After a contentious campaign that garnered significant support for the opposition, Measure J was rejected in the Nov. 2024 election by Sonoma County voters. 

Before the counts were complete, a resounding 85 percent voted no on J, with yes on J receiving only 15 percent of the vote. 

Measure J sought to end factory farming in Sonoma County, ultimately to scale down or phase out 21 identified farms in the local region, which met the definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, or CAFO. 

Kristina Garfinkel, an organizer with the Coalition to End Factory Farming and a Santa Rosa resident said of the outcome, “I’m feeling disappointed but not surprised because we knew that this was a really big feat and big endeavor going up against Big Agriculture, which as this campaign has shown, has a huge hold on Sonoma County’s local government.”

“They outspent us by a huge amount. I am mostly just feeling very saddened for the millions and millions of animals who have to endure prolonged suffering in the CAFO’s throughout Sonoma County,” Garfinkel continued. 

In contrast, Dayna Ghiradelli, the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau explained why she disagreed with the measure. 

“Measure J was a misguided ballot initiative that sought to serve as a stepping stone toward the overall goal of eradicating animal protein, which equates to taking away the right to choose what is on our plate and in our glass,” said Ghiradelli. 

It is unclear where this idea came from, because there is no mention of eradicating animal protein in the Measure J text or anywhere on the website for Direct Action Everywhere, an international grassroots network of animal rights activists involved in the initiative.

A more pressing worry about the measure might be the trickle down effect that could have impacted the local economy, that Ghiradelli said would have affected not only farms, but feed mills, veterinarians, nutritionists and more. 

“There is a necessary economy of scale that Measure J, if passed, would have destroyed,” Ghiradelli said. “For instance, the local feed mills rely on bulk demand to bring feed in by rail, as well as, to keep the prices down. The larger farms, though small by industry comparison, drive that demand, and the smaller farms that are already struggling with financial viability reap the benefit of the more affordable feed.”

“Without economies of scale, the input costs of the smaller farms would increase, strangling their already tight margins. This measure was beyond the ‘only x [number] of farms’ the supporters assumed would be affected. It’s an entire ecosystem and foodshed that was threatened,” Ghiradelli continued. 

The result of this election doesn’t necessarily echo the broader sentiment of Americans’ perspectives on animal welfare.

Surveys have shown that overwhelmingly, humans do care about non-human animals being treated humanely, including those animals raised for food.

According to surveys done by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the ASPCA, 89 percent of respondents “strongly to somewhat favor CAFO farmers transitioning to more humane systems of agriculture, such as raising livestock on pasture or growing vegetables,” and 82 percent favor “the government funding these transitions.”

The same survey found that “79% of respondents are somewhat or very concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture on animal welfare.”

Luis Galvez Diaz, a fourth-year computer science major at SSU said, “In terms of animal rights, I definitely feel like animals should have rights. I see them kind of like us humans in a way. Some animals are just put to work from the day they’re born. For us, that’s kind of slavery, and we’re doing that to animals, using them for our own benefits. To some extent, it’s okay, more like in a local sense for the community, but we’re just breeding these [animals] and making a system and just see them as objects from that point on. That’s pretty sad.” 

And, the food system inevitably needs to meet the demands of growing populations in an industrialized society, where 89 percent of Americans eat meat, according to an Ipsos poll. 

The overarching goal of this controversial ballot initiative was to put an end to animal suffering, promote more ethical and sustainable farming practices, decrease water and air pollution resulting from industrialized farming, and protect public health. Not to end local animal agriculture altogether. If it had passed, it would have been the first of its kind in the country. 

However, Ghiradelli said there are already multiple third-party animal welfare programs in place that ensure animals are properly cared for within local farms.

“Maintaining sustainability and ethical practices is a must if a farm intends to be healthy, productive, and viable. It does not benefit any farmer, rancher, or dairy producer to willfully pollute natural resources or mistreat their animals,” Ghiradelli said. 

Ghiradelli explained that the California Department of Food and Agriculture “oversees the welfare and care of the poultry ranches, disqualifying their products if standards are not met.”

