A new Faunalytics report, “Globalizing The Factory Farm: International Organizations And The Spread Of Industrial Animal Agriculture,” challenges the movement to look beyond multinational corporations and focus on the funders of global agriculture. The Reality: Consumption of animal products in low- and middle-income countries is set to rise by 14% by 2035. The Driver: International development organizations (like the UN and development banks) often default to industrial animal agriculture to solve nutrition gaps. The Fix: Advocates must build trust with these agencies and provide data showing that plant-based food systems are cheaper, healthier, and more sustainable.
Read The Full ReportBackground
On a global scale, animal products are getting more popular. In under 10 years, the worldwide consumption of animal products is expected to increase by nearly 8% (OECD-FAO, 2025a, pp. 25-26; OECD-FAO, 2025b). Even though high-income countries are already huge consumers of animal products, their consumption levels are expected to remain fairly stable, increasing by only 1%. The vast majority of this growth in animal product consumption will be driven by a predicted 14% growth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Home to roughly 85% of the world’s population, LMICs’ increasing consumption of animal products could lead to skyrocketing animal suffering, as well as considerable negative effects on the environment and human health (Drewnowski and Hooker, 2025).
Importantly, however, the expansion of food systems rooted in animal suffering is not inevitable, especially if advocates are well informed about the drivers of industrial animal agriculture. Multinational animal agriculture corporations like Tyson Foods are certainly seeking to expand their customer base, but they are not the only key actors supporting the spread of their industry.
Development finance institutions, various United Nations (UN) agencies and programs, philanthropic foundations, and major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all directly and indirectly support the expansion of industrial animal agriculture. Together, they provide billions of dollars each year to projects focused on increasing meat, fish, egg, and dairy consumption in LMICs (Stop Financing Factory Farming, 2024; IFC, 2025). These organizations have a number of different goals, including ending poverty, achieving zero hunger, ensuring adequate nutrition, improving financial livelihoods, supporting economic development, and creating a sustainable food system, among others. Unfortunately, animal products are often the first tool these organizations reach for in order to meet these goals.
Animal advocates and food researchers alike argue that animal products are not the only means for achieving goals of food security, adequate nutrition, sustainability, economic development, and financial well-being. But in order to create a world where these international organizations are focused on promoting nutritious, affordable, and sustainable plant-based foods rather than strengthening the hold of industrial animal agriculture, animal advocates must understand how these organizations operate and how this can be changed. Moreover, it is imperative that any steps taken to reduce animal product consumption in LMICs are paired with solutions to provide nutritionally equal or better plant-based foods.
In this report, we examine the role of international organizations in the expansion of industrial animal agriculture across low- and middle-income countries, as well as the factors that influence their financial support to the animal agriculture industry. We also provide insights into the ways animal advocates can shape the decision-making of these organizations. These recommendations are informed both by the literature on this topic and, critically, by conversations with people who have worked in and alongside many of the international organizations and non-governmental organizations who exert the most influence in this space.
Key Findings
- International organizations’ chief concerns are nutrition and food security. The driving force behind most industrial animal agriculture projects in LMICs is concern about nutrition and food security, rather than animal welfare or environmental concerns. Large animal agriculture companies have successfully positioned their products as the solution to these core needs, enabling their global expansion. International organizations also often consider the potential of interventions like animal agriculture to drive economic development.
- Trust and relationships are essential for change. Numerous international organization insiders we spoke with emphasized that trust and personal relationships are critical to their work. For example, major investors repeatedly work with the same clients, and development organizations partially evaluate the potential success of projects based on trust built through relationships. For animal advocates aiming to make plant-based food more accessible in LMICs, building long-term, trust-based relationships with key decision-makers at international organizations is likely the most vital step.
- Support for factory farming is often hidden. While some organizations, like the International Finance Corporation (IFC), directly invest tens of millions of dollars in individual factory farming projects, many types of support offered by international organizations and development finance institutions are harder to spot. These “hidden supports” include:
- Favorable terms on loans;
- Investments in infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity) necessary for the distribution of animal products;
- Technical advice that favors industrial agriculture;
- Laws requiring the import of low-welfare animal products; and
- Ownership stakes in meat companies.
Conclusions
Nutrition And Food Security Are Paramount
For international organizations, the most important factors driving the expansion of factory farming in LMICs are often attempts to grapple with nutrition and food security issues. This is not to suggest that the animal agriculture industry doesn’t play a considerable role as well, and its financial influence should not be ignored. However, in both insider interviews and in the publications produced by these organizations, nutrition and food security were consistent topics of discussion. When the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals were discussed, SDG 2, “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture,” was consistently referenced.
