) described the relationship between discourse and other social structures as “different, but not discrete”, or dialectical. CDA focuses on these relations and thereby invites for transdisciplinary perspectives to enhance the analysis (Fairclough 2013). Accordingly, in this study, the textual analysis of the articles is complemented with a political

15 economy analysis. Combining discourse and political economy allows for a fruitful, relational analysis. Another perspective on this relationship influencing the framework of this study comes from the socio-cognitive approach of Van Dijk (1993). Here, social cognition is the interface between discourse and dominance. Social cognition encompasses the common representations and ways of interpreting and thinking in human’s minds (Van Dijk 1993). In this social cognition, dominance requires justification and legitimisation to continue, often through appearing natural, necessary or through denial (Van Dijk 1993). Social cognition and representation are especially crucial for the oppression of farmed animals. As most humans have little direct contact with farmed animals, they rely more on social cognition or their mental representations. Thus, social cognition and discourses influence human’s decisions to withdraw consent from animal oppression, such as through boycotting the animal industry. The way discourses reinforce dominance and oppression does not have to be overt (Khazaal and Almiron 2016). Often, the implicit assumptions in the text accomplish this aspect. These appear as the pre-existing social cognition, or common-sense assumptions, which are hidden in the text. CDA aims to reveal these common-sense assumptions, as these are particularly relevant for sustaining animal oppression (Stibbe 2012). Thus, the analysis of Animals farmed conducted in this study asks whether the series reinforces these common- sense assumptions or challenges them.

2.6 Literature review The following section reviews the existing literature to identify the precedents for this study. The few direct precedents of CDA on farmed animals in newspapers are here complemented with related studies using similar methods or focus areas. This relatively new and unexplored area encourages further studies such as this one, while at the same time providing valuable insights into which messages might be identified in the text. Although not utilising CDA, Freeman’s (2009) textual analysis of farmed animals’ representations in US print and broadcast media stories laid the groundwork for this study. Especially the analysis of newspaper articles (in this case from The New York Times) provides valuable first results of farmed animals’ representations. Freeman’s (2009) quantitative approach found that approximately 90% of the stories reinforced speciesism by objectifying animals. The main strategies discovered for doing so were commodification (reducing farmed animals to economic resources), ignoring the farmed animals’ perspectives and emotions, and denying individual identities. The few stories in the sample challenging

16 speciesism mainly did so by stating that farmed animals deserve rescuing, or that farming should respect their emotions and preferences. Thus, some stories represented the inherent value of animals, while the vast majority reinforced the oppressive status quo. Stibbe (2012) conducted the first CDA on farmed animals’ representation in newspapers. The CDA on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the UK largely reaffirms Freeman’s findings for the specific case. Both the National Farmers Union and the UK government exaggerated the mild, non-fatal disease using war and fire metaphors to justify the army carrying out mass killings (Stibbe 2012). These metaphors worked to conceal the perspective of farmed animals, for whom the government’s response was far deadlier than the disease. With journalists relying on official sources, UK newspapers largely replicated the official discourse. Thus, the dominant messages directly justified the violent government response at the cost of millions of lives. As such, Stibbe’s CDA provides a more specific example of how newspaper discourse legitimises violence towards farmed animals. The most recent CDA on newspaper discourse about farmed animals revealed some continuities and changes in the dominant strategies. Khazaal and Almiron (2016) studied 30 newspaper articles each from the US The New York Times and the Spanish El País between 2011 and 2013. Thus, they crucially expanded the studied newspapers outside of English- speaking countries. While the more overt “crude speciesism” resembling Freeman’s (2009) findings continued to exist in both newspapers, The New York Times also featured a newly identified “camouflaged speciesism”. Camouflaged speciesism hides animal oppression in positive stories celebrating alternative agriculture and minor welfare changes in the animal industry (Khazaal and Almiron 2016). One of the camouflage tools is presenting farmed animals’ agency and individuality to legitimise alternative agriculture. Although farmed animals’ agency and individuality are crucial arguments against animal oppression (see 2.1), the camouflage discourse turns them around to reinforce animal oppression. As such, the camouflage suggests a significant ‘mutation’ of speciesism that further CDA on the topic, especially in other contexts, needs to take into consideration. Again, as in Freeman’s (2009) earlier study, a small part of the sample indicated openings for change. These three works are the direct predecessors for this study. However, studies on related topics also provide further insights. Several studies have analysed the representation of veganism, which directly links to concern for farmed animals. Cole and Morgan (2011) analysed veganism discourses in UK newspapers in 2007 and found a mostly derogatory portrayal through ridicule and a range of stereotypes. Amongst other consequences, these representations implicitly obscure and

17 reinforce animal oppression. Interesting for this study, The Guardian had the most references to veganism among UK newspapers in 2007. Although most of The Guardian articles represented negative or neutral stances, this may indicate a more long-standing coverage of veganism and animal oppression in this outlet than in other newspapers. Another study replicated Cole and Morgan’s methodology and found similar results in the Australian newspapers. Masterman-Smith, Ragusa, and Crampton (2014) sampled articles from 2007 and 2012 and showed slightly more positive representations in Australia, but no improvement over these five years. From this literature, it follows that the derogatory representation of veganism adds to the evidence of newspaper discourses reinforcing animal oppression. Another crucial aspect of animal oppression is the killing of farmed animals, and how the language used for killing indicates their stance. Jepson (2008) analysed the different terms for killing humans and nonhumans in various media and conversations. While terms for killing humans precisely describe the actors, motives and the speaker’s judgment, the terms for nonhumans are vague and interchangeable (Jepson 2008). This is especially interesting for terms used for killing both humans and nonhumans. For example, while slaughtering nonhuman animals does not directly reflect an emotional judgment, slaughtering humans implies brutality and innocent victims, often in large numbers (Jepson 2008). Many texts on killing farmed animals use a range of euphemisms stemming from the industry to hide the ethical implications (as introduced first by Dunayer 2001). A CDA on farmed animals, therefore, must pay close attention to the terms used to describe the killing, as it is the cruel end farmed animals face. In summary, farmed animals’ representation in newspapers is still a rather unexplored topic that requires additional research in different time frames and contexts. Nevertheless, the existing studies provide insight into the identified discourses on farmed animals. Further research can explore not just whether newspaper discourse reinforces animal oppression, but how they change to adapt to constant challenges, as suggested by Khazaal and Almiron (2016). I argue that the decolonial and historical perspectives described in 2.1 provide a better understanding of animal oppression and agency. This leads to a more critical problem statement and expands newspaper CDA on farmed animals. Also, the CDA literature lacks engagement with political economy, which helps to understand and contextualise the discussion. By including a political economy analysis, especially focusing on the philanthropic funding, this study aims to contribute to CAMS. Animals farmed, as a dedicated series in a major newspaper, provides a new and relevant case for this strand of research.

18 3 Methodology

This section describes the methodology used in this study, starting with the problem statement and research questions following from the theoretical framework. Next, this section describes the sample, data collection and analysis. Lastly, ethical issues and limitations are presented. In line with the relational approach to CDA outlined in section 2.5, the textual analysis is complemented with a political economy analysis. The political economy analysis focuses on philanthropic funding and advertisements in the newspaper. The discussion explores the relations between the stance of the philanthropic organization and the articles. The methodology, however, focuses on the discourse analysis, while the political economy analysis helps to enhance the discussion of the results.

3.1 Problem statement and research questions This study focuses on the representation of farmed animals in The Guardian’s Animals farmed series. The dedicated, recent series in a major newspaper exemplifies some of the latest public discourses on the topic in Western society. In order to understand the series’ stance, this study conducts a critical discourse analysis (CDA) to unveil how the newspaper’s messages reinforce or challenge animal oppression. To this end, the following research questions are to be answered by this study:

1. To what extent and how do the messages in Animals farmed reinforce animal oppression? 2. To what extent and how do the messages in Animals farmed challenge animal oppression? 3. How can the political economy of the series help explain the messages in Animals farmed?

3.2 Sample The Animals farmed series was chosen due to its unique focus on farmed animals in a major newspaper. While previous literature has analysed the representation of farmed animals in all articles across newspapers, the dedicated series provides a new case. Additionally, no general CDA on farmed animals in UK newspapers has been published. From its inception in February 2018 to April 20, 2020, 196 articles were published in the series. Each article is a unit of analysis for this study. Besides farmed animals used for

19 food, the series also occasionally covers other animal industries and environmental topics. This study focused on articles that cover farmed animals in their live state, consistent with the approach of a similar study (Khazaal and Almiron 2016). However, Animals farmed articles about other topics still provide interesting insights on The Guardian’s discourse on animal oppression, and therefore stayed in the sample. To provide a comparison between Animals farmed and the rest of The Guardian, 8 The Guardian articles not part of the series were added to the sample. These articles were identified through the ‘Farm animals’ tag on The Guardian’s website and a general article search. The articles were selected based on their critical perspectives towards animal oppression.

3.3 Data collection methods All the articles included in the analysis are freely available on the website of The Guardian. Each article was downloaded as an HTML file, and the details entered into the coding sheet (Figure 1). Both the article tag and the main topic gathered from reading the text is entered to show possible discrepancies in the tags. The main topics allowed for a more general overview of the discourse, especially useful when analysing many articles (Van Dijk 2018). Next, the macro claim, or overarching argument, of each article was entered. Throughout the readings of the articles, relevant sections and pictures were copied into the template for further microanalysis.

Document code: Title: Link: Author: Date: Main topic (The Guardian tag): Main topic (from the text): Macro claim:

Micro

Text excerpt or Explicit Implicit How/which Verification Notes image proposition proposition tools? of RQ?

Figure 1: Coding sheet template (adapted from Giró 2019)

20 3.4 Data analysis procedures and methods CDA requires a systematic analysis of the texts (Fairclough 2013). Thus, a range of linguistic features was identified in the excerpts. For each excerpt, the explicit and implicit propositions, along with the linguistic tools, were entered into the template (Figure 1). This microanalysis is adapted from Giró (2019), Khazaal and Almiron (2016), and Van Dijk (2018). Firstly, the study conducted a lexical analysis of the texts to identify the choice of words. This method identifies the more overt objectifying and commodifying language, such as ‘livestock’, which has been consistently identified in studies of newspapers since Freeman’s (2009) initial study. Another important factor is the word choice for killing farmed animals, as analysed by Jepson (2008). Beyond the lexical choices for farmed animals, the framing of human actors, such as farmers, officials and activists indicate the general attitude towards farmed animals. Secondly, a more detailed semantic analysis revealed the meaning behind the chosen words. A range of semantic methods can create ambiguity or include ideological messages. For example, using passive verbs and nominalisations hides the subject of the action, which is essential for the more controversial acts such as killing farmed animals. The use of modality also reveals the author’s certainty in their claims, and thereby their stance (e.g. use of ‘may’, ‘must’, ‘possible’ or ‘certain’). The author can distance themselves from the claims by hedging, such as through using softening language or false balances. Another common strategy to shape the understanding of a situation is the use of rhetorical tropes such as metaphors, which was found especially important in the discourse on infectious diseases in farmed animals by Stibbe (2012). Lastly, what does not appear in the text reveals a lot about the discourse. Whose perspectives are not represented in the text? This is a crucial question, as the literature consistently found the suppression of farmed animals’ suffering (Freeman 2009; Khazaal and Almiron 2016). Crucially, following Corman’s (2017) ‘including suffering but beyond’ approach, the analysis focused on farmed animals’ representations beyond suffering victims. Although representing the perspectives of farmed animals may seem unconventional, guidelines for doing so have been developed (Freeman, Bekoff, and Bexell 2011). Besides the suppression of farmed animals’ perspectives, suppressing human perspectives challenging animal oppression is another crucial factor. Another thing not stated in the text are presuppositions or taken-for-granted assumptions. They implicitly use and thereby reinforce

21 the common knowledge in order to make sense of a proposition or claim. These hidden, common-sense rules are crucial in determining the ideological effects of the discourse. While these are some of the expected linguistic features drawn from the literature, not all may occur in the analysed texts. As such, they are flexible guidelines to help describe the discourse of The Guardian regarding animal oppression, which are adapted to suit the features found in the texts. During the identification of the linguistic features, they were continuously grouped into the most dominant and telling messages. Doing so allowed for comparing with the strategies identified in previous studies, and for seeing continuities or changes across time and context. Mapping out the main messages targeted the first two research questions on The Guardian’s messages reinforcing or challenging animal oppression, and formed the basic structure of the discussion. In order to answer the third research question, the findings from the microanalysis were connected with a macroanalysis. This follows the relational approach of Fairclough (2013), by including a non-discursive political economy analysis. Here, the funding model of The Guardian and specifically the Animals farmed series were explored. The critical perspectives on political economy and philanthropy described in 2.4 informed a more holistic analysis of the case. The discussion compared the discourse emerging from the articles with the results from the political economy analysis.

