Where power lies in industrial farming – and how we can shift it

A strategic analysis of industrial farming of animals in the UK – and how the animal freedom movement can use it to drive change

Why do supermarkets still sell factory-farmed 'animal products' while claiming to care about welfare? Why are animal protection laws seldom enforced? And why does industrial farming of animals continue – even as public concern keeps rising?

These are questions of power.

To understand what’s preventing change – and where change might come from – Animal Think Tank carried out a political economy analysis (PEA) of industrial farming of animals in the UK. This article shares highlights of what we found – and how it can help our movement shape smarter strategies for change.

If you’d like access to the full report, let us know in the comments. We're keen to share full insights and hear your perspective.

---

What is political economy analysis?

PEA is a method used in policymaking and philanthropy to understand how power operates in complex systems. It goes beyond asking what policies are needed – it asks what’s really holding change back.

Key questions include:

• Who benefits from the way things are?

• What incentives stop change from happening?

• Why do some reforms succeed while others fail?

Though widely used in other sectors, PEA has been less applied to food systems and the farming and killing of animals.

When Animal Think Tank used it to examine how this system operates in the UK, it gave us a clearer view of the structural forces that keep it in place – and where those might be disrupted.

Credit: We Animals

How we approached it

We used a framework developed by George Sturaro/Mercy For Animals that breaks the system into three layers:

1. Foundational factors – geography, history and economic structure. These are deep-rooted conditions that shape what's possible and they change slowly. For example, the use of the UK’s upland terrain has shaped rural economies and political narratives for decades.

2. Rules of the game – laws, regulations, political culture and informal norms. These shape how decisions are made, what gets enforced, prioritised or resisted.

3. People and organisations – supermarkets, trade associations and unions, government departments, consumer groups, campaigners and others who each push their own agendas.

---

What we found

We grouped our findings into barriers, opportunities and risks. Please note: these are only high-level summaries, as some findings are sensitive and can only be shared internally in the movement, not publicly. If you want access to the full report, please reach out to us in the comments.

Barriers to change:

1. The industry is propped up by the government. Farmers receive £1.5 billion a year in subsidies, sometimes accounting for 90% of profits. There is an opportunity for reform but it risks strong political challenge in marginal, rural constituencies.

2. Welfare laws are poorly enforced, which benefits the current system, as enforcing compliance threatens businesses' economic viability.

3. Global trade rules limit reform. Global trade deals don’t prioritise animal welfare standards. This undercuts and undermines any domestic reforms and forces UK producers to compete with imports that conform to even lower standards.

4. Decision-making structures block reform. The system is hardwired to favour the status quo. UK planning law, for example, prevents councils from considering animal welfare when assessing farm proposals.

5. Over 70% of farmland is used as grassland – often described as 'unsuitable for crops'. This use is deeply entrenched in rural communities alongside its narrative. The framing can hide the potential for alternative uses, but these require system shifts, which politically can be resistant to change.

Opportunities for change:

1. Devolved nations can lead. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have more deliberative policymaking cultures and room to innovate. Scotland’s approach to environmental policy shows what’s possible.

2. Retailers are more sensitive to public opinion than producers. More so than in countries like the US – where farmers and farming unions hold more political power – supermarkets have a huge influence on the UK system and are vulnerable to reputational pressure, making them key leverage points for advocates.

3. Our movement has many potential allies. Animal advocacy alone struggles to influence policy at scale. But many other actors – climate organisations, health bodies, agroecology networks – are pushing for food system reform. Working together can broaden pressure points and create more routes to change.

Risks:

1. Subsidy reform is necessary – but politically risky

Although shifting UK subsidies toward more sustainable, economically efficient and slaughter-free food production sounds simple in principle, subsidy regulations are highly complex. Any farming is a big driver of the rural economy and subsidies are seen as lifelines in rural areas. Proposals must offer credible, co-designed alternatives that also benefit farmers, the rural community, the environment and public finances if they are to avoid fierce backlash. Politically marginal rural communities exercise significant political power. Lasting change will require advocates to engage in building viable policy solutions that support farmers, local suppliers and surrounding communities through transition.

2. Public concern doesn’t always translate into political pressure

Most people say they care about other animals and oppose cruelty – yet those views rarely translate into pressure on politicians. To make concern matter politically, we can design campaigns that channel it – through strategic petitions, public consultations, citizens' assemblies or targeted pressure on institutions that are sensitive to reputational risk. We can transform latent concern into political pressure.

3. Farming animals is wrapped up in national identity

As well as being tied up with the economy, farming animals is embedded in British identity, sovereignty, and tradition – making it harder to question and more difficult to reform than other sectors. Challenging it invites cultural and political resistance, especially when framed as an attack on 'our way of life'. Advocates can be more effective by choosing messengers who reflect rural values, using language that doesn’t trigger cultural defensiveness and showing how change can protect rather than erase traditions.

---

Strategic takeaways

This analysis doesn’t just map problems – it highlights opportunities. Here are four takeaways for building stronger campaigns:

✅ Focus pressure where it’s felt

Retailers are more exposed to public pressure than farmers or politicians. They shape what (or who) gets farmed and how. Campaigns that spotlight their role – and offer visible alternatives – can shift industry practice faster than waiting for legislation.

✅ Build political power

People act when their interests are served, and resist when those interests are under threat (or perceived to be). To meet politicians' needs in rural constituencies, we need to consider their constituents' interests. Ministers need to look good and be seen to deliver in their careers. Support of political parties can be gained when we persuade people to shift their votes in alignment with their moral concern for animals, or for a transformed economy and society.

✅ Challenge the 'inevitability' narrative

It’s widely assumed that the UK must farm animals, but there are viable alternatives. Advocates can disrupt this narrative by pointing to food forests, rewilding and plant-based farming adapted to so-called ‘marginal’ land. See this short film by Stockfree Farming for a compelling example. Pointing to alternatives and local benefits can shift the narrative and resistance.

✅ Build broader alliances

Food system change won’t come from animal advocacy alone. Many others – climate groups, public health bodies, farming reformers – want the same structural shifts. Shared campaigns that centre farmed animals while advancing common goals can unlock far greater influence.

---

Why does this matter?

If we want to end the farming of animals, we need more than policies – we need to understand how the system protects itself, and where it's most vulnerable.

This analysis offers a clearer map: which institutions matter, what stories sustain exploitation, and how to shift incentives. It invites us to act with both urgency and precision…

---

Be a part of the conversation…

We’re sharing this work to support effective strategy across the movement. Whether you're in policy, advocacy, research, or the food system itself, we want your insight on where we go from here. If you'd like to read the full report or explore these findings further with us, please get in touch.