Farming or Food Production: Related Articles

Kosher slaughter, or shechita as it is called in biblical Hebrew, is so humane that when performed as intended by Jewish law, the animals don’t even feel the cut before dying. Even in modern times and by modern standards, experts have agreed that the shechita method as outlined in Jewish law is humane, and unconsciousness normally follows within seconds of the throat cutting. So how does one reconcile these truths with the video released by PETA of the practices occurring at the AgriProcessors plant in Postville, Iowa? What follows are my own conclusions to that troubling question, and my recommendations to improve the lives and deaths of cows at kosher slaughterhouses.

For many consumers, farm animal welfare matters. To ensure the well-being of farm animals, consumers often pay premium prices for animal products with humane labels. Because “organic” is an example of a label presumed to convey information about animal husbandry practices, animal products with this label may offer an alternative to products from animals that were raised “conventionally” on large, industrialized farms with minimal welfare protections. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and enacting regulations require that organic animals be able to engage in natural behaviors. However, many of the requirements are general and thus result in significant variations in livestock living conditions, confounding consumer expectations of uniform organic production and high standards for organic farm animal welfare. This Comment discusses the background of organic regulations, including issues with their application in the areas of organic dairy and egg production. Next, this Comment analyzes aspects of organic regulations as applied to organic laying hens and organic pigs. Finally, this Comment suggests ways to make organic regulations more quantifiable and thus more enforceable so organic animals are able to engage in natural behaviors.

A law and economics approach in the current animals-as-property realm could be the most efficient way to gain protections for the billions of farmed animals that need them now. The wealth maximization theory allows for this because it recognizes human valuation of nonhuman interests. However, evidence shows that a market failure exists because of the discord between public will and animal industry practices. Where human valuation of nonhuman interests is underrepresented in the market and, therefore, a market fix is needed through legislation, animal advocates should evaluate the legislation’s economic impacts. In the case of a ban on gestation crates, as may be the case elsewhere, legislation may actually prove to be economically efficient, and thus gain the support of those who would not otherwise back such legislation.

Abstract: The labeling of shell eggs fails to reveal the inhumane conditions under which most laying hens are raised in the United States. Most of the eggs sold in major supermarkets come from factory farms. This article examines how the failure to regulate misleading animal welfare claims on egg labels creates a risk that consumers are buying products that they otherwise would not buy. This article explains why, from a moral and a legal standpoint, consumers should avoid purchasing most eggs.

In recent years, several member states in the European Union enacted legislation to regulate or prohibit fur farming. This article calls for further action to ban the practice throughout the European Union. The Author notes animals’ inabilities to protect their own interests and the role of law to protect these vulnerable interests. The Author concludes by responding to the objections of fur farming proponents, ultimately finding no legitimate justification for the documented suffering of animals raised on fur farms.

A comprehensive consideration of the role of animals in the cultural development of China,

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.

This Article explores competitive injury as a basis for challenging the USDA's failure to enforce the HMSA and AWA. Part I.A provides background on claims that the Acts are both underenforced. Part I.B then introduces the problem of standing in the context of animal welfare lawsuits. Part II.A analyzes Article III standing requirements as applied to a competitively injured plaintiff. Part II.B then analyzes what the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires for an injured competitor to bring suit against the USDA for failure to enforce the HMSA and AWA. This Article concludes by suggesting that the HMSA provides the best vehicle for a competitive injury suit against the USDA because Congress has made abundantly clear its desire to see the HMSA fully enforced.

This comment explores the reasons behind the contamination and the ensuing recall. The author identifies inadequate domestic regulation as the primary reason behind the contamination and notes these inadequacies permitted pet food distributors and manufacturers to skirt responsibility during the recall. The comment highlights changes instituted in light of the recall and suggests further changes to the FDA and its regulations so that this heartbreaking situation can be avoided in the future.

This Note analyzes the likelihood that vegetarian beliefs will satisfy the requirements necessary to secure a religious exemption under the backdrop of New York's mandatory vaccination law, Public Health Law section 2164, and the accompanying case law. The author then presents a hypothetical challenge to 2164 by vegetarian parents, outlining arguments that might be brought by both sides. In the end, the author determines that the most practical approach for the courts to follow would be to adopt a broad definition of religion encompassing vegetarian beliefs, while stressing the sincerity of belief inquiry to weed out individuals not truly deserving of exemption.

This overview focuses on horsemeat for human consumption, with a special look at its status in the U.S. It details the expiration of the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that existed from 2007 to 2011. Recently, federal appropriations omitted the horsemeat inspection defunding provision, allowing the resumption of horse slaughter in the U.S.

This overview discusses laws concerning fur farming and the trapping of fur animals. It details the historical use of fur as well as an examination of the current international fur trade.

Overview of cattle laws. Overview touches upon beef cattle, dairy cattle, veal cattle, labeling standards for cattle, cattle used in rodeos, and other commercial uses of cattle.

College-level overview of the practice of bear farming in Asian nations, as well as the international trade in bear bile. Discussion of the laws regulating hunting and trade.

This article discusses the thousands of foals born each year that are bred for industrial purposes. These foals must then be disposed of as unwanted byproducts of the equine industry. PMU mares are bred to collect urine rich with hormones used in the production of a drug to treat menopausal symptoms. Nurse mares are bred to produce milk to feed foals other than their own. If adoptive homes cannot be found quickly, both industries dispose of their equine byproducts by slaughtering the foals, and sometimes the mares, for profit or convenience. This paper calls for an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act enabling the Department of Agriculture to regulate the PMU and nurse mare farms, and requiring both industries to responsibly dispose of these horses.

This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a First Amendment religious free exercise challenge brought by a Florida Santerían church in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. However, Lukumi may be the most misunderstood legal precedent in recent history. The decision is often cited for the proposition that religious practitioners have a constitutional right to engage in animal sacrifice. This is far from the truth. Lukumi was decided in a unique context, and its holding was not based on the merits of animal sacrifice. This article will demonstrate that Lukumi does not force government to acquiesce to animal sacrifice, or the “litter” it creates.