At FarmSTAND, we use litigation as a tool to build power in the movement for a fair food system. Our Deep Dive series transforms key findings from our lawsuits into resources that empower advocates, journalists, policymakers, and the public with the facts they need to take on Big Ag.
Deep Dives
Lawsuits are a powerful tool for demanding otherwise hard-to-get information from targets like agribusinesses and the government. Through discovery, depositions, and other legal processes, FarmSTAND uncovers key facts about how our food system works— information that Big Ag hides to maintain its power over workers, consumers, and independent producers of food.
We don’t just use that information to win our cases: We share what we’ve learned to fuel more wins by our movement. Check out the first entries in this ongoing series below:
Trump’s Ten Search Terms to Cancel American Farmers
In 2025, USDA abandoned farmers by recklessly terminating millions of dollars in grants, all to fall in line with the Trump administration’s crusade against DEI, environmental justice, and climate action. Much of the progress we’ve made towards a fair food system has been undermined and undone by the USDA’s actions, and FarmSTAND is arguing in court that the broader policy that resulted in over 600 grant terminations is unlawful.
We suspected that the “process” for finding grants the administration found worthy of termination was hardly more than a simple search through grant documents for words it associated with diversity, equity, inclusion, or climate change. Now we can prove it.
Farmers and ranchers have beef with the checkoff
Farmers and ranchers have beef with the checkoff, the system responsible for slogans like “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner,” “The Incredible, Edible Egg,” and “Got Milk?” Food checkoff programs penalize independent producers of food by funneling money to the lobbying and trade organizations that boost the largest corporate producers, according to research featured in this edition of FarmSTAND’s Deep Dive series.
In the course of our litigation to reform the checkoff system on behalf of independent ranchers, we commissioned groundbreaking research that shows it’s possible to have a checkoff that’s fair for all farmers.
Hormel's "Natural Choice" Products
Consumers want to shop in ways that align with their values, but the lack of transparency in labeling and advertising poses a major barrier to doing so. In 2014, Hormel Foods Corporation celebrated the performance of one its fastest growing brands, “Natural Choice,” in its annual report. According to Hormel, Natural Choice-brand lunch meats and bacon were intended to resonate with the growing consumer segment of “wellness seekers” or customers “looking for better for you options.”
But the Natural Choice line was made of the exact same meat used in Hormel’s standard products, like Spam, misleading consumers into thinking their purchases benefited their health, the environment, and animal welfare more than buying other Hormel brands might.
This deep dive introduces revelations—many in the company’s own words—about the severity of Hormel’s factory-farm practices and the extent to which Hormel sought to deceive and take advantage of customers in marketing its line. The discovery process from FarmSTAND’s lawsuit over Hormel’s practices shined a spotlight on previously inaccessible materials that paint a damning picture of industrial meat products like Hormel’s and the branding used to sell them.
