Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Arkansas Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Environment? | John T. Hollerman | 6 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 21 (1992) |
This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality. |
| ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY RANCHING? AN INTERVIEW ON THE HIGH DESERT | Lisa Johnson | 6 Animal L. 77 (2000) | 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. |
| From Factory Farming to A Sustainable Food System: A Legislative Approach | Michelle Johnson-Weider | 32 Geo. Envtl. L. Rev. 685 (2020) | This Article explores the true costs of widespread industrialized agricultural practices in the United States (“U.S.”), particularly the most egregious of those practices—concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFOs”). For nearly a hundred years, the United States has used federal policy and taxpayer dollars to support agricultural practices focused on high yields and cheap animal-based protein. As a result, the United States is reaping a harvest of toxicity: drinking water contaminated with cancer-causing nitrates and cyanobacteria, untreated animal sewage flooding across watersheds and adulterating crops, and dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay that cost state fishing and tourism industries hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. Society picks up the true cost of “cheap meat” while industrialized agriculture thrives in a seemingly endless stream of federal support. It is long past time for a change. This Article proposes legislation that would leverage the power of the federal government to promote sustainable agricultural practices to reduce and eventually reverse the devastating health, economic, and environmental impacts of industrialized agricultural production. |
| Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Challenge | Rakhyun E. Kim | 14 Animal Law 201 (2007) |
This article explores the dog meat debate in Korea from a socio-legal perspective. It first examines the legal status of dogs and dog meat, and the legal protection for dogs under the old and new legislative frameworks. It then discusses socio-legal challenges to banning dog meat in the Korean context, employing examples of both legal approaches taken by other countries and the politics of dog meat in Korea, specifically. The article argues that the controversy over dog meat must be reframed and dog meat be socially redefined in order to protect dogs, which are currently caught in the conflict over their socio-legal status as companion and livestock animals. |
| A “FISHEYE” LENS ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL DILEMMA: THE SPECTER OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS | George Kimbrell & Paige Tomaselli | 18 Animal L. 75 (2011) |
One year ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed approval of the first genetically engineered (GE or transgenic) animal for food production—a salmon engineered