Humane Slaughter: Related Articles
Author![]() |
Article Name | Summary |
---|---|---|
Alissa Branham | Detailed Discussion of Philosophy and Animals |
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. |
Shannon L. Doheny | Free Exercise Does Not Protect Animal Sacrifice: The Misconception of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and Constitutional Solutions for Stopping Animal Sacrifice |
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. |
Nicole Fox | The Inadequate Protection of ANnimals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law |
This article looks at available legal protections for all farmed animals, and recommends that Congress enact stricter animal welfare laws. |
Zak Franklin | GIVING SLAUGHTERHOUSES GLASS WALLS: A NEW DIRECTION IN FOOD LABELING AND ANIMAL WELFARE | 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. |
Bruce Friedrich | MEAT LABELING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates meat labeling under the statutory authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The FMIA’s labeling preemption clause prohibits labeling requirements beyond federal requirements, and would thus preclude state causes of action on the basis of deceptive labels that were properly approved under federal law. Through the eyes of Kat, a hypothetical consumer concerned with the origins of the meat she purchases for her family, this Article argues that consumers should be able to pursue state law claims based on fraudulent animal welfare labels on packages of meat. This is true for two reasons: first, the FMIA’s labeling preemption only covers the USDA’s statutory scope of authority, which does not include on-farm treatment of animals; and second, both FMIA and a state cause of action would require the same thing—a non-fraudulent label. However, even if a court did find that a state cause of action based on a fraudulent label was preempted, consumer plaintiffs would have other avenues through which to pursue their claims. |
Cynthia Hodges | Brief Summary of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) |
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. |
Cynthia F. Hodges | Detailed Discussion of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act |
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. |
Michelle Hodkin | When Ritual Slaughter Isnt Kosher: An Examination of Shechita and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act |
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. |
Jose A. Lammoglia | Legal Aspects of Animal Sacrifice Within the Context of Afro-Caribbean Religions |
This article explores the legal issues surrounding animal sacrifice in the Afro-Caribbean Belief Systems (religions such as Cuban Santeria, Palo, and Haitian Voodoo). The author examines cases in Florida, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania in making the argument that misconceptions concerning animal sacrifice and religious prejudice often fuels the controversies. |
Kelly Levenda | LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE WELFARE OF FISH | This Article examines the marginalization of fish under current animal welfare laws and regulations, explores the treatment of farm-raised fish during transport and slaughter, and proposes legislation and regulations in these two areas. While evidence indicates that fish are capable of experiencing pain, fear, and suffering—the traditional considerations informing concepts of animal welfare—current pre-slaughter transport and slaughter practices are completely uninformed by notions of fish welfare. Comparing the cognitive and sensory capacities of fish to other animals currently receiving animal welfare recognition through official regulation, this Article argues that protections afforded to animals during transport and slaughter should similarly apply to fish. Using the World Organization for Animal Health’s Aquatic Animal Health Code as a model, this Article proposes model legislation for fish transport: the Humane Transport of Fish Act. This legislation would supplement regulations already in place at the state and federal level, which currently pertain only to regulating the aquaculture industry and food safety. This Article also proposes amending the “Humane Methods” section of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to include the slaughter of fish, and proposes related regulations to ensure that fish are humanely slaughtered. The massive amount of fish farmed in the United States and globally each year speaks to the potential impact formal regulation could have on the improvement and protection of fish welfare. |
Melissa Lewis | THE REGULATION OF KOSHER SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES: HOW TO SUPPLEMENT RELIGIOUS LAW SO AS TO ENSURE THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS |
It is often argued that one of the most humane methods of killing an animal is through the performance of kosher slaughter. Indeed, the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMLSA) of 1978 goes so far as to define kosher slaughter, and handling in connection with such slaughter, as humane, and consequently fails to provide any regulation over this method of killing. It is thus concerning that a number of kosher slaughterhouses have, in recent years, been discovered to be using blatantly inhumane practices, which the relevant religious authorities have insisted are completely kosher. This Article examines the Jewish law concerning kosher slaughter and asks how it is possible for a slaughter that has been performed in an inhumane fashion to remain kosher. The answer, it concludes, is that the religious rules provide little guidance on the handling of animals in connection with slaughter. There thus exists a need for either the religious authorities or the law to supplement the existing religious rules with further requirements aimed at ensuring humane-slaughter practices. After analyzing both comparative law on this issue and the relevant First Amendment considerations, this Article argues that there is a need for Congress to remove the HMLSA’s current exemption of handling in connection with kosher slaughter and for regulations to be passed governing this issue. It makes suggestions as to how such regulations could provide for more humane-slaughter practices in a manner that fails to offend either the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. |
Jennifer L. Mariucci | The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Deficiencies and Proposed Amendments |
This note touches on the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the deficiencies in the current version that undermine the statute’s intended purpose of ensuring a humane slaughter for all animals. This note analyzes the statute, compares it to comparable statutes from around the world, and suggests alterations to ensure that the statue fulfills its goal. This note also includes proposed statutory language that implements suggested changes. |
Samantha Mortlock | Standing on New Ground: Underenforcement of Animal Protection Laws Causes Competitive Injury to Complying Entities |
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. |
Amy Mosel | What About Wilbur? Proposing a Federal Statute to Provide Minimum Humane Living Conditions for Farm Animals Raised for Food Pro |
This article proposes federal legislation that would provide minimum standards for the daily living conditions of animals raised for food production. |
Elizabeth A Overcash | Overview of CAFOs and Animal Welfare Measures |
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. |
Elizabeth A Overcash | Brief Summary of CAFOs and Animal Welfare Measures |
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. |
Leana E. Stormont | Overview of Hog Farming in Iowa |
This article describes the decline of family hog farming in Iowa and how farming has transitioned to an industrial model of swine production. |
Rebecca F. Wisch | Table of State Humane Slaughter Laws |
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. |
David J. Wolfson | BEYOND THE LAW: AGRIBUSINESS AND THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTION | 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. |
David J. Wolfson | Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals |
This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to animals raised for food production, and outlines a path for reform. |