3.5 Ethical issues and limitations As the study did not gather personal information about people, ethical issues become less of an issue. Nevertheless, copyright needs consideration as The Guardian owns the content on their website (The Guardian 2010). The terms and conditions do not allow any use of the content except for personal and non-commercial use, which research does not fall into (The Guardian 2010). However, UK law allows “fair dealing” as an exception to copyright for non-commercial research purposes, such as this study (UK Public General Acts 2018). A common limitation of CDA is the relationship between discourse and the ‘non- discursive’ world. A CDA cannot prove causality between discursive and non-discursive elements. In this study, The Guardian’s discourse was revealed from the articles, while the ‘non-discursive’ element analyses the political economy. While these are in a dialectical relationship, a CDA cannot empirically prove how one part causes effects on the other (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002).

22 Another crucial shortcoming of this CDA is the lack of audience research. By only analysing the messages found in the text, this leaves the understanding and interpretation unexplored. Therefore, more thorough research would assess the readership of the Animals farmed series and their social cognition and understandings of the discourse. By using a rather large sample, this study aims to gain an overview of the series. This, however, comes with compromising some detail of the textual analysis. 4 Results

Throughout the analysis of the sampled articles, three main topics emerge: animal welfare, environment and food safety/disease. All three topics, albeit in different ways, are relevant to the discourse on animal oppression. The articles discussing the environmental impact, as well as food safety/diseases tend to write out the animal perspective, and thereby reinforce animal oppression. While animal welfare is the most prevalent topic in the sample, this does not automatically challenge animal oppression. Besides being the most common topic, animal welfare forms the basis of the welfarist ideology identified in the articles. This section explores how the welfarist ideology underlies the articles and reinforces animal oppression, thereby answering RQ1. Next, the few challenges to animal oppression, as well as a small sample from outside the series are discussed.

4.1 Reinforcing animal oppression - welfarist ideology Overall, the messages of the series predominantly reinforce animal oppression. They do so by following a welfarist ideology, which limits the perspective only to gradually improving, not questioning animal oppression. The following section will describe the strategies reinforcing animal oppression in more detail.

4.1.1 How, not if, we should farm nonhuman animals The most fundamental presupposition reinforcing animal oppression is never asking if we should farm nonhuman animals. Already the first article introducing this series features this presupposition by asking “How should we be producing meat and fish?” (001)2. Although the series reports on the myriad of problems in the animal industry, the articles’ messages fail to challenge this presupposition. Instead, the articles in the series mostly follow this leading question, and thereby hide the more challenging question of if we should farm nonhuman

2 For clarity, references to articles in the sample use the codes listed in Appendix 1.

23 animals. Only asking how, not if, is the core presupposition of the welfarist ideology, which is dominant throughout the sample. While the presupposition is implicit throughout the articles, some examples bring it more clearly to the forefront. A major subtopic among animal welfare articles is live exports (17 articles). Many of these articles show the horrendous conditions farmed animals endure on long journeys in trucks or ships. However, these articles only question the conditions and necessity of live transport, not the underlying animal industry. The article introducing the live export subtopic asks, “Why are animals being transported long distances live, rather than slaughtered, and then transported as refrigerated meat?” (156). In a similar vein, as an alternative to live export of male calves, one article states that “it would be kinder to shoot them” (158). Thus, the rearing and killing of farmed animals, essential aspects of the animal industry, remain unchallenged and even get presented as a kinder alternative. The presupposition of how, rather than if, also shows up clearly in an article on antibiotic use. Aptly titled, “How to support farmers using fewer antibiotics” (032), the article fully embraces this presupposition. Instead of just presupposing that the animal industry should exist, it goes a step further and directly asks the reader to support the animal industry (with fewer antibiotics). This also builds on the image of the struggling farmer, resulting from economic and political decisions and activists challenging animal oppression. As such, the stance of the series towards animal oppression is explicitly a question of how, rather than if. The dominance of this presupposition shows how the overall stance of the series reinforces animal oppression and thereby answers RQ1. More specifically, it confirms that violence against farmed animals is already justified when using the concept ‘animal’ (Diamond 1978; S. Ko 2017a). Following the welfarist ideology, the articles do not need to justify or question the underlying violence of the animal industry. For example, a cow or a fish, by belonging to the concept of the ‘animal’, is ‘something to eat’. Effectively, this lies at the core of the welfarist ideology, which does not challenge the existence of the animal industry, but only how it operates.

4.1.2 Suppression of farmed animals’ perspectives The above presupposition requires the suppression of farmed animals’ perspectives to function. An accurate representation of farmed animals’ perspectives requires questioning the animal industry. As the presupposition holds up through most of the articles, the articles obscure farmed animals’ perspectives. This is especially visible in the articles on the

24 environment or food safety, which focus on other aspects. However, even in animal welfare articles, several tools work to hide animal perspectives. First of all, the articles present the animal industry’s perspectives extensively, which are fundamentally opposed to farmed animals’ perspectives. Industry groups and large corporations feature prominently as sources in the articles, and thereby shape the messages. A most outstanding example is an interview titled “Chicken mega-farms are how we’ll feed the UK, says poultry industry head” (035). The entire article presents arguments for more intensive chicken farms, with only one sentence mildly questioning the chickens’ welfare, which is quickly responded by the interviewee. A few articles present only the industry perspective like this, which nevertheless reveals the stance of Animals farmed. Beyond these selected articles, industry perspectives feature heavily throughout the sample. The industry perspectives align with animal oppression, as the industry depends on animal oppression to function. Beyond using animal industry sources, the articles predominantly use industry terms when describing farmed animals. Terms such as ‘livestock’, ‘poultry’, ‘pork’ and ‘cattle’ all turn individual nonhuman animals into mere objects in a production chain (Dunayer 2001). Also, the articles often define farmed animals by their use to humans through terms such as ‘dairy cows’ or ‘egg-laying flocks’. Even more strikingly, some articles reduce farmed animals to ‘affordable protein’ (010), thereby making the animal industry mere ‘protein producers’ (025). All of these terms suppress the farmed animals’ perspective by reducing them to objects for industry use, or even just to the macronutrients in their flesh. This process turns farmed animals into absent referents. An essential yet controversial aspect of the animal industry is the killing of farmed animals. As such, the way articles present or hide killing plays a crucial role in the overall message of the articles. One euphemistic way the killing is hidden is through calling it ‘processing’, whereby a slaughterhouse becomes a ‘processing plant’ (e.g. 005). Here, the killing turns into merely a factory ‘process’. Other euphemisms found in the articles are pigs being “turned into Polish sausage” (167) and a “swift removal of calves from their mothers” (158). Again, the killing is blurred and hidden through euphemisms. The killing of male calves in the ‘dairy’ industry brings out especially gross terms, such as “destroy” and “dispose” (013), which usually refer to inanimate objects. These are some of the linguistic tools that hide killing, arguably one of the most controversial aspects of the animal industry. Finally, an array of articles only discusses the indirect effects on humans, ignoring the farmed animals at the centre. This is especially visible in the articles on food safety, which

25 pay little attention to the farmed animals’ perspectives. For example, an article about plastic residues in animal feed first and foremost frames this as a concern for human health (066). Similarly, cases of sick cows being secretly killed and sold are framed as risks for human health, rather than indicators of a fundamentally broken industry (075, 086). Another topic is the increased line-speeds at slaughterhouses. Again, the articles frame this as a threat to food safety, rather than the farmed animals getting killed. By framing the harm to humans as the main topic, the articles write out the harm to farmed animals.

4.1.3 Supposed neutrality and distance The Animals farmed articles utilise different tools to distance themselves from the contentious topic of animal oppression. These serve to portray a neutral, or balanced coverage, even if the represented ‘sides’ are extremely unequal, such as the case between farmed animals and the industry. This strategy, called hedging, creates ambiguity and muddies the waters around animal oppression. The articles use a range of dichotomies, shun activism and distance themselves from taking a stance on farmed animals’ situation. These techniques neutralise the political debate around animal oppression and thereby reinforce it. The first dichotomy present throughout the animal welfare articles regards the ‘two sides of the debate’. The two sides presented as sources in the articles are the animal industry and several animal advocacy organizations. While 4.1.2 described the industry perspective more closely and 4.1.5 the representation of advocacy organizations, this section focuses on the presented dichotomy between them. Crucially, this dichotomy writes out the actual experiences of farmed animals, which are only relegated through ‘representation’ by the advocacy organizations. Even accepting this questionable proxy, farmed animals and the industry are not equal sides to a conflict, but rather in a directly exploitative relation. Presenting these, even though through a proxy, as two sides to an even debate creates ambiguity and misrepresents the power dynamics in the animal industry. Another telling dichotomy exists between industry practices abroad versus in the UK or EU. The Guardian, as a British newspaper builds up a contrast between the treatments of farmed animals in different countries. Most commonly, the industry practices in the US are denounced and presented as a threat to the UK welfare standards. Curiously, even intensive farms in the UK are referred to as “US-style industrial farms” (070). The articles also use more explicit language and graphic imagery to condemn how farmed animals are killed in Thailand and Cambodia. Here, the “inhumane slaughter” abroad is contrasted with “humane slaughter” at home (096, 097), creating a false dichotomy. Both amount to killing farmed

26 animals, and result from animal oppression. However, creating this dichotomy reassures the reader that killing in the UK is not problematic and thereby reinforces animal oppression. Another message found in the articles is the shunning of activists who oppose animal oppression. While some articles feature genuine representations which are discussed in 4.2.2, many articles display activism in a negative way, thereby hedging against animal oppression. One article blames protests against live exports for discouraging the Eurotunnel train to transport farmed animals which resulted in their transport on old, unsuitable ships (038). Beyond worsening farmed animals’ situation, one article claims that stopping the animal industry would be a disaster for rural communities, human health and the environment (135). These messages represent industry perspectives that shun activism, which consequently blurs the discussion on animal oppression. The articles also contain milder messages that cast doubt on activists. One such way is to question whether the consequences of activism are better for farmed animals. For example, an article links activism to increasing attention to welfare, which led farmers to keep calves longer with their mothers (104). The article questions whether the cows actually prefer this. Another subtle tool is presenting actors who distance themselves from activism in a good light. Someone working on lab-grown meat proclaimed “we’re not activists” (018), whereas an academic calls for eating less ‘meat’, but “not being dogmatic about it” (041). These messages contribute to questioning activism that challenges animal oppression. Another common tool used to appear neutral is to distance the text from taking a stance on the situation of farmed animals. Instead of directly describing the situation, judgements feature only as quotes from animal advocacy organizations or other actors. Hence, this shows the conditions as merely an actor’s opinion (usually from an advocacy organization), and the article’s author does not commit to the stance. For example, in articles reporting on revealed videos of animal abuse, the videos only “appear to” show cruelty. Similarly, phrases such as “horrific”, “torture” or “deeply worrying” are put under quotation marks to present them as the opinion of an organization, not a fact. Especially when video evidence is available, these methods obscure the lived reality of farmed animals.

4.1.4 Abuse and violence make news Shocking videos and other accounts of abuse and violence towards farmed animals make up a significant subtopic in the series with 13 articles. Crucially, the terms abuse and violence require closer inspection here. In line with the perspective outlined in 2.1, regular, day-to-day practices of exploiting and killing farmed animals are abuse and violence. In the articles,

27 however, these terms only cover extraordinary abuse or violence, either through the conditions in a specific farm or actions of specific workers. For example, videos of workers beating farmed animals are framed as violence, whereas routine killings do not feature as such. These narrow definitions of abuse and violence significantly change the message and help to reinforce animal oppression. By singling out isolated cases of extraordinary violence, the articles do not capture the systematic, general violence and abuse in the animal industry. Presenting violence as the exceptions to the rule implies that the ‘business-as-usual’ is not violent. One step further in defending the ‘business-as-usual’, it gives the animal industry a rather easy problem to fix. These articles often quote the corporations expressing shock towards the violence carried out on their farms, with a promise to ‘fix’ the problem. With the narrow view of violence, this translates to minor improvements in the conditions or the firing of workers caught beating farmed animals. However, this message does little to question the underlying animal oppression. Instead, by showing corporations taking steps against extraordinary violence, main perpetrators of animal oppression are presented as taking steps against violence. Another essential feature of this message is the emphasis on ‘unnecessary suffering’. This provides the legal basis which workers are prosecuted for in the violence cases (e.g. 059). However, a closer look at the idea reveals a fundamental issue in the welfarist ideology (which it falls under). Only condemning unnecessary suffering implies that there is a necessary, and thereby justified suffering in the animal industry. Fittingly with the welfarist ideology, regular confinement, use, and killing qualify as ‘necessary’ abuse. This suffering is not captured by the law and neither by the articles in the series. Instead, violence and suffering appear as isolated cases rather than the base of the animal industry.