Garfinkel said, “It’s an industry that’s very powerful, it’s one of the most powerful industries globally and definitely in our nation. They have deep ties in various ways through our local government. They’ve endorsed government officials.”

“We even saw evidence of No on J funding Sonoma County Conservation Action, which is a local conservation group who endorsed No on J. So you start to think, money talks, and when you follow the money of both campaigns, you can really see just how much they outspent us and were able to get more mailers, bigger signs. They were able to confuse voters,” Garfinkel continued.

The ‘No on Measure J’ campaign collected more than $2 million dollars in contributions. The donations were largely from Big Agriculture interests like Western United Dairies, Weber Family Farms, Inc., and Clover Sonoma. 

Galvez Diaz said he didn’t know much about Measure J before going in to vote. 

“But I would say what really influenced me was the people around me, and advertisements everywhere. I feel like that affected a lot of people too. I voted no on J just because I saw it everywhere, and kinda just hoped for the best, even though I have no idea if that was right or wrong unfortunately,” Galvez Diaz said.

Sonoma County farmers, local government officials, and animal rights activists ultimately do not agree on what is right or wrong either.

On both sides of the measure, there was accusation of the other side lying about the facts put forth.

Garfinkel said of No on J, “ultimately their entire campaign didn’t include any of the actual facts. I would rather lose based on the truth, than do what they did and resort to scare-tactics and fear-mongering.”

On the other side, Ghiradelli said, “They continue to misinform, lie, and use emotional constructs to lure people into believing them.”

“Measure J did nothing for animal welfare or environmental protection. It simply implied that if a farm was of a certain size, it could not exist. It did not take into account anything beyond that, it lacked any merit. Further, the Measure J organizers’ messaging implied that animal abuse inherently happens on farms of a certain size or more. That is wholeheartedly false and is the opinion of people who fundamentally do not agree with animal agriculture,” Ghiradelli continued. 

Animal rights activists would disagree. 

Direct Action Everywhere has documented some of the conditions of local farms, including Petaluma Poultry which is owned by Perdue Farms.

Activists seem to be facing more stringent consequences for reporting evidence of animal welfare violations to local law enforcement, protesting, and rescuing sick and dying animals from local farms. Zoe Rosenberg is among these activists who is facing at least a five year prison sentence for rescuing maltreated chickens, according to a press release by Direct Action Everywhere and the Animal Activist Legal Defense. 

“I’ve been an environmentalist and animal rights advocate for a long time and I am a local myself. I live in Sonoma County in Santa Rosa. I think living here, you bear witness to the animal suffering in Sonoma County on a daily basis. It’s not something that you only see on social media, it’s on my way to running errands,” Garfinkel said.

“We haven’t really seen the government respond to these really important issues around animal cruelty, around environmental destruction, around public health concerns. We see avian flu breaking out all throughout California and dairy facilities. I personally would not feel optimistic that the government is going to do this battle for us, and I think it’s up to people to continue to help drive the movement forward,” Garfinkel continued.

Ghiradelli said, “There is room for improvement in every aspect of life. Just like health care, food service, and the education system, as examples, animal production is no different. There is constant science, research, and innovations that lend themselves to a more careful, thoughtful, productive, responsible, and sustainable animal food system.”

“Farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers have, for centuries, answered the call when demands have been placed before them. They are continuously being tasked with more regulations and oversight, while our population continues to grow and be fed. They are never given the proper credit they are due. However, the voters of Sonoma County did. They spoke loud and clear in the landslide defeat of Measure J. We are grateful to the voters of Sonoma County,” Ghiradelli continued.

Garfinkel noted the many other important social justice movements that have taken long periods of time before any real change or progress was made, like the long struggle for women and Black Americans to gain the right to vote, as well as LGBTQIA+ rights.

“We didn’t win this measure, but we learned so much from this campaign. We still had a lot of victories, having reached hundreds of thousands of voters and amplifying the voices of animals in these facilities who cannot advocate for themselves. Making people aware of the water contamination in our county, and many people had no idea that factory farms existed here,” she said. 

“So while Measure J has ended as a campaign, the motives behind the measure, and the actual fight is not ending here,” Garfinkel continued.