Farming or Food Production

Summary: Over one billion tons of animal waste is produced each year in the United States by animal feedlot operations (AFOs). In 1995 alone, 63.5 million gallons of manure spilled from AFOs. Manure spills poison rivers, lakes, and ponds, seep into groundwater, causing fishkills, human disease, and death. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, reports that AFOs are a primary factor in the impairment of forty percent of the nation's waterways. Despite these conditions, there are no federal standards for the storage, application, or management of animal waste. This Comment evaluates the existing regulation of AFOs under the Clean Water Act and proposes that new regulations and stricter enforcement of the current NPDES program are necessary to protect public and environmental health from manure contamination.

Summary: The following is an interview with Doc Hatfield about his views on raising cattle and his association with Oregon Country Beef, a cooperative organization that his wife, Connie, helped start in 1986. Doc was on his cell phone while we talked, as he and Connie were on their way to Portland from their High Desert Ranch in Brothers, Oregon to give a talk to an agricultural group. Connie was driving while Doc and I spoke. They have a rule against driving and talking on the phone at the same time. I agreed that was probably a good policy.

Summary: In this comment, the author explores the development of open range laws in Oregon and other western states and argues such laws should be abolished or drastically amended. Common law requires ranchers to fence livestock in or face liability for damages caused by strays. However, historical customs and practices of Western states were shaped by vast open lands and sparce populations, leading to open range customs which required a landowner to fence "out" livestock to protect their property. This comment focuses on the case of Dr. Patrick Shipsey, an Oregon landowner convicted of shooting cattle that wandered onto his land. Through this discussion, the viability of open range statutes is discussed and the ongoing debate exposed. Policy alternatives are proposed that reflect modern demographic changes and a re-balancing of the economic and environmental burdens of ranching practices.

Summary: In 1991, McDonald's sued two pro se defendants in England for defamation in relation to, among other things, allegations that McDonald's was culpably responsible for cruel common farming practices. The case took seven years and the appeals still continue, Though McDonald's spent over $16 million on legal representation and had significant legal advantages, it lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the background and holding of "McLibel" in relation to cruel common farming practices, its unique legal context, and the impact of the holding on animal law in general and state anti-cruelty laws in the United States. In addition, he explores the contradiction that McLibel exposes: the fact that a common farming practice can be found to be cruel in the view of a reasonable person while legal pursuant to an anti-cruelty statute.

Summary: The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service manage millions of acres of public land across the United States. Most of this land serves more than one purpose-grazing, mining, recreation, timber, wildlife-and thus must remain available for these uses. Historically, the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) preserved access for ranchers and homesteaders. More recently, the UIA has also protected access for wildlife whose movements are impeded by fences or other illegal obstructions. This article argues that such protection should be extended to the Sonoran pronghorn antelope in the southwestern United States.

Summary: Howard Lyman discusses a case that provides an example of using the law to force activists to use their scarce resources in court to defend the right of free speech.

Summary: Animals raised for food or food production in the United States are, in large part, excluded from legal protection against cruelty. This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to such animals and documents numerous recent amendments to state anticruelty statutes that have placed the definition of cruelty to farm animals in the hands of the farming community. Mr. Wolfson argues that these amendments contradict the historical purpose of anticruelty statutes originally enacted to protect farm animals. The article also contrasts this regressive legal development with progressive European legislation. Finally, Mr. Wolfson outlines a path for reform.

Summary: Rabbits are most commonly perceived as soft, fuzzy, tender, loving, active household pets. However, rabbit meat is growing in popularity among urban farmers, foodies, and chefs alike. The pet rabbit industry is subject to a variety of laws and regulations intended to ensure the humane and proper treatment of these beloved pets. Yet, 'meat rabbits,' which are often the same breed or species as pet rabbits, are often not covered by either the protections that govern the treatment of animals used for meat or the protections that govern the treatment of rabbits as pets or companion animals. The lack of laws and regulations applicable to the meat rabbit industry has led to widely documented inhumane treatment and animal abuse. Such beloved companions deserve the benefits of increased government oversight of rabbit meat production. This Article proposes that, on the federal level, the United States Department of Agriculture inspection of commercial rabbit producers and processors should be mandatory rather than voluntary. States must also play a central role because, given the nature of the rabbit meat industry, it is especially important that any new standards reach small farms and urban farmers, in addition to commercial producers. This Article proposes that state standards use puppy mill laws as guidance, given rabbits' societal status as companion animals. New laws governing the raising of meat rabbits should establish standards for light and ventilation, requirements for environmental enrichment, limits on breeding, and floor space minimums for cages. Such changes will ensure that the rabbit's more typical role as a companion animal is acknowledged, while providing the necessary protection from abuse and mistreatment when rabbits are raised for meat consumption.

Summary: Modern industrial animal agriculture and consumer purchasing patterns do not match consumers' moral preferences regarding animal welfare. Current production methods inflict a great deal of harm on animals despite widespread consumer preference for meat, dairy, and eggs that come from humanely treated animals. Judging by the premium pricing and market shares of food products with moral or special labels (e.g., 'cage-free," 'free range,' and 'organic'), many consumers are willing to pay more for less harmful products, but they are unable to determine which products match this preference. The labels placed on animal products, and the insufficient government oversight of these labels, are significant factors in consumer ignorance because producers are allowed to use misleading labels and thwart consumers from aligning their preferences with their purchases. Producers are allowed to label their goods as friendly to animals or the environment without taking action to conform to those claims. Meanwhile, producers who do invest resources into more humane or environmentally-conscious production methods are competing with companies that do not make similar expenditures. Those companies can sell their products at a lower price without sacrificing profits, which prices-out producers who do invest resources. This Article proposes a new labeling regime in which animal products feature labels that adequately inform consumers of agricultural practices so that consumers can match their purchases with their moral preferences. In this proposed scheme, animal products would contain a label that concisely and objectively informs consumers what practices went into the making of that item. Such a scheme would enable consumers who wish to pay more for humane or environmentally-friendly products to do so, while rewarding those companies who actually do engage in better production methods. While the legal literature discussing food labeling and animal welfare is growing, most of the literature proposes legal definitions of terms like 'humane,' expansion of consumer protection law, or labeling systems in which third-parties provide grading or ranking systems for producers of animal products. This Article rejects those proposals as inadequate to sufficiently inform consumers and instead suggests providing consumers with a list of select practices producers engage in.

Summary: Within South Korea, the dog meat trade occupies a liminal legal space— neither explicitly condoned, nor technically prohibited. As a result of existing in this legal gray area, all facets of the dog meat trade within South Korea—from dog farms, to transport, to slaughter, to consumption—are poorly regulated and often obfuscated from review. In the South Korean context, the dog meat trade itself not only terminally impacts millions of canine lives each year, but resonates in a larger national context: raising environmental concerns, and standing as a proxy for cultural and political change. Part II of this Article describes the nature of the dog meat trade as it operates within South Korea; Part III examines how South Korean law relates to the dog meat trade; Part IV explores potentially fruitful challenges to the dog meat trade under South Korean law; similarly, Part V discusses growing social pressure being deployed against the dog meat trade.