4.1.5 Representation of limited welfare claims A crucial factor in the articles on abuse and other animal welfare articles is the representation of animal advocacy organizations. This study focuses on the discourse in the newspaper. Hence, the analysis refers to how the articles represent the organizations, not their stances. In the dichotomy between farmed animals and the industry (see 4.1.3), these advocacy organizations are supposed to balance the industry perspectives. The series features several advocacy organizations regularly, with Compassion in World Farming having by far the highest number of references. However, the reported statements of the animal advocacy organizations in the articles do not fully represent the farmed animals’ perspective.

28 Instead, the articles use quotes from advocacy organizations to question only how the animal industry should operate. Even though the advocacy organizations supposedly represent the farmed animals’ perspectives, they are rarely featured questioning the killing of farmed animals. This disconnect is especially visible in the articles about live export which cite advocacy sources denouncing the cruelty of the transport, but not the inherent cruelty of killing. For example, one article quotes an advocate supporting new ‘humane’ slaughterhouses in Romania to avoid live export (163). Another article quotes an organization secretary saying: “We believe no animal should travel for more than eight hours to have their throat cut” (072). The only two options implied here, live export or local slaughterhouses, both involve killing farmed animals. Thus, the articles only present options that include the animal industry, and use quotes of advocacy organizations for legitimacy. Several other articles present animal advocacy organizations as not opposed to the animal industry. Again on the topic of live exports, one article claims that animal advocates argue that farmed animals “should be raised closer to where they are eaten” (038). Especially male calves from the ‘dairy’ industry are often transported soon after their birth. Here, one article quotes the director of an advocacy organization, “either we stop consuming dairy, or the dairy industry incorporates the production of calf meat” (093). Thus, the articles present the advocates as accepting the animal industry, but only opposing live exports. These are some of the ways in which the representations of the advocacy organizations, supposedly as a proxy for farmed animals themselves, reinforce animal oppression.

4.1.6 ‘Ethical’ animal farming In line with the general welfarist ideology of the series, several articles celebrate ‘ethical animal farming’. These articles have a distinct tone that clearly shows a positive stance towards farming methods deemed ethical. The most forthright example here is from a ‘dairy’ farm that keeps calves with their mothers for the first five months. This operation is called an “ethical dairy farm”, tellingly without quotation marks on ‘ethical’ (013). Another article once puts “ethical dairy farm” in quotations, yet uses “ethical milk” without quotation marks in the title (104). Significantly, cases of cruelty and torture always use quotation marks, yet the ‘ethical’ farm does not. Therefore, the article takes the stance that this is an ethical operation. As the farm still exploits farmed animals, albeit with a change in their operation, the animal oppression happening there is deemed ethical. Thus, the change of tools reveals the stance of the article or journalist to support (a certain kind of) animal oppression.

29 Beyond deeming farms ethical, articles use other ways to praise alternative farms. These farms appear as fairy-tale places in perfect harmony, through text and photographs. One such case is an article on a “magical wilderness farm” (without quotations again), which describes the flourishing of life with great awe (028). The text is accompanied by well- composed forest photographs which mystify these places in the articles. Another article covers an alternative farm using trees and farmed animals in Portugal and uses similarly artistic photographs to convey the natural bliss of these places (111). These tools work to build a romantic picture of alternative farms without questioning the inherent animal oppression in them. These representations of alternative, usually more extensive farms often draw from a romanticised picture of the past, as something to strive for again. This tendency starts from the article introducing the series, which claims that farming used to have “sunshine, quality of life for the animals, space and natural grazing“ (001). Here, one feature of the past is not letting anything go to waste. For the animal industry, this translates to rearing and killing male goats from the goat ‘dairy’ industry instead of killing them right away (188). Representing the animal agriculture of the past as harmonious shifts the problem from animal oppression to the more recent intensification of the animal industry. However, one article puts this narrative in question by describing tying up cows for most of their lives as “medieval” (062). This article challenges the romanticised picture of the past, yet only reverses the narrative that animal welfare now is better than it used to be. Either way, the comparisons with the past remain within the welfarist ideology and fail to question animal oppression in the past or present. While the series generally promotes a range of alternatives, some articles also speak positively of intensive farming. Thus, the welfarist ideology of the series does not entirely reject industrial farming either. Even in industrial settings, farmed animals are supposedly spoiled. One article speaks of chickens who “live like kings and queens” in a factory farm (069), whereas more intensively concentrated cows in China stay in “cow hotels” (088). More directly revealing their stance, The Guardian evidence “suggests that most intensive beef farms appear to operate to high welfare standards” (024). Another article promotes two multinational corporations profiting from intensive animal farming as leading the way on animal welfare (047). Thus, the welfarist ideology is even flexible enough to promote intensive farming at times, a major source of animal oppression.

30 4.2 Challenging animal oppression Albeit in a much smaller amount than reinforcing ones, some messages in the series challenge animal oppression and thereby indicate openings for change. These messages can provide some insights into how a more just representation of farmed animals in newspapers may look like. As such, even though these challenges are sparse and packaged in the welfarist ideology, they can help guide the way forward.

4.2.1 Farmed animals’ suffering, sentience, and lives The most visible challenge to animal oppression in the articles occurs by showing farmed animals’ suffering and struggle. Many welfare articles display the situation of farmed animals through both text and photographs. For a touching issue such as suffering, photographs of farmed animals can capture the essence more poignantly than the text. Crucially, not all articles reduce farmed animals to passive victims, as some also present their struggle. While farmed animals’ struggle is an active representation, it is not the same as framing it as the more political ‘resisting’ as described in 2.1. While several tools described in 4.1 work to mitigate this representation, suffering and struggle remain part of the series’. A significant aspect of the debate on animal oppression regards sentience. This topic is brought up in 6 articles in the series to support animal welfare claims. Curiously, while the fish industry makes up a small topic in the overall series, 4 out of those 6 articles focus on fishes. This appears to show more doubt of sentience towards fishes than other farmed animals. Stating farmed animals’ sentience may be seen as a challenge to animal oppression by itself. However, the context and use of these scientific arguments matter, as biological facts in themselves do not challenge animal oppression (see 2.1). While one article connects sentience to Peter Singer’s work and the start of the animal rights movement, this remains a side note to the article (019). All the articles connect sentience to animal welfare regulations, hence failing to challenge animal oppression. Beyond suffering and sentience, challenging animal oppression requires a better understanding of farmed animals’ lives (see 2.1). One article in the sample explores fishes’ lives beyond suffering, describing their intricate behaviours (054). Describing individual behaviours present fishes directly as active agents, and at least indirectly challenge animal oppression. However, the evidence of fishes’ cognitive abilities was also discursively used against them: “So if the fish could comprehend anything about me, my killing to eat might be the one thing the fish could understand“ (054). Thus, presenting individuality and behaviour does not automatically challenge animal oppression.

31 In summary, the series presents farmed animals’ suffering, sentience and lives, yet uses a plethora of methods to keep these within the welfarist ideology. This may be an improvement over complete suppression of these aspects. However, the discursive effects are more complicated than the mere presentation of these issues. In a way, this parallels the general debate on whether animal welfare challenges or reinforces animal oppression. Presenting the suffering, sentience and lives, and packaging them into the welfarist ideology of the series may conversely reinforce animal oppression instead. Nevertheless, these glimpses may be a start towards a more just representation which challenges animal oppression.

4.2.2 Challenges to the animal industry Few and far between, the series covers genuine challenges to the animal industry, and consequently animal oppression. A couple of articles quote activists criticising the animal industry, especially for ‘dairy’. They see the ‘dairy’ industry as “fundamentally broken” (095) and having “systemic issues” (082). These glimpses are the exception, not just criticising the conditions of the animal industry, but the foundation, which lies in animal oppression. Beyond activists’ claims, several articles also report on actions that challenge animal oppression. One article describes a viral video of an activist “shutting down a chick shredding machine and challenging a police officer to turn it back on” (068). However, the same paragraph describes how this has led to a more humane solution – from within the animal industry. Two articles refer to an activist protesting live exports who was killed by a truck in 1995. These showcases of activists dedicating, and even losing their lives fighting the animal industry provide a glimpse of how newspapers can portray the struggle against animal oppression. Instead of a confrontational challenge, one article covers a vegan farm that does not use farmed animals for manure. While most of the article describes a new composting technique, the sections discussing the need for farmed animals show this as a conscious alternative. As such, it is the only article in the series that challenges animal oppression throughout the text, the only caveat being that the story does not feature farmed animals themselves. Nevertheless, it points towards an alternative to using farmed animals for food and manure.

32 4.2.3 Workers‘ trouble with killing A promising challenge to animal oppression comes from slaughterhouse workers and farmers facing ethical dilemmas and emotional difficulties. Killing farmed animals marks a crucial and violent step of the animal industry, which also has an effect on the humans involved. Several articles feature this dilemma surrounding new-born, male calves, who the ‘dairy’ industry routinely kills. Here, a farmer is quoted, “we get the knackerman [licensed slaughter business that will kill or collect dead farm animals] to do it. I could never do it” (013). This hesitance casts doubt on the animal industry, as the farmer cannot bring themselves to kill the calves. Similarly, several anecdotes of slaughterhouse workers showcase their difficulty and struggle with killing farmed animals (064, 165). While these are not direct challenges to animal oppression, they highlight the fundamental ethical issue of killing, without which animal oppression could not function.

4.3 Challenges from outside Animals farmed Across The Guardian, several articles present a more critical perspective towards animal oppression. Even though the articles were specially selected for this perspective, they indicate a wider acceptance of challenges to animal oppression than within Animals farmed. The articles from the rest of The Guardian are split into regular articles and opinion pieces. While regular articles directly embody the voice of the newspaper, opinion pieces only represent the author. Nevertheless, the decision to publish opinion pieces still indicates editorial acceptance. As such, several articles of both categories are analysed to provide some comparison with Animals farmed articles.

4.3.1 Regular articles Several articles from various sections of The Guardian challenge animal oppression. The most striking one covers a photography project that captured farmed animals who were “allowed to grow old” (G03)3. Here, farmed animals’ lives are described and pictured with individual personalities. Letting farmed animals live out their lives is a fundamental challenge to the animal industry, which kills them early on. As the article sympathetically reports on the project, it represents a stance against animal oppression. Other articles in The Guardian also form a more indirect challenge to animal oppression. Two articles cover celebrity activists who voice their systemic critiques of the

3 The sampled The Guardian articles from outside Animals farmed are marked with a G and listed in Appendix 2

33 animal industry. There is an interview with James Crowell, the Babe actor turned animal activist (G02), and a report on Joaquin Phoenix’s Oscar speech against ‘dairy’ (G04). These articles are sympathetic to the celebrities’ efforts and claims against animal oppression. Another article from the sustainable business section describes the uneasiness the reporter felt on a behind-the-scenes tour of a pig farm (G01). Although these articles mainly cover the human perspectives on the issue, they offer some openings for critical views.

4.3.2 Opinion pieces Opinion pieces can more explicitly feature the author’s opinions, and the articles challenging animal oppression do so. Several articles outright call for dismantling factory farms (G08) and saying goodbye to ‘livestock’ farming (G07). Speaking up against the commodification of farmed animals’ lives, and the inherent suffering in the animal industry, these articles take a fundamentally sharper stance against animal oppression. Here, the claims are not coated in welfarist proposals but directly stated. Further calling out the issues of the welfarist ideology, one journalist published a range of opinion pieces from a vegan perspective. The author sharply criticises ‘free-range’ eggs, and states that “there’s no such thing as an ethical egg” (G05). Another article describes ‘dairy’ as “the darkest part of farming”. The articles do not use the tools found in Animals farmed and hence provide a clearer picture of the animal industry. These opinion pieces fundamentally critique the animal industry per se, markedly different from the articles in Animals farmed, which mainly package their discussion into a welfarist ideology. Even though the opinion pieces do not directly represent the voice of The Guardian, the newspaper still decided to publish them. 5 Discussion

Although this is the first CDA on farmed animals in The Guardian, several continuities exist from research in other contexts. The overall tendency reported in other contexts that the majority of articles reinforce speciesism and animal oppression, while a small part provides openings for change, holds up in Animals farmed (Freeman 2009; Khazaal and Almiron 2016). The welfarist ideology, which is dominant throughout the series, contains features and tools identified before, but also comes with some differences. Different from other samples, this study analysed an entire series dedicated to farmed animals, which may be a cause for slightly different results. As Khazaal and Almiron (2016) conducted the most direct

