Humane Slaughter

Summary:

Trade association representing packers and processors of swine livestock and pork products sued the State of California for declaratory and injunctive relief barring a ban on slaughter and inhumane handling of nonambulatory animals on federally regulated swine slaughterhouses. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the California Penal Code provision prohibiting the sale of meat or meat product of “nonambulatory” animals for human consumption and requiring immediate euthanization of nonambulatory animals.

Summary:

Animal advocates filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the USDA's interpretive rule excluding chickens, turkeys, and other domestic fowl from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA).  The United States District Court for the Ninth District of California had entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the USDA and the Plaintiffs appealed.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs-Appellants lacked standing to challenge the USDA's interpretive rule and vacated and remanded the case to the district court. 

Summary:

Humane society and four state taxpayers brought action attacking government waste, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief that would bar implementation of tax exemptions for farm equipment and machinery as they applied to “battery cage” chicken coops that allegedly violated animal cruelty laws. State Board of Equalization demurred. Superior Court sustained without leave to amend the complaint and dismissed the case, which the Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that the plaintiffs did not allege a valid cause of action attacking government waste.

Summary:

This article gives a quick summary of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). The Act requires that humane methods of slaughtering and handling livestock in connection with slaughter be used. Livestock animals, such as cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and goats, must be rendered insensible to pain before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.

Summary:

American agriculture has replaced traditional family farms with the large, industrial-like CAFOs, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, that dominate the industry today. The modern agricultural industry, however, has raised many animal welfare concerns. These concerns, in turn, have given rise to ballot initiatives and state legislation regarding these issues.

Summary:

This table presents an overview of state humane slaughter acts. It includes an examination of the legal methods of slaughter, religious/ritual exemptions, the animals covered, and the penalties for violation.

Summary:

This article describes the decline of family hog farming in Iowa and how farming has transitioned to an industrial model of swine production.

Summary:

This overview of CAFOs and animal welfare measures introduces CAFOs and the agricultural industry. Briefly, the overview notes the animal welfare, environmental, and human health concerns that have arisen with CAFOs. Finally, the overview notes the legislation and ballot initiatives that have been enacted to address these concerns.

Summary:

This discussion examines the historical philosophical figures who contributed to the animal rights and welfare movement. Included are the philosophies of Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill.

Summary:

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) is federal legislation that requires that only humane methods of slaughtering and handling livestock in connection with slaughtering be used. Before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut, livestock animals must be rendered insensible to pain by being gassed, electrocuted, or shot in the head with a firearm or captive bolt stunner. HMSA does not apply to birds or animals killed in ritual slaughter, and lacks a general enforcement provision.