Results
Displaying 101 - 103 of 103
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals | David J. Wolfson | 2 ANIMALL 123 (1996) (html version) |
This article describes the minimal state and federal laws relating to animals raised for food production, and outlines a path for reform. |
| BEYOND THE LAW: AGRIBUSINESS AND THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTION | David J. Wolfson | 2 Animal L. 123 (1996) (pdf version) | 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 Wolfson argues that these amendments contradict the historical purpose of anticruelty statutes originally enacted to protect farm animals.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. |
| McLIBEL | David J. Wolfson | 5 Animal L. 21 (1999) (pdf version) | 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. |