34 predecessor to this study, their concepts of crude and camouflaged speciesism provide a useful starting point for this discussion. As crude speciesism, the welfarist ideology in Animals farmed also suppresses farmed animals’ suffering. When suffering is featured, the articles distance themselves from it and package suffering into asking questions of how, not if, we should farm nonhuman animals. False balance, another feature of crude speciesism (Khazaal and Almiron 2016), was also identified in Animals farmed as a way to appear neutral. The series also contains several features of camouflaged speciesism, praising welfare regulations of the animal industry and promoting alternative agriculture as fundamentally ethical. However, Animals farmed does not feature all parts of crude and camouflaged speciesism. While some articles still present struggling farmers, they do not use the same alarmist language and fearmongering as crude speciesism does. Similarly, the aggressive war and sexual language found by Khazaal and Almiron (2016) were not found in this sample. For camouflaged speciesism, Animals farmed relies less on personal names and ‘old age’ to promote alternative agriculture. Instead, the articles use seemingly mythical language and well-composed photographs to create an atmosphere of harmonious coexistence rather than exploitation. Animals farmed also employs three new strategies to reinforce animal oppression. Firstly, the series reported on many cases of extraordinary violence towards farmed animals, which effectively shifts the definition of abuse. This emphasis absolves the inherent abuse in the animal industry of confinement and killing and only condemns acts going beyond that, such as beating. Secondly, the series consistently represents limited claims by advocacy organizations as a balance to the industry perspective. Thirdly, a new and recurring strategy in the series is the dichotomy condemning industry practices abroad which implicitly endorses UK and EU practices. These features lie at the core of the welfarist ideology, asking only how, not if, farmed animals should be oppressed. Thus, the welfarist ideology in this series takes aspects from both crude and camouflaged speciesism while also incorporating some new strategies to reinforce animal oppression. The articles challenging animal oppression also feature some familiar and some new strategies compared to previous studies. Similar to previous findings, some articles show the suffering of farmed animals, albeit in this series consistently wrapped in a welfarist ideology. As a result, no articles in the series present farmed animals entirely on their own terms and as having inherent value. However, the series does cover several activists and their challenge to animal oppression adequately. Again, these voices only end up as one of the perspectives on

35 the issue, ‘balanced’ against a barrage of industry perspectives. In comparison, The Guardian articles sampled from outside the series provide a thorough challenge to animal oppression. Thus, the welfarist ideology, and by extension, the stance towards animal oppression does not appear to hold up across The Guardian, but only within the series. A new challenge to animal oppression comes from covering the moral and ethical troubles of the workers killing farmed animals. Albeit from an unlikely place, slaughterhouse workers and farmers struggling with killing challenges animal oppression, as killing lies at the core of it. This opens a new avenue for critical perspectives towards animal oppression. Many slaughterhouse workers are exploited and suffer from their work. Thus, covering their hardships, especially with killing farmed animals, may provide a fruitful topic for newspapers challenging animal oppression.

5.1 Problems of the welfarist ideology The series presents a conundrum of covering many issues of the animal industry, for animal welfare, environment and human health, without questioning the industry itself. The core underlying assumption is that farmed animals are to be eaten and that the animal industry should exist. The harms to nonhumans, humans and the earth should be minimised, but never fully questioned. Here, farmed animals should have some space to move around, not have to endure long transports, and be killed ‘humanely’. Hence, the inherent violence of the animal industry appears as a ‘necessary evil’, implicitly baked into the welfarist ideology. This evil is only ‘necessary’ as long as we code an ‘animal’ as ‘something to eat’ (Diamond 1978). As long as this ideology remains intact, there is no need to justify the animal industry, as the justification is already in the term ‘animal’. By staying within this welfarist ideology, the articles in Animals farmed do not need to justify the animal industry, and thereby reinforce animal oppression. In order to tackle the animal industry’s problems, the welfarist ideology asks how to reform the industry. A similar issue occurs in activist communication strategies. Calling to reform industry is “suggesting that industry can solve the problem instead of insisting that industry is the problem” (Freeman 2014, 124 emphasis in original). While Animals farmed is not an activist project, it uses the same presupposition. By calling for reform, the industry turns into an actor that can improve animal welfare, rather than the driver of animal oppression. This becomes even more visible with the coverage of animal abuse as described in 4.1.4.

36 One explanation for the prevalence of animal abuse articles is how they fit neatly into the agendas of several relevant groups. Primarily, they provide shocking and thereby newsworthy content for journalists. Cases can be found regularly throughout the animal industry and thereby provide a recurring and relevant news source. Next, the advocacy organizations behind the investigations and campaigns benefit from the coverage and publicity. At the same time, these cases present ‘winnable’ campaigns, when workers get fired and/or persecuted, or new measures are implemented. Showing the successful campaigns validates their work and existence, and in turn, attracts more funding and donations. Lastly, even the animal industry often gets away with a positive note after the accusations. Representatives of the accused corporation first show their shock that this happened on their premises, and fire the responsible workers or implement other measures. Thus, even the corporation rooted in animal oppression appears to ‘take steps’ against animal abuse. I argue that these factors work together in symbiosis, where journalists, advocacy organizations and animal industry benefit from these stories. The results are depoliticised stories that condemn extraordinary abuse, but reinforce animal oppression, as even the targeted corporation comes away with a positive note. Instead of challenging the industry, these articles and campaigns point the blame at individual farm and slaughterhouse workers. As such, they redirect a challenge to the animal industry towards the workers who themselves often suffer under harsh working conditions. These points pose fundamental questions about the role of journalism. After all, only a small minority of humans share the stance against animal oppression I outlined here. However, having journalism only reflect the majority opinion leads down a treacherous path. Instead, the “radical role of the media and journalism insists on the absolute equality and freedom of all members of a democratic society in a completely uncompromising way” (Christians et al. 2009, 179). While this view only considered humans, it still presents a normative, political role of journalism. This normative commitment to justice was expanded to include nonhuman animals (Freeman, Bekoff, and Bexell 2011). From a non- anthropocentric perspective, challenging animal oppression in journalism actually represents the majority perspective, as farmed animals vastly outnumber humans. I argue that with this in mind, journalism can become a force against animal oppression, rather than the opposite it is at the moment.

37 5.2 Political economy and philanthropy To further discuss the results of the critical discourse analysis, this section contextualises the series through a political economy analysis. The main factors affecting the series are ownership, advertising and external philanthropic funding. This section describes these factors before further discussing philanthropy and animal oppression. The Guardian is wholly owned by The Scott Trust Limited, a limited company that aims for the continuity of the newspaper (The Guardian 2015). The trust also owns shares in other companies that had supported The Guardian when it was writing losses (Levy and Picard 2011). Instead of paying out dividends to shareholders, the trust reinvests profits into journalism. While this funding model claims to guarantee editorial independence, it is not without criticism. The Scott Trust Limited’s and The Guardian’s board members have a range of other corporate interests, and The Guardian has been found to follow the “neoliberal party line” on key issues (East 2019). Hence, The Guardian has a unique ownership model, which however does not exempt it from political-economic pressures. As is typical with newspapers, The Guardian relies on advertisements. Due to the increased online presence of the newspaper, the advertising model has also shifted. One of the recent changes is Guardian Labs, which creates digital content directly with advertisers. The resulting articles and other media content therefore markedly blur journalistic independence and advertisements. Most relevant for this discussion, Guardian Labs launched in 2014 with a seven-figure partnership with Unilever (GNM press office 2014). Thus, Unilever, a multinational corporation exploiting farmed animals for many of their products, lies at the base of The Guardian’s advertising scheme. The partnership with Unilever is “centred on the shared values of sustainable living and open storytelling“ (GNM press office 2014). This begs the question of what shared values a supposedly independent newspaper and a large multinational corporation selling processed foods have. This corporate influence has not gone without critique in The Guardian, as an opinion piece by George Monbiot (2014) called out Unilever’s takeover of public life. The partnership with Unilever is especially relevant, as their only mention in Animals farmed reports positively that “Nestlé and Unilever spearhead food industry coalition on animal welfare”(047). While the article also mentions past negative welfare stories from Nestlé and Ikea, Unilever only appears in a positive light. Unlike the Guardian Labs articles, this article is not marked as a promotional piece. While causality is impossible to prove in such an analysis, these instances make up a suspicious correlation.

38 Beyond the Unilever case, several supermarket chains that also profit from farmed animals advertise in The Guardian. The supermarket Waitrose cooperated with Guardian Labs on a project celebrating food and music, which featured several recipes with dead farmed animals (Guardian Advertising n.d.). Additionally, the supermarket chains Aldi (£15,019,599) and Tesco (£14,238,865) are among the 10 advertisers spending the most per year on UK newspapers, and by extension, on The Guardian (Newsworks 2020). All of these advertisers are crucial income sources for The Guardian, and at the same time profit from animal oppression. The risk of upsetting these advertisers, and possibly losing their advertising money, put a pressure on the newspaper not to challenge these corporations or animal oppression more widely. Beyond advertising, the external philanthropic funding plays a crucial role in the political economy of Animals farmed. One of the first Animals farmed articles states that the series follows The Guardian’s commitment to open journalism, and the articles do not reflect the views of the funders (003). The journalists acknowledge two effects of the philanthropic funding. Firstly, the series is “prohibited under US law from directly funding or earmarking funds to be used in an attempt to influence legislation” (003). Secondly, the series will consult animal advocacy groups funded by Open Philanthropy if they have relevant expertise. Especially the sourcing of other groups funded is relevant for this analysis. To clarify, it is near-impossible to prove direct causation between the political economy analysis and the messages in the series. Nevertheless, this section maps out the stance of Open Philanthropy, based on their documents and their grants, and then compares that to the discourse identified in the series. The hypothesis here is that the political economy analysis can help understand how the series works, and how the messages in the series come about. The website of Open Philanthropy indicates a welfarist stance towards animal oppression. Their aim of “pushing for reform could reduce animal suffering by enormous amounts” (Open Philanthropy 2015). Reform indicates that they intend to improve the animal industry, not challenge or abolish it. More strikingly, the cause report casts doubt on how much farmed animals actually suffer in industrial agriculture (Open Philanthropy 2013). Instead of a well-documented fact, farmed animals’ suffering appears as a mere claim by animal advocates, subject to further research. These statements are far away from challenging animal oppression and mark a soft welfarist stance, as welfarism usually does not doubt the suffering of farmed animals.

39 Both of these claims are markedly similar to the discourse of Animals farmed. The claim for reform closely resembles asking how nonhuman animals should be farmed in the series. Distancing from suffering, by casting doubt and presenting it as merely the opinion of animal advocates appear in both the policy document and Animals farmed. Thus, Animals farmed and Open Philanthropy represent the same, welfarist stance in their introduction articles and policy documents. Beyond the policy documents, the project grants further reveal their stance. As described in one of the first articles in the series, The Guardian consults animal advocacy organizations supported by Open Philanthropy if they have specific expertise (003). In fact, Open Philanthropy funds almost all of the advocacy organizations featured in the series. Compassion in World Farming, the most prevalent animal advocacy organization in the series, has received over €6.8 million since 2017 (Open Philanthropy 2020a). Other organization with notable Open Philanthropy funding are Animal Equality ($7,790,890) and Eurogroup for Animals ($2,866,060) (Open Philanthropy 2020a). As Open Philanthropy funds nearly all animal advocacy organizations used in the series, it comes to no big surprise that the series roughly represents the same stance as Open Philanthropy. Besides the ones featured in the series, Open Philanthropy funded many other animal advocacy organizations since 2016. The two with the largest funding are The Humane League ($17,337,000) and Mercy for Animals ($9,667,250). The exact accomplishments and approaches of all these organizations are beyond the scope of this study. However, a brief search of their respective websites indicates that they seem to align with welfarist strategies. From their mission statements, they work to reduce suffering and improve the lives of farmed animals. Compassion in World Farming (n.d.) even calls for an end to factory farming on their website, yet also advocates buying ‘high-welfare meat’. Another notable mention is the Humane Slaughter Association ($3,518,316 from Open Philanthropy), which features the oxymoron of ‘humane slaughter’ already in its name. While the exact stances of these organizations require further research, they appear to largely follow welfarist strategies, working on how, not if, we should farm nonhuman animals. The messages in Animals farmed and the stance of Open Philanthropy, both in their website and grants, follow similar welfarist approach and strategies. The fact that the series uses almost entirely organizations supported by Open Philanthropy for their perspectives on animal welfare further suggests an alignment of their stances. While a political economy analysis cannot prove causality between these two, explaining the context can help to understand the discourse of Animals farmed better. This brief overview of the political