Even among organizations that strongly consider other topics, such as environmental impact, nutrition and food security were the ultimate determiners of whether they would work on a project. In the eyes of some, the factory farming model can be a reliable way of meeting these primary goals. One interviewee spoke favorably about the role of the outgrower system in LMICs, a structure common in the U.S. chicken industry in which producers raise animals with nearly all inputs provided by a large industrial animal agriculture company that ultimately processes and sells the animals. This staple of factory farming allows for the standardization of animal genetics, feed, and the final animal product.
The nutritional profile of foods is becoming increasingly important to international organizations. One interviewee with years of experience working for multiple development finance institutions noted the growing focus on “nutrition-sensitive agriculture” and the shift toward a “quality over quantity” approach to food production — where the nutritional value of foods is weighed heavily rather than simply caloric content (Interviewee 5, October 2025). This emphasis can also be seen in the UN FAO’s report on livestock and the SDGs, critiques of the EAT-Lancet diet, and think tank reports. Ultimately, this may lead to increased investments in various parts of the value chain or steps in the production process of foods deemed to be highly nutritious, such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, pulses, poultry, and dairy products (Hernandez and Banwari, 2025).
Plant-Based Products Are Not Automatically Rejected
Interviewees and our review of the literature both highlighted a view of animal products as particularly nutritious and beneficial in diets. However, several interviewees also noted that animal products are not necessarily seen within development organizations as inherently preferable to plant-based products. When one interviewee from the UN’s World Food Programme was asked if their organization had a preference, the answer was “No, not at all. [...] We have no special opinion on [whether foods are] animal-sourced or not” (Interviewee 2, October 2025). Instead, the interviewee said their goal is “just fulfilling, with the cheapest prices, the nutrient requirements of a household” (Interviewee 2, October 2025).
In other words, depending on the organization, a food’s nutritional profile, affordability, sustainability, or role in economic development can all be much more important than whether the product came from a plant or from an animal. Animal advocates may have an uphill battle in terms of overcoming biases built on decades of development organizations defaulting to animal products, but this is not an impossible task.
The Small But Growing Importance Of The Environment
Many people we interviewed noted that the environmental impacts or sustainability of agricultural practices are considered in their work. However, several of these people also said that these concerns are not fully incorporated into organizations’ evaluation processes. While the environmental impact of food products and agricultural practices is not yet a top priority for these organizations, our interviewees suggested it is growing in importance. Animal advocates and climate justice advocates alike should continue alerting the public to the destructive practices of industrial animal agriculture, including the animal feed industry, to ensure that environmental considerations continue to gain more attention.
Support For Factory Farming May Not Be Obvious
While investments, loans, and other direct financial assistance given to companies in the animal agriculture industry are clear signs of support for the expansion of factory farming, these are not the only ways international organizations help the industry. As the IFC disclosure analysis in our full study report shows, animal feed projects often receive money from the bank. The IFC also provides support to financial institutions that may then pass this money along to animal agriculture companies in a form of indirect financing (World Animal Protection, 2022). Organizations like the UN FAO provide technical support and policy advice to development projects in LMICs, including large-scale animal agriculture projects (FAO, n.d.). By governing international trade, the WTO undergirds the globalized trade of animal feed and animal products.
The Brazilian development bank has held significant ownership stakes in multiple meat companies, while the Brazilian government has supported infrastructure projects and subsidized seeds for animal feed crops. The Chinese government has taken similar approaches for its “dragon head” companies. One interviewee who has worked for multiple development finance institutions also noted that these banks look at value chains and ask themselves “What’s necessary here? Could be upstream, like water or electricity infrastructure, could be downstream like distribution or retail” (Interviewee 5, October 2025). In other words, there are opportunities for development finance institutions, governments, and international organizations to invest in practically every stage of the meat, dairy, egg, and fish production process.
Trust Is A Must
Interviewees repeatedly emphasized the importance of trust and relationships in decisions to support various projects. This is an important point for animal advocates who want to see more support go to plant-based products rather than animal products. Organizations like the IFC often invest in the same clients multiple times and can often be willing to increase their funding as trust develops.
