Farming or Food Production

Summary: The purpose of this commentary is to respond to the question, “Should laws criminalizing animal abuse apply to animals raised for food?” The simple answer to the question is “yes,” but the reality is not simple. It requires analyzing both the science of raising livestock and the current legal framework, which we must understand before discussing what to require and how to implement those requirements. Continued improvements in the livestock and meatpacking industries and the rising expectations of consumers add to the complexity of the issue.

Summary: As legal things, nonhuman animals lack all legal rights and remain entirely the object of the rights held by us legal persons—that is, the beings with rights. Most legal protections for nonhuman animals remain indirect (mostly anti-cruelty statutes), enforceable only by public prosecutors. Even the Endangered Species Act requires a human plaintiff to have standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution. It has become clear that no meaningful percentage of nonhuman animals will ever be treated well or fairly until they attain some minimum degree of legal personhood—that is, until they achieve some minimum level of fundamental legal rights. In his article, Steven M. Wise argues for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals by relying upon bedrock principles of Western law: liberty and equality.

Summary: In his article, Landis-Marinello argues laws criminalizing animal abuse should apply to the agricultural industry. He further argues that when the agricultural industry is exempted from these laws, factory farms increase production to unnaturally high levels. This increased production causes devastating environmental effects, such as climate change, water shortages, and the loss of topsoil. In light of these effects, Landis-Marinello argues, the law needs to do much more to regulate the agricultural industry, and the first step should be to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals. This would force the industry to slow down production to more natural levels that are much less harmful to the environment.

Summary: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit by plaintiffs against U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack that challenged the United States Department of Agriculture’s New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) promulgated under the US Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). The court held that plaintiff’s failed to state an injury-in-fact that was traceable to the actions of the defendants for which relief could be granted. Under NPIS, far fewer federal inspectors would be stationed along slaughter lines, and the employees themselves could conduct a preliminary screening of the carcasses before presenting the poultry to a federal inspector for a visual-only inspection. Plaintiffs contended that the revised processing procedures were inconsistent with the PPIA and would ultimately result in the production of unsafe poultry products. They sought a preliminary and permanent injunction by the court to prevent the USDA and the USDA′s Food Safety and Inspection Service from implementing NPIS.

Summary: This study aims to give an overview of the legal framework that applies to animal welfare in the EU and a group of non-EU countries. It focuses specifcally on beef cattle, pigs, broilers (the chickens reared for meat) and egg-laying hens while they are on the farm, in transit and at slaughter. Animal welfare standards of four international organizations, as well as a number of private standards established by major food businesses and animal welfare organizations are also analyzed.

Summary: In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss.

Summary: This regulation implements the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001; it contains the codes of practice to be observed for securing animal welfare.

Summary: This Regulation implements the Agricultural Standards Act 1994 by providing specifications on the composition and labeling of fertilizers, the labeling and prohibited materials in seeds, labeling and other requirements for stock food,and on general labeling requirements in agriculture.

Summary: The main objective of the Act is to provide for the making of standards about agriculture by establishing an administrative framework for the making of standards by the chief executive and by providing appropriate powers to ensure the standards are complied with. This Act was reprinted as at 1 October 2002. The reprint shows the law as amended by all amendments that commenced on or before that day and incorporates all necessary consequential amendments, whether of punctuation, numbering or another kind.

Summary: This complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenges a USDA regulation that fails to prohibit all non-ambulatory ("downed") cattle - those too injured or sick to stand and walk - from being slaughtered for human consumption, even though Defendants have been telling the public for years that all such animals are in fact excluded from the human food supply. Specifically, plaintiff seeks a declaration that the USDA's final rule is arbitrary and capricious; seeks to remand the final rule for new rulemaking to close the downed cattle loophole; and seeks to preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants from allowing downed cattle to be slaughtered for human consumption.