40 economy of Animals farmed now allows for further discussion of the critical theories outlined in 2.4. The propaganda model provided a base understanding of the political economy of the mass media in a capitalist society. The original five filters constraining the news perspectives are 1) size, ownership and profit orientation, 2) advertising, 3) sourcing, 4) flak, and 5) ideology (Herman and Chomsky [1988] 2008). This section discussed the first three filters, with the first one requiring the biggest changes due to the philanthropic funding. Nevertheless, the philanthropic funding comes with its own limitations, as discussed above. As such, the propaganda model roughly guided the political economy analysis while guiding directions for more in-depth research, especially on the last two filters. It is important to note that according to the propaganda model, journalists and editors “frequently operat[e] with complete integrity and goodwill” and with “professional news values” (Herman and Chomsky [1988] 2008, 64). Constrained by the filters, their work often is objective, but the filters work in such underlying ways “that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable” (Herman and Chomsky [1988] 2008, 64). This is reflected in personal communication with the editor of Animals farmed, who emphasised how editorial decisions are free from external influence and how they aim to present objective, balanced coverage (van der Zee 2019). While this study cannot empirically prove that the described filters constrain the perspectives in the articles, the findings show a limited welfarist ideology across the series. The next question is whether the critique of liberal philanthropy also applies to philanthropy and animal oppression. The critique argues that philanthropy co-opts social movements and limits radical perspectives (Barker 2017; King and Osayande 2017). Here, philanthropy channels radical voices opposing capitalism and exploitation into more modest reforms. This study does not address the broader implications on the social movement, and the containment of radical alternatives is difficult to prove. Acknowledging that a newspaper series is a different case to a social movement, it still serves as a good case study for identifying similar dynamics. Thus, I argue that parallels can be drawn between the critical understanding of philanthropy on human oppression and animal oppression, here in the case of Animals farmed. Firstly, liberal philanthropy on both human and animal oppression use the same rhetoric of reform. Whereas Barker (2008) described philanthropy calling for ‘nicer’ capitalism, this study shows how Animals farmed, and by extension, Open Philanthropy, call for ‘nicer’ animal oppression. In doing so, philanthropy co-opts more radical alternatives

41 (King and Osayande 2017). The parallel in Animals farmed is the almost complete lack of perspectives challenging animal oppression. By not representing perspectives critical of animal oppression, the series works to reinforce it. Secondly, philanthropy towards human and nonhuman causes are funded by the same people, wealthy capitalists. For example, Open Philanthropy funds both animal welfare projects and a range of human causes. Even if they do not make up the same people, they share a class interest of not fundamentally changing the status quo that granted their privileges. Granted, this status quo consists of seemingly different aspects of capitalism and animal oppression. Thirdly, however, the interlocking system of oppression making up the status quo is built on both capitalism and animal oppression. The two are both historically and ideologically linked (Best et al. 2007; Nibert 2013; Sanbonmatsu 2017). As capitalism and animal oppression build on each other, they tend not to contradict each other. Thus, philanthropy, an inherently capitalist project, is unlikely to push for radical change against animal oppression. This would weaken the interlocking system of oppression making up the status quo. Thus, liberal philanthropy aligns neatly with the welfarist ideology, whereby both do not challenge capitalism and animal oppression. As a result, those opposing animal oppression and capitalism need to pay close attention to their efforts in activism and journalism. Critical analysis has shown that philanthropy and other political-economic factors work to contain radical perspective to reinforce the capitalist system of oppression. Thus, our political project against oppression requires both resisting these forces in existing institutions and building alternative ones. 6 Conclusion

In theory, having a dedicated series covering the situation of farmed animals is a promising step. However, to genuinely represent farmed animals, and thereby challenge animal oppression, Animals farmed requires certain crucial changes. Firstly, a just representation has to observe, listen to, and communicate with farmed animals, and tell their stories in their best interest, as suggested by Freeman, Bekoff, and Bexell (2011). Secondly, it has to include human perspectives that challenge animal oppression as editors, journalists and sources. Third, the series should critically assess their funding model if they are to provide independent journalism that challenges animal oppression. In summary, this study found that the language used in Animals farmed reinforces animal oppression. Especially the reporting on abuse cases and the associated representation

42 of limited claims by animal advocacy organizations are new strategies that reinforce animal oppression in the series. Some articles challenge animal oppression, most interestingly through showing the ethical and psychological troubles of humans who are supposed to kill farmed animals. However, these challenges are packaged into the welfarist ideology which only asks how, not if, farmed animals should be exploited. The most substantial challenges to animal oppression in The Guardian come from outside Animals farmed. Thus, the limited perspectives do not span across the newspaper. To help understand this situation, a political economy analysis revealed the potential influences from both advertisers and philanthropy funders. The shared interest of these powerful actors not to disturb the status quo too much seems to extend to the topic of animal oppression, and the series mostly follows this interest. This study has explored several connections that have provided fruitful results and opened up new pathways for further research. This study combined CDA with a political economy analysis to provide a broader picture of the Animals farmed series. In doing so, it could only scratch the surface of research possibilities and opened up further investigations into political economy, and the perspectives of journalists and readers. Next, it initiated an exploration of the role of philanthropy on animal oppression. This is an unexplored yet promising avenue. As these interactions play out in the media, such as the newspaper in this case, they make for an interesting CAMS topic. More generally, philanthropy’s influence on the animal advocacy movement can become an fruitful avenue for CAS. Hopefully, the insights from this study can go beyond the walls of academia to inform the journalists who already fight animal oppression, and inspire other journalists to join the fight.

43 7 References

Adams, Carol J. (1990) 2010. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Twentieth Anniversary Edition. New York, NY: Continuum International. Allen, Robert L. 1990. Black Awakening in Capitalist America: An Analytic History. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Almiron, Núria, Matthew Cole, and Carrie P. Freeman. 2016. Critical Animal and Media Studies: Communication for Nonhuman Animal Advocacy. New York, NY: Routledge. Balcombe, Jonathan. 2016. What a Fish Knows: The Inner Lives of Our Underwater Cousins. New York, NY: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Barker, Michael. 2008. “The Soros Media ‘Empire’: The Power of Philanthropy to Engineer Consent.” In Power and Place. Wellington, NZ. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.3112&rep=rep1&type =pdf. ———. 2017. Under the Mask of Philanthropy. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Bekoff, Marc. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy—and Why They Matter. Novato, CA: New World Library. Best, Steven, and Anthony J Nocella. 2004. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Best, Steven, Anthony J Nocella, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer. 2007. “Introducing Critical Animal Studies.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1): 4–5. Christians, Clifford G., Theodore L. Glasser, Denis McQuail, Kaarle Nordenstreng, and Robert A. White. 2009. Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Cole, Matthew, and Karen Morgan. 2011. “Vegaphobia: Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK National Newspapers.” The British Journal of Sociology 62 (1): 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 4446.2010.01348.x. Compassion in World Farming. n.d. “Buying Meat and Poultry.” Accessed June 18, 2020. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/your-food/meat-poultry/. Corman, Lauren. 2017. “Ideological Monkey Wrenching: Nonhuman Animal Politics beyond Suffering.” In Animal Oppression and Capitalism, edited by David Nibert, 2:252–69. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Curl, John. 2018. “The Etymology of Slavery.” In Overthrowing Capitalism, by Revolutionary Poets Brigade. Vol. 5. San Francisco, CA: Kallatumba Press. Diamond, Cora. 1978. “Eating Meat and Eating People.” Philosophy 53 (206): 465–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100026334. Dunayer, Joan. 2001. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books. East, Michael. 2019. “Beholden to Corporatism: How The Guardian Sold out the Working Class.” Monthly Review Online (blog). May 7, 2019. https://mronline.org/2019/05/07/beholden-to-corporatism-how-the-guardian-sold-out- the-working-class/. Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. 2. ed. London, UK: Routledge. FAOStat. 2018. “Food and Agriculture Data.” 2018. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en.

44 Fishcount. 2019a. “Numbers of Farmed Decapod Crustaceans.” 2019. http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-decapod- crustaceans. ———. 2019b. “Numbers of Farmed Fish Slaughtered Each Year.” 2019. http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-fish-slaughtered- each-year. Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Freeman, Carrie P. 2009. “This Little Piggy Went to Press: The American News Media’s Construction of Animals in Agriculture.” The Communication Review 12 (1): 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420902717764. ———. 2014. Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights. Amsterdam - New York, NY: Rodopi. Freeman, Carrie P., Marc Bekoff, and Sarah M. Bexell. 2011. “Giving Voice to the ‘Voiceless’: Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives as Journalistic Sources.” Journalism Studies 12 (5): 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2010.540136. Giró, Xavier. 2019. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Universitat Pompeu Fabra. GNM press office. 2014. “Guardian Labs Officially Launches with Unilever Sustainable Living Partnership.” The Guardian, February 13, 2014, sec. GNM press office. http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-launches-guardian-labs-with- unilever-partnership. Guardian Advertising. n.d. “Food & Music - a Love Affair with Waitrose & Partners.” Guardian Advertising. Accessed June 18, 2020. https://advertising.theguardian.com/labs/projects/food-music-a-love-affair-with- waitrose-partners. Harari, Yuval Noah. 2014. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Toronto, Canada: Random House. Herman, Edward S, and Noam Chomsky. (1988) 2008. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London, UK: The Bodley Head. Hribal, Jason C. 2007a. “Animals, Agency, and Class: Writing the History of Animals from Below.” Human Ecology Review 14 (1): 12. ———. 2007b. “Resistance Is Never Futile.” CounterPunch.Org. April 17, 2007. https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/17/resistance-is-never-futile/. Jepson, Jill. 2008. “A Linguistic Analysis of Discourse on the Killing of Nonhuman Animals.” Society & Animals 16 (2): 127–48. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X291426. Jørgensen, Marianne W, and Louise J Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, UK: Sage. Khazaal, Natalie, and Núria Almiron. 2016. “‘An Angry Cow Is Not a Good Eating Experience’: How US and Spanish Media Are Shifting from Crude to Camouflaged Speciesism in Concealing Nonhuman Perspectives.” Journalism Studies 17 (3): 374– 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.982966. King, Tiffany Lethabo, and Ewuare Osayande. 2017. “The Filth on Philanthropy: Progressive Philanthropy’s Agenda to Misdirect Social Justice Movements.” In The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, edited by INCITE! Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ko, Aph, and Syl Ko. 2017. Aphro-Ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.

45 Ko, Syl. 2017a. “Emphasizing Similarities Does Nothing for the Oppressed.” In Aphro-Ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books. ———. 2017b. “Notes from the Border of the Human-Animal Divide: Thinking and Talking about Animal Oppression When You’re Not Quite Human Yourself.” In Aphro-Ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books. Levy, David AL, and Robert Picard. 2011. Is There a Better Structure for News Providers?: The Potential in Charitable and Trust Ownership. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff. 2007. The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Masterman-Smith, Helen, Angela T Ragusa, and Andrea Crampton. 2014. “Reproducing Speciesism: A Content Analysis of Australian Media Representations of Veganism.” In Proceedings of the Australian Sociological Association Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angela_Ragusa2/publication/274253326_Repro ducing_speciesism_a_content_analysis_of_Australian_media_representations_of_veg anism/links/5519c7fc0cf2f51a6fea2308/Reproducing-speciesism-a-content-analysis- of-Australian-media-representations-of-veganism.pdf. McChesney, Robert W. (1999) 2015. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York, NY: The New Press. Monbiot, George. 2014. “How Have These Corporations Colonised Our Public Life?” The Guardian. April 8, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/corporations-public-life- unilever. Newsworks. 2020. “Top 100 Advertisers in Newspapers and News Brands.” 2020. https://www.newsworks.org.uk/top-100-advertisers. Nibert, David. 2002. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ———. 2013. Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Open Philanthropy. 2013. “Treatment of Animals in Industrial Agriculture.” Open Philanthropy. September 24, 2013. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/cause- reports/treatment-animals-industrial-agriculture. ———. 2015. “Farm Animal Welfare.” Open Philanthropy. September 17, 2015. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare. ———. 2020a. “Grants Database.” Open Philanthropy. 2020. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/grants. ———. 2020b. “Theguardian.Org — Journalism on Factory Farming and Animal Cruelty (2019).” Open Philanthropy. February 3, 2020. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/the-guardian- journalism-factory-farming-animal-cruelty-2019. PAMCo. 2019. “PAMCo 4 2019 - Newsbrand Tables.” 2019. https://pamco.co.uk/dataset/pamco-4-2019-oct-18-sep-19-sep-19-comscore- data/pamco-4-2019-newsbrand-tables-2/. Phelps, Norm. 2007. The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Sahlins, Marshall. (1972) 2017. Stone Age Economics. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Sanbonmatsu, John. 2011. Critical Theory and Animal Liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

46 ———. 2017. “Capitalism and Speciesism.” In Animal Oppression and Capitalism, edited by David Nibert, 2:1–30. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Stibbe, Arran. 2012. Animals Erased: Discourse, Ecology, and Reconnection with the Natural World. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Taylor, Sunaura. 2017. Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. New York, NY: The New Press. The Guardian. 2010. “Terms and Conditions,” March 19, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/help/terms-of-service. ———. 2015. “The Scott Trust: Values and History,” July 26, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust. ———. 2018. “About Animals Farmed: Investigating Modern Farming around the World,” February 21, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/about- animals-farmed-investigating-modern-farming-around-the-world. UK Public General Acts. 2018. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Chapter III. Vol. 48. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/III. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2018. “Discourse and Migration.” In Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies, edited by Ricard Zapata-Barrero and Evren Yalaz, 227–45. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. VeganTrade. 2018. “Almost Half of UK Vegans Made the Change in the Last Year.” November 19, 2018. https://www.vegantradejournal.com/almost-half-of-uk-vegans- made-the-change-in-the-last-year-according-to-new-data/. Wand, Kelly. 2003. The Animal Rights Movement. London, UK: Greenhaven Press. Winseck, Dwayne, and Dal Yong Jin. 2011. The Political Economies of Media: The Transformation of the Global Media Industries. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Wrenn, Corey Lee. 2019. Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Zee, Bibi van der. Email to Lukas Leitinger. 2019. “Animals Farmed - Funding Question,” November 15, 2019.