Trust can be established in many ways, but one of the most repeated examples was relationships. One interviewee who works for a major funder in this space noted that “The element of trust is very important. [...] I think most organizations would tend to fund organizations or individuals that they know something about [or] that they have past experience with” (Interviewee 3, October 2025). Personal relationships and knowledge of previous performance are “elements that are not very quantitative, but in practice matter a lot. You’re trusting the resources of which you’re a steward to an organization or a team” (Interviewee 3, October 2025). For advocates who are particularly interested in working in the development or food system spaces, personal relationships can also be developed through attendance. The African Food Systems Forum, the EAT Foundation’s Stockholm Food Forum, the World Food Forum, Food Day at Climate Week, and the International Nutrition Congress may all be of interest, depending on the advocate’s focus.
Funders should also support sending interested advocates to these events. According to one person we interviewed, who has worked in and for several of the organizations mentioned in this report and who has attended a wide variety of these conferences, the animal advocacy movement “prioritizes climate conferences over food conferences” (Interviewee 1, October 2025). While it may appear that many animal advocacy organizations “don’t have the budget for a more impactful presence at food system conferences, [...] the reality is that the advocacy budgets are usually spent attending events like COP and [UN Environment Programme events], interacting with people who already agree with [them], rather than going to the spaces where food system decisions are made” (Interviewee 1, October 2025).
For other development organizations, data demonstrating the nutritional viability, affordability, or economic impact of plant-based foods may be the key to establishing trust. For others, it’s a strong business plan by a company or industry seeking investors. As one interviewee explained:
“Almost all of our food goes through markets or goes through a food system. [...] You’ve got to work in some capacity to shift things and incentivize things in a different way. [...] You always have to make an economic case. You don’t see big changes and improvements in terms of outcomes of health and equity and [...] all sorts of things without having some sort of business case for it” (Interviewee 7, October 2025).
Need For Animal Advocates With Other Types Of Expertise
As this report shows, animal advocacy sits at the crossroads of many different disciplines. Within the animal advocacy movement, there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise on a variety of topics, and yet there is still a need for more expertise. The movement would benefit greatly from increased expertise in areas like nutrition and international trade.
As long as factory farms are raising animals for food, there will be a need to expand our collective knowledge about the agriculture side of animal agriculture. Nutrition is central to the proliferation of animal products around the world and it is rightly a focus of the people with the power to shape global food systems. In order for plant-based foods to become the default in LMICs, arguments around nutrition must be as strong as possible.
In modern times, agriculture is global, which means agricultural products — including animal products and animal feed — are traded globally. Soybeans grown in the U.S. or Brazil are fed to pigs in China, who could be sold as pork to consumers in Laos. The web of trade that underpins the animal agriculture industry is governed by international trade law. Understanding the intricacies of this complex topic can help advocates effect change on a global scale, and can also serve as a way of identifying potential pressure points for animal advocacy campaigns to target.
This report also brings to light the need for experts in several other areas, including agriculture, international development, agricultural economics, marketing, and more. This doesn’t require experts to leave these fields to join animal agriculture organizations. While the animal advocacy movement would certainly benefit from these voices, having sympathetic people inside organizations like the UN, the IFC, and the WTO is invaluable, allowing pressure for change to come from both within and without. Fairly or not, individuals working inside these organizations or in academia may be viewed as less biased or more trustworthy than representatives from animal advocacy groups, further increasing their potential impact.
Looking Forward
Future research should work to add to our knowledge of the internal decision-making processes and guiding beliefs of development organizations. This report covers a number of organizations and influences on their actions, but there are many questions left to be answered. Discussions with current and former employees of international organizations proved to be a rich source of information that often can’t be found in journal articles or NGO reports. More of these conversations should take place, including on-the-record and in more public forums.
Researchers should also familiarize themselves with tools used by development organizations and NGOs that work in this space. This includes “Cost of the Diet” analysis, “Fill the Nutrient Gap” analysis, and the forthcoming ENHANCE tool developed in part by the UN World Food Programme (Capgemini, 2022). Doing so may enable animal advocates to identify places where plant-based foods can be equal or superior to animal products on nutrition and affordability. Additionally, in order for private sector-focused institutions like the IFC to fund plant-based food companies, they need to see appealing plant-based food companies capable of absorbing capital. Advising these companies on how to construct a business plan, demonstrate impact, and connect with potential investors could have huge benefits for the expansion of plant-based foods in LMICs.
This report largely focuses on the supply of intensively produced animal products in LMICs, but the demand side is also important. Future research should continue to add to the literature on the demand for animal products and plant-based products in these countries. Increasing the demand for plant-based products or decreasing the demand for animal products can also influence the approaches of international organizations.