47 8 Appendix

Appendix 1: List of Animals farmed articles

N Title Author Date Link 001 Animals farmed: welcome to our series Bibi van der Zee 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/animals-farmed-

welcome-series-farming-agriculture-environment 002 Animals farmed: join us for monthly updates The Guardian 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/animals-farmed-

join-us-for-monthly-updates-newsletter-updates 003 About Animals farmed: investigating modern The Guardian 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/about-animals-

farming around the world farmed-investigating-modern-farming-around-the-world 004 Share your stories from inside the farming The Guardian 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/share-your-stories-

industry from-inside-farming-industry 005 How US plans to speed up pig slaughter Andrew Wasley 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/how-us-plans-to-

times could endanger food safety speed-up-pig-slaughter-times-could-endanger-food-safety 006 She was in so much pain' - how turkey Lucy Rock 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/she-was-in-so-

meatballs gave an Oregon baby salmonella much-pain-how-turkey-meatballs-gave-an-oregon-baby-salmonella-poisoning poisoning 007 Red tape in the meat industry? It's the The Guardian 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/red-tape-in-the-

difference between life and death meat-industry-its-the-difference-between-life-and-death 008 Dirty meat': Shocking hygiene failings Andrew Wasley 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/dirty-meat-

discovered in US pig and chicken plants shocking-hygiene-failings-discovered-in-us-pig-and-chicken-plants 009 Fear of meat scandal as data shows hygiene Andrew Wasley 23.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/23/fear-of-uk-meat-scandal-as-

breaches at over half UK plants data-shows-hygiene-breaches-at-most-plants 010 Iowa stores may be forced to sell eggs from Charlotte Simmonds 7.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/07/iowa-stores-may-be-

battery hens forced-to-sell-eggs-from-battery-hens 011 History in the making': California aims for Charlotte Simmonds 7.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/07/history-in-the-

world's highest farm animal welfare law making-california-aims-for-worlds-highest-farm-animal-welfare-law 012 Animals farmed: non-stun killing, trade wars Bibi van der Zee 12.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/mar/12/animals-farmed-

and the Red Tractor row non-stun-killing-trade-wars-and-the-red-tractor-row 013 Dairy’s ‘dirty secret’: it's still cheaper to kill Tom Levitt 26.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-

male calves than to rear them still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them

48 014 EU leaders should be telling us to eat less Arthur Neslen 28.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/28/eu-leaders-should-be-

meat, say campaigners telling-us-to-eat-less-meat-say-campaigners 015 Row erupts between Italy's Parma ham Andrew Wasley, Jordan 30.3.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/30/row-erupts-between-

makers and activists over pig welfare Gass-Poore and Cecilia italys-parma-ham-makers-and-activists-over-pig-welfare Ferrara 016 Farming groups take steps to stop slaughter Tom Levitt 10.4.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/10/farming-groups-take-

of male dairy calves steps-to-stop-slaughter-of-male-dairy-calves 017 The way some pigs are reared is 'upsetting Fiona Harvey 17.4.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/17/the-way-some-pigs-

and wrong', say shoppers are-reared-is-upsetting-and-wrong-say-shoppers 018 The new food: meet the startups racing to Damian Carrington 30.4.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/30/lab-grown-meat-how-

reinvent the meal a-bunch-of-geeks-scared-the-meat-industry 019 What is the true cost of eating meat? Bibi van der Zee 7.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/07/true-cost-of-eating-meat-

environment-health-animal-welfare 020 The million dollar cow: high-end farming in Naomi Larsson 10.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/10/the-million-dollar-

Brazil – photo essay cow-high-end-farming-in-brazil-photo-essay 021 RSPCA to investigate Lincolnshire farm after Bibi van der Zee 23.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/23/rspca-to-investigate-

'workers filmed kicking pigs' lincolnshire-farm-after-workers-filmed-kicking-pigs 022 Revealed: majority of politicians on key EU Arthur Neslen 24.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/24/revealed-majority-

farming panel have industry links politicians-key-eu-farming-panel-industry-links 023 It’s wrong to stink up other people’s lives': Oliver Milman 24.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/24/pig-farm-agriculture- fighting the manure lagoons of North its-wrong-to-stink-up-other-peoples-lives-fighting-the-manure-lagoons-of-

Carolina north-carolina 024 Revealed: industrial-scale beef farming Andrew Wasley and 29.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-

comes to the UK Heather Kroeker scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk 025 Meat and fish multinationals 'jeopardising Bibi van der Zee and 30.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/30/meat-and-fish-

Paris climate goals' Andrew Wasley protein-multinationals-jeopardising-paris-climate-goals 026 Animals farmed: big beef, 'salmon-safe' and Bibi van der Zee 31.5.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/may/31/animals-farmed-

small abattoirs big-beef-salmon-safe-and-small-abattoirs 027 Antibiotic apocalypse: EU scraps plans to Arthur Neslen 1.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/01/antibiotic-apocalypse-

tackle drug pollution, despite fears of rising eu-scraps-plans-to-tackle-drug-pollution-despite-fears-of-rising-resistance resistance 028 The magical wilderness farm: raising cows Patrick Barkham 15.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/15/the-magical-

among the weeds at Knepp wilderness-farm-raising-cows-among-the-weeds-at-knepp

49 029 How much does big pharma make from Holly Watt 19.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/how-much-does-big-

animal antibiotics? pharma-make-from-animal-antibiotics 030 Can China kick its animal antibiotic habit? Charlotte Middlehurst 19.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/can-china-kick-its-

animal-antibiotic-habit 031 Diversion tactics: how big pharma is Ben Stockton, Madlen 19.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/animal-antibiotics-

muddying the waters on animal antibiotics Davies and Andrew Wasley calm-down-about-your-chicken-says-big-pharma 032 How can you support farmers who are using Kath Dalmeny 20.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/20/how-can-you-support-

fewer antibiotics? farmers-who-are-using-fewer-antibiotics 033 Living next door to 17 million chickens: 'We Oksana Grytsenko 23.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/23/living-next-door-to-17-

want a normal life' million-chickens-we-want-a-normal-life 034 Cheap bacon: how shops and shoppers let Tom Levitt 27.6.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/27/gestation-crates-

down our pigs farming-cheap-bacon-how-shops-and-shoppers-let-down-our-pigs 035 Chicken mega-farms are how we'll feed the Andrew Wasley 3.7.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/03/intensive-chicken-

UK, says poultry industry head mega-farms-feed-uk-poultry-industry-head-richard-griffiths 036 Two amputations a week: the cost of working Andrew Wasley, 5.7.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/05/amputations-serious-

in a US meat plant Christopher D Cook and injuries-us-meat-industry-plant Natalie Jones 037 Animals farmed update: trade wars, genetics Bibi van der Zee 9.7.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/jul/09/animals-farmed-

and amputations update-trade-wars-genetics-and-amputations 038 This one has heat stress': the shocking reality Borzou Daragahi 30.7.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/30/this-one-has-heat-

of live animal exports stress-the-shocking-reality-of-live-animal-exports 039 How animal waste is helping turn China's Joanna Chiu 31.8.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/31/eutrophication-algae-

lakes green how-animal-waste-is-turning-chinas-lakes-green 040 It’s not if, it’s when': the deadly pig disease Hannah Devlin and 3.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/03/its-not-if-its-when-the-

spreading around the world Christian Davies deadly-pig-disease-spreading-around-the-world 041 Europe's meat and dairy production must Arthur Neslen 15.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/15/europe-meat-dairy-

halve by 2050, expert warns production-2050-expert-warns 042 Forced labour in Paraguay: the darkness at Carlos Juliano Barros, 18.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/18/forced-labour-in-

the bottom of the global supply chain André Campos and Jo paraguay-the-darkness-at-the-bottom-of-the-global-supply-chain Griffin 043 Crucial antibiotics still used on US farms Andrew Wasley, Ben 19.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/19/crucial-antibiotics-

despite public health fears Stockton, Natalie Jones and still-used-on-us-farms-despite-public-health-fears Alexandra Heal

50 044 Millions of dead chickens and pigs found in Michael Graff 22.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/21/hurricane-florence-

hurricane floods flooding-north-carolina 045 A brutal business: alleged beatings and abuse Harriet Grant 24.9.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/alleged-beatings-

on UK pig farms abuse-uk-pig-farms 046 We've bred them to their limit': death rates Twilight Greenaway 1.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/01/death-rates-surge-

surge for female pigs in the US female-pigs-us 047 Nestlé and Unilever spearhead food industry Naomi Larsson 11.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/11/nestle-unilever-

coalition on animal welfare spearhead-food-industry-coalition-animal-welfare 048 EU plan to reduce checks on chickens 'will Andrew Wasley 12.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/12/eu-plan-to-reduce-checks-on-

increase food poisoning risk' chickens-will-increase-food-poisoning-risk 049 How profit-driven inbreeding could bring the David Cox 14.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/14/how-profit-driven-

world dairy herd to its knees inbreeding-could-bring-the-world-dairy-herd-to-its-knees 050 Horrific' footage reveals fish suffocating to Arthur Neslen 18.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/18/horrific-footage-

death on industrial farms in Italy reveals-fish-suffocating-to-death-on-industrial-farms-in-italy 051 ‘We'll have space bots with lasers, killing John Harris 20.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-robots-lasers-

plants’: the rise of the robot farmer rise-robot-farmer 052 What is African swine fever and how does it Bibi van der Zee 24.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/24/what-is-african-swine-

spread? fever-and-how-does-it-spread 053 Soy destruction in Argentina leads straight to Uki Goñi 26.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/soy-destruction-

our dinner plates deforestation-in-argentina-leads-straight-to-our-dinner-plates 054 Are we wrong to assume fish can't feel pain? Carl Safina 30.10.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/30/are-we-wrong-to-assume-fish-

cant-feel-pain 055 Animals farmed: swine fever, chick culling Bibi van der Zee 7.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/nov/07/animals-farmed-

and trophy hunting update-swine-fever-chick-culling-and-trophy-hunting 056 Abuse of animals rife on farms across Sophie Kevany 14.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/farm-animal-abuses-

Europe, auditors warn widespread-across-europe-warn-auditors 057 Secret videos reveal workers beating sheep Harriet Grant 16.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/secret-videos-reveal-

on English and Scottish farms workers-beating-sheep-on-english-and-scottish-farms 058 US trade deal would flood Britain with Tom Levitt 22.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/22/growth-hormones-

'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon gestation-crates-bacon-us-trade-deal 059 Activists condemn 'disgusting attacks' on The Guardian 23.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/23/attacks-on-pigs-two-

pigs as two men convicted of cruelty men-convicted-of-cruelty

51 060 One in six pints of milk thrown away each Anna Sophie Gross 28.11.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/28/one-in-six-pints-of-

year, study shows milk-thrown-away-each-year-study-shows 061 Deadly pig virus could hit US in a year, warn Charlotte Middlehurst 7.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/07/deadly-pig-virus-

experts african-swine-fever-us-china 062 It's medieval': why some cows are still living Tom Levitt 8.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/08/its-medieval-why-

most of their lives tied up some-cows-are-still-living-most-of-their-lives-tied-up 063 The blight of Tetra Paks covering Vietnam's Corinne Redfern 9.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/09/billions-discarded-

beaches and towns tetra-pak-cover-vietnams-beaches-towns 064 Animals farmed: carbon footprints, farm Bibi van der Zee 10.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/dec/10/animals-farmed-

violence and improvised abattoirs update-carbon-footprints-animal-abuse-and-improvised-abattoirs 065 We could smell the boat approaching': the Jo-Anne McArthur 11.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/11/we-could-smell-the-

grim truth about animal exports boat-approaching-grim-truth-animal-exports-israel-haifa 066 Legal plastic content in animal feed could Harriet Grant 15.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/15/legal-plastic-content-

harm human health, experts warn in-animal-feed-could-harm-human-health-experts-warn 067 Chickens freezing to death and boiled alive: Andrew Wasley and Natalie 17.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/17/chickens-freezing-to-

failings in US slaughterhouses exposed Jones death-and-boiled-alive-failings-in-us-slaughterhouses-exposed 068 World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin Josie Le Blond 22.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/22/worlds-first-no-kill-

eggs-go-on-sale-in-berlin 069 ‘It’s God’s plan’: the man who dreams of John Vidal 27.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/27/its-gods-plan-the-man-

bringing intensive chicken farming to Africa who-dreams-of-bringing-intensive-chicken-farming-to-africa 070 Revealed: US-style industrial farms receive Andrew Wasley and 28.12.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/28/revealed-industrial-

millions in subsidies Alexandra Heal scale-farms-receive-millions-in-subsidies 071 We’re humus sapiens': the farmers who shun Patrick Barkham 12.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/12/were-humus-sapiens-

animal manure the-farmers-who-shun-animal-manure 072 Campaigners stop truck of ‘exhausted calves’ Nadeem Badshah 16.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/campaigners-stop-

amid calls for live export reform truck-exhausted-calves-calls-live-export-reform-ramsgate-kent 073 Recalls of ‘potentially lethal’ US meat and Erin McCormick 18.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/18/us-meat-poultry-

poultry nearly double since 2013 recalls-nearly-double-since-2013 074 The curse of tail-docking: the painful truth Cecilia Ferrara and 19.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/19/curse-tail-docking-

about Italy's pigs Catherine Nelson painful-truth-italy-pigs 075 Secret filming shows sick cows slaughtered Christian Davies 27.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/secret-filming-shows-

for meat in Poland sick-cows-slaughtered-for-meat-in-poland

52 076 Investors urge KFC, McDonald's and Burger Mattha Busby 29.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/29/investors-urge-kfc-

King to cut emissions mcdonalds-and-burger-king-to-cut-emissions 077 Uncaged: saving China's songbirds from the Sean Gallagher, Charlie 31.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/jan/30/uncaged-saving-

poachers' nets – video Phillips, Claudine Spera china-wild-birds-poachers-video and Jacqueline Edenbrow 078 US academics feel the invisible hand of Kate Cox and Claire Brown 31.1.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/us-academics-feel-the-

politicians and big agriculture invisible-hand-of-politicians-and-big-agriculture 079 ‘Sick cow’ meat scandal in Poland: fears Christian Davies 1.2.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/01/sick-cow-meat-

raised over other slaughterhouses scandal-poland-fears-over-other-slaughterhouses 080 Rabbits, chickens and Tin Tin the goat: the Naomi Larsson 7.2.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/07/from-a-ramshackle-

backyard farms of Nairobi slum-farm-young-people-feeding-nairobi-hungry-kenya 081 Nearly a fifth of the EU's budget goes on Tom Levitt 12.2.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/nearly-a-fifth-of-eu-

livestock farming, says Greenpeace budget-goes-on-livestock-farming-greenpeace 082 Undercover footage of violence at dairy farm David King 26.2.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/26/undercover-footage-of-

prompts RSPCA investigation violence-at-dairy-farm-prompts-rspca-investigation 083 The women farming in disaster zones – in World Animal Protection 8.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/mar/08/the-women-

pictures farming-in-disaster-zones-in-pictures 084 How America’s food giants swallowed the Chris McGreal 9.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/american-food-giants-

family farms swallow-the-family-farms-iowa 085 ‘Boycott Iowa’: latest twist in legal tussle Erin McCormick 16.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/16/boycott-iowa-latest-

between animal campaigners and US farmers twist-in-legal-tussle-between-animal-campaigners-and-us-farmers 086 Dutch government to investigate food safety Renate van der Zee and 20.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/20/dutch-government-to-

body after 'sick cow' cases Christian Davies investigate-food-safety-body-after-sick-cow-cases 087 The planet's prodigious poo problem David Cox 25.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/25/animal-waste-excrement-

four-billion-tonnes-dung-poo-faecebook 088 Can the world quench China’s bottomless Felicity Lawrence 29.3.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/29/can-the-world-

thirst for milk? quench-chinas-bottomless-thirst-for-milk 089 Using animal organs in humans: 'It's just a Karen Weintraub 3.4.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/animal-global-organ-

question of when' shortage-gene-editing-technology-transplant 090 Plans to expand Iceland's fish farms risk Arthur Neslen 19.4.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/huge-plans-to-expand-

decimating wild salmon populations icelands-fish-farms-risk-decimating-wild-fish-populations 091 US farmers count cost of catastrophic 'bomb Susan Cosier 27.4.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/27/us-farmers-count-cost-

cyclone' in midwest of-catastrophic-bomb-cyclone-in-midwest

53 092 The battle to save the world's biggest Alison Benjamin 4.5.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/04/the-battle-to-save-the-

bumblebee from extinction worlds-biggest-bumblebee-from-european-invaders 093 Live export: Secret footage shows young Arthur Neslen 7.5.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/secret-footage-live-

calves being beaten and kicked exports-calves-brutality 094 EU ignoring climate crisis with livestock Tom Levitt 22.5.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/22/eu-ignoring-climate-

farm subsidies, campaigners warn crisis-with-livestock-farm-subsidies-campaigners-warn 095 Secret footage exposes abuse of calves at Gabrielle Canon 6.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/06/secret-footage-calves-

Coca-Cola affiliated dairy farm fair-oaks-farms-illinois 096 Death by clubbing: the brutality of Thailand's Kate Hodal 11.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/death-by-clubbing-

pig slaughterhouses brutality-thailand-pig-slaughterhouses 097 Secret slaughterhouse video reveals brutal Kate Hodal 11.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/secret-slaughterhouse-

treatment of pigs in Cambodia video-brutal-treatment-pigs-cambodia 098 Dealing with ammonia is an urgent health Fiona Harvey 13.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/13/ammonia-health-

problem – yet levels are still rising problem-rising-air-pollution 099 Testing reveals ammonia pollutant hotspots Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 13.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/13/testing-reveals-

at UK farms Heal, Fiona Harvey and ammonia-pollutant-hotspots-farms-uk Mie Lainio 100 Revealed: UK government failing to tackle Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 13.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/13/revealed-uk-

rise of serious air pollutant Heal, Fiona Harvey and government-failing-to-tackle-rise-of-ammonia-serious-air-pollutant Mie Lainio 101 Ammonia pollution damaging more than Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 18.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/ammonia-pollution-

60% of UK land – report Heal and Fiona Harvey damaging-uk-land-report 102 Footage reveals chickens in 'horrifying Harriet Grant 25.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/footage-chickens-big-

conditions' at big UK producer uk-producer 103 Shocking' conditions at three UK chicken The Guardian 25.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/jun/25/uk-chicken-

farms revealed in secret footage – video farms-secret-footage-video 104 Rise of ethical milk: 'Mums ask when cows Tom Levitt 29.6.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/mums-ask-when-cows-

and their calves are separated' and-their-calves-separated-rise-ethical-milk-vegan 105 The swashbuckling meat tycoons who nearly Dom Phillips 2.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/swashbuckling-meat-

brought down a government tycoons-nearly-brought-down-a-government-brazil 106 We must not barter the Amazon rainforest for Jonathan Watts 2.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2019/jul/02/barter-

burgers and steaks amazon-rainforest-burgers-steaks-brazil

54 107 Revealed: rampant deforestation of Amazon Dom Phillips and Daniel 2.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-

driven by global greed for meat Camargos, Andre Campos, deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil and Andrew Wasley and Alexandra Heal 108 Brazil sent one million salmonella-infected Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 3.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/03/brazil-one-million-

chickens to UK in two years Heal, André Campos and salmonella-infected-chickens-uk Diego Junqueira 109 Pharma's market: the man cleaning up Linda Nordling 10.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/10/namibia-meat-veterinarian-

Africa's meat antibiotics-parasites 110 Meat infected by African swine fever found Kate Hodal 11.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/11/meat-infected-by-

in UK for first time african-swine-fever-found-in-uk-for-first-time 111 Putting pigs in the shade: the radical farming John Vidal 13.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/13/pigs-radical-farming-

system banking on trees system-trees-climate-crisis 112 Death and broken livelihoods: farmers and Joanna Chiu 20.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/20/death-broken-

wildfires in British Columbia livelihoods-farmers-wildfires-british-columbia 113 The smell, the noise, the dust: my neighbour, Tom Levitt 24.7.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/24/the-smell-the-noise-

the factory farm the-dust-my-neighbour-the-factory-farm 114 Is the US chicken industry cheating its Leah Douglas and 2.8.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/is-the-us-chicken-

farmers? Christopher Leonard industry-cheating-its-farmers 115 Game birds subject to 'cruel' conditions, Mattha Busby 14.8.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/14/game-birds-poland-

undercover footage shows undercover-footage 116 Campaigners demand end to fish tethering Kate Hodal 19.8.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/19/campaigners-demand-

'torture' in Taiwan end-to-fish-tethering-torture-in-taiwan 117 Morrisons moves to end killing of male Tom Levitt 21.8.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/21/morrisons-moves-to-

calves at birth end-killing-of-male-calves-at-birth 118 It smells like a decomposing body': North Barry Yeoman 27.8.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/27/it-smells-like-a-

Carolina's polluting pig farms decomposing-body-north-carolinas-polluting-pig-farms 119 Global food producers 'failing to face up to Harriet Grant 4.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/04/global-food-producers-

role' in climate crisis climate-crisis 120 Animals farmed: swine fever, caged eggs and Tom Levitt 9.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2019/sep/09/animals-farmed-

animals as sentient beings swine-fever-caged-eggs-and-animals-as-sentient-beings 121 One kind of bee lives in snail shells': a Alexander Turner 13.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/sep/13/one-kind-of-

passion for pollinators – in pictures bee-lives-in-snail-shells-a-passion-for-pollinators-in-pictures

55 122 South Korea confirms African swine fever Bibi van der Zee 17.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/17/south-korea-confirms-

outbreak african-swine-fever-outbreak 123 Leading burger supplier sourced from Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 17.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/17/leading-burger-

Amazon farmer using deforested land Heal and André Campos supplier-sourced-from-amazon-farmer-guilty-of-deforestation 124 US moves to scrap speed limits on pig Tom Levitt 18.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/us-moves-to-scrap-

slaughter lines speed-limits-on-pig-slaughter-lines 125 Dozens of people poisoned this year by Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 20.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/dozens-of-people-

salmonella-infected British eggs Heal and Fiona Harvey poisoned-this-year-by-salmonella-infected-british-eggs 126 Salmonella alert issued after 100 people Andrew Wasley, Alexandra 23.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/23/salmonella-alert-

infected by UK eggs in three years Heal and Fiona Harvey issued-after-100-people-infected-by-uk-eggs-in-three-years 127 What they put on the fields contaminates our Anna Jones 26.9.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/26/nitrate-problem-iowa-

water': Iowa's pollution problem dont-use-the-tap-water-for-babies 128 EU imposes hen welfare standards on egg Mattha Busby 2.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/02/eu-imposes-hen-

imports for first time welfare-standards-on-egg-imports-for-first-time 129 Links with deforestation in the Chaco: The Guardian 5.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/deforestation-chaco-

companies' full responses companies-full-responses 130 Home to the screaming hairy armadillo: the Uki Goñi 5.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/screaming-hairy-

forest the world forgot armadillo-the-forest-the-world-forgot-gran-chaco 131 Rise of the 'wonder bean': from deforestation Bibi van der Zee, Anna 5.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/soya-rise-wonder-

to your plate Gross and Uki Goñi bean-from-deforestation-to-your-plate 132 Tesco and M&S likely to have soya linked to Anna Sophie Gross, Uki 5.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/tesco-m-and-s-

deforestation in supply chains Goñi and Bibi van der Zee supermarkets-likely-to-have-soya-linked-to-deforestation-supply-chains 133 Animals farmed: deforestation and meat, Tom Levitt 8.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/08/animals-farmed-

Dutch cattle wars and wildlife parks deforestation-and-meat-dutch-cattle-wars-and-wildlife-parks 134 Seafood company under investigation after Maanvi Singh 8.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/08/seafood-company-

allegations of animal abuse under-investigation-after-allegations-of-animal-abuse 135 Don't blame meat for the climate crisis, say Tom Levitt 15.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/15/dont-blame-meat-for-

European livestock farmers the-climate-crisis-say-european-livestock-farmers 136 Barbaric' tests on monkeys lead to calls for Mattha Busby 15.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/15/barbaric-tests-on-

closure of German lab monkeys-lead-to-calls-for-closure-of-german-lab 137 The Bangladeshi crab farmers battling Kate Lamb and Ali Ahsan 18.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/18/the-sundarbans-crab-

climate crisis – and pirates farmers-battling-climate-crisis-and-pirates-bangladesh

56 138 The US lawyers rolling back wildlife Jimmy Tobias 21.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/the-us-lawyers-rolling-

protection one species at a time back-wildlife-protection-one-species-at-a-time 139 Retailers move to reassure consumers over Tom Levitt 23.10.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/23/retailers-move-to-

chicken safety after drug seizure reassure-consumers-over-chicken-safety-after-drug-seizure-northern-ireland 140 Animals farmed: Pet smuggling, animal Tom Levitt 7.11.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/07/animals-farmed-pet-

testing and swine fever warnings smuggling-animal-testing-and-swine-fever-warnings 141 Rescue effort resumes for 14,000 sheep on Bibi van der Zee 25.11.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/25/rescue-mission-for-

sinking ship as noises heard inside 14000-sheep-on-sinking-ship-abandoned-black-sea 142 Cut the wrap! UK dairy farm aims to be first Tom Levitt 28.11.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/28/scottish-dairy-farm-

to go single-use plastic-free aims-to-become-uks-first-to-go-single-use-plastic-free-mossgiel-ayrshire 143 Campaigners call for sheep saved from Bibi van der Zee 28.11.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/28/campaigners-call-for-

capsized ship to be put out to pasture sheep-saved-from-capsized-ship-to-be-put-out-to-pasture 144 Danish bacon: what happens when you push Kjeld Hansen 30.11.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/30/danish-bacon-what-

pigs to the limit? happens-when-you-push-pigs-to-the-absolute-limit 145 Animals farmed: Dutch reach 'peak pig', plea Tom Levitt 3.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2019/dec/03/animals-farmed-

to reprieve sheep and VR for cows dutch-reach-peak-pig-plea-to-reprieve-sheep-and-vr-for-cows 146 Fork out to pork out: Germany’s ‘schnitzel Bibi van der Zee 6.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/06/fork-out-to-pork-out-

alert’ echoes around Europe germany-schnitzel-alert-echoes-around-europe 147 Revealed: fires three times more common in Alexandra Heal, Andrew 10.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/revealed-fires-three-

Amazon beef farming zones Wasley, Sam Cutler and times-more-common-in-amazon-beef-farming-zones André Campos 148 Calls grow for laws requiring firms to reveal Bibi van der Zee, Alexandra 10.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/calls-grow-for-laws-

links to deforestation Heal and Andrew Wasley requiring-firms-to-reveal-links-to-deforestation 149 World Bank urged to rethink investment in Alexandra Heal, Andrew 10.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/world-bank-urged-to-

one of Brazil's big beef companies Wasley rethink-investment-in-one-of-brazils-big-beef-companies 150 Don't invest in Brazilian meat, warn Dom Phillips 11.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/dont-invest-in-

deforestation campaigners brazilian-meat-warn-deforestation-campaigners 151 I didn't buy any food for a year – and I'm Rob Greenfield 19.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/i-didnt-buy-any-food-

healthier than I've ever been for-a-year-and-im-healthier-than-ive-ever-been 152 Turning farming upside down: mob grazing Ben Martynoga 27.12.2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/turning-farming-

on a Cumbrian hill farm upside-down-mob-grazing-on-a-cumbrian-hill-farm 153 Lethal algae blooms – an ecosystem out of Jeremy Hance 4.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/lethal-algae-blooms-

balance an-ecosystem-out-of-balance

57 154 Cashmere country: the perils of making the Andrew Newey 10.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/10/cashmere-country-the-

world's finest fabric perils-of-making-the-worlds-finest-fabric 155 Fast food giants still 'failing' on chicken Rebecca Smithers 15.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/15/fast-food-giants-still-

welfare, says report failing-on-chicken-welfare-says-report 156 Animals farmed investigates: the huge global Bibi van der Zee 20.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/animals-farmed-

trade in live animals investigates-the-huge-global-trade-in-live-animals 157 Two billion and rising: the global trade in Tom Levitt 20.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/two-billion-and-rising-

live animals in eight charts the-global-trade-in-live-animals-in-eight-charts 158 It would be kinder to shoot them': Ireland's Sophie Kevany and Mattha 20.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/it-would-be-kinder-to-

calves set for live export Busby shoot-them-irelands-calves-set-for-live-export 159 Live export: animals at risk in giant global Hilary Osborne and Bibi 20.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/live-export-animals-at-

industry van der Zee risk-as-giant-global-industry-goes-unchecked 160 Animals farmed: bird flu, bushfires and the Tom Levitt 21.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2020/jan/21/animals-farmed-

2bn 'hidden' live animal trade bird-flu-bushfires-and-the-2-billion-hidden-live-animal-trade 161 It was painful to declare it': outbreak of Zeinab Mohammed Salih 21.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/21/it-was-painful-to-

animal disease was blow to Sudan exports declare-it-outbreak-of-animal-disease-was-blow-to-sudan-exports 162 Live animals are the largest source of Mattha Busby 21.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/21/live-animals-are-the-

infection': dangers of the export trade largest-source-of-infection-dangers-of-the-export-trade 163 A whole sheep for £18': how live exports are Paula Erizanu 22.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/a-whole-sheep-for-18-

hurting farmers in Romania how-live-exports-are-hurting-farmers-in-romania 164 Appetite for 'warm meat' drives risk of Michael Standaert 23.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/23/appetite-for-warm-

disease in Hong Kong and China meat-drives-risk-of-disease-in-hong-kong-and-china 165 How the Middle East's water shortage drives Ruth Michaelson and Bibi 23.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/23/how-the-middle-easts-

demand for live animal imports van der Zee water-shortage-drives-demand-for-live-animal-imports 166 High risk of injuries in Denmark's live piglet Bibi van der Zee and 24.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/high-risk-of-injuries-

export trade, audit warns Wojciech Kość in-denmarks-live-piglet-export-trade-audit-warns 167 ‘Something is wrong’: why the live animal Bibi van der Zee 24.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/something-is-wrong-

trade is booming in Europe meps-say-eu-is-failing-to-regulate-live-animal-exports 168 ‘Floating feedlots’: animals spending weeks Naomi Larsson and Tom 26.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/26/floating-feedlots-

at sea on ships not fit for purpose Levitt animals-spending-weeks-at-sea-on-ships-not-fit-for-purpose 169 UK's trade in breeding chicks may not be Fiona Harvey 28.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/28/uks-trade-in-breeding-

covered by planned live export 'ban' chicks-may-not-be-covered-by-planned-live-export-ban

58 170 RSPCA urges caution over buying puppies Saeed Kamali Dehghan 30.1.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/rspca-urges-caution-

online after spate of deaths over-buying-puppies-online-after-spate-of-deaths 171 Secret decks found on ship that capsized Saeed Kamali Dehghan 3.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/03/secret-decks-found-on-

killing thousands of sheep ship-that-capsized-killing-thousands-of-sheep 172 Animals Farmed: live exports risk of disease, Tom Levitt 4.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2020/feb/04/animals-farmed-

China goes big on pork, and EU meat tax live-exports-risk-of-disease-china-goes-big-on-pork-and-eu-meat-tax 173 Ireland revokes licence of livestock ship Sophie Kevany 17.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/17/ireland-revokes-

operator over low performance rating license-of-livestock-ship-operator-over-low-performance-rating 174 Meat company faces heat over ‘cattle Dom Phillips 20.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/20/meat-company-faces-

laundering’ in Amazon supply chain heat-over-cattle-laundering-in-amazon-supply-chain 175 Coronavirus closures reveal vast scale of Michael Standaert 25.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/25/coronavirus-closures-

China’s secretive wildlife farm industry reveal-vast-scale-of-chinas-secretive-wildlife-farm-industry 176 I’m constantly putting on a brave face': Tom Levitt 27.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/27/im-constantly-putting-

farmers speak out on mental health on-a-brave-face-farmers-speak-out-on-mental-health 177 Shenzhen could be first city in China to ban Michael Standaert 27.2.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/27/shenzhen-could-be-

eating of dogs and cats first-city-in-china-to-ban-eating-of-dogs-and-cats 178 Brazilian meat companies linked to farmer Dom Phillips 3.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/03/brazilian-meat-

charged with 'massacre' in Amazon companies-linked-to-farmer-charged-with-massacre-in-amazon 179 The small Dutch town that wants to shape the Vidhi Doshi 5.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/how-a-small-dutch-town-is-

future of your food shaping-the-future-of-your-food-wageningen-netherlands 180 More cows than people: America's beef George Steinmetz 7.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2020/mar/07/more-cows-

capital of the world – in pictures than-people-americas-beef-capital-of-the-world-in-pictures 181 African swine fever destroying small pig Michael Standaert 11.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/african-swine-fever-

farms, as factory farming booms – report destroying-small-pig-farms-as-factory-farming-booms-report 182 I can't get above water': how America's Michael Sainato 14.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/14/i-cant-get-above-

chicken giant Perdue controls farmers water-how-americas-chicken-giant-perdue-controls-farmers 183 Billion-dollar wildlife industry in Vietnam Chris Humphrey 18.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/18/billion-dollar-wildlife-

under assault as law drafted to halt trading industry-in-vietnam-under-assault-as-law-drafted-to-halt-trading 184 Cattle gridlock: EU border delays add to Bibi van der Zee 23.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/meat-prices-could-

coronavirus strain on meat trade rise-as-covid-19-adds-pressure-to-vulnerable-supply-chain-coronavirus 185 Animals Farmed: Coronavirus threat to EU Tom Levitt 24.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2020/mar/24/animals-farmed- food supplies, America's beef capital and the coronavirus-threat-to-eu-food-supplies-americas-beef-capital-and-the-anti-

'anti-meat agenda' meat-agenda

59 186 Bolsonaro government thanked Johnson for Alexandra Heal and 30.3.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/30/bolsonaro-

Amazon fire support Andrew Wasley government-thanked-johnson-for-amazon-fire-support 187 Secret footage shows calves from Ireland Sophie Kevany 2.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/02/secret-footage-shows-

beaten and kicked in France calves-from-ireland-beaten-and-kicked-in-france 188 Circular economy': the tannery making Anna Turns 4.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/04/circular-economy-the-

leather from billy goats tannery-making-leather-from-billy-goats 189 Industrial-sized pig and chicken farming Claire Colley and Andrew 7.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/industrial-sized-pig-

continuing to rise in UK Wasley and-chicken-farming-continuing-to-rise-in-uk 190 Life in the 'poultry capital' of Wales: enough Claire Colley and Andrew 7.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/life-in-the-poultry-

is enough, say overwhelmed residents Wasley capital-of-wales-enough-is-enough-say-overwhelmed-residents 191 African swine fever outbreak reported in Wojciech Kość and Michael 8.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/08/african-swine-fever-

western Poland Standaert outbreak-reported-in-western-poland 192 Bamboo rats left in limbo as breeders push Michael Standaert 9.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/09/bamboo-rats-left-in-

back against China wildlife ban limbo-as-breeders-push-back-against-china-wildlife-ban 193 China signals end to dog meat consumption Michael Standaert 9.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/09/china-signals-end-to-

by humans dog-meat-consumption-by-humans 194 ‘Mixed with prejudice’: calls for ban on ‘wet’ Michael Standaert 15.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/15/mixed-with-prejudice-

markets misguided, experts argue calls-for-ban-on-wet-markets-misguided-experts-argue-coronavirus 195 Animals Farmed: pig virus, wildlife trade in Tom Levitt 16.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2020/apr/16/animals-farmed-

China, and the 'poultry capital' of Wales pig-virus-wildlife-trade-in-china-and-the-poultry-capital-of-wales 196 No way food safety not compromised': US Bibi van der Zee, Tom 20.4.2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/20/no-way-food-safety-

regulation rollbacks during Covid-19 Levitt and Andrew Wasley not-compromised-us-regulatory-roll-backs-during-covid-19-criticised criticised

60 Appendix 2: List of The Guardian articles outside Animals farmed

N Title Author Category Date Link G01 Can food transparency backfire? My pig farm Amy Wu Sustainable 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/30/pig- tour made me feel queasy Business farm-pork-food-transparency G02 James Cromwell: 'In jail, everyone recognises Emma Brockes Film 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/27/james-cromwell-babe- my face' la-confidential-protest-jail-hollywood G03 Put out to grass: when animals are allowed to Richard Benson The Observer 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/feb/10/isa-leshko- grow old farm-animals-photographs-allowed-to-grow-old G04 Calves and ‘cries of anguish’: why Joaquin Chas Newkey- Shortcuts 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/food/shortcuts/2020/feb/10/calves-and- Phoenix decried the dairy industry Burden cries-of-anguish-why-joaquin-phoenix-decried-the-dairy-industry G05 Free range is a con. There’s no such thing as Chas Newkey- Opinion 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/free-range- an ethical egg Burden eggs-con-ethical G06 Dairy is scary. The public are waking up to Chas Newkey- Opinion 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/dairy-scary- the darkest part of farming Burden public-farming-calves-pens-alternatives G07 Goodbye – and good riddance – to livestock George Monbiot Opinion 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/04/livestock- farming farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals G08 It's time to dismantle factory farms and get Gene Baur Opinion 21.2.2018 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/19/its-time-to- used to eating less meat get-used-to-eating-less-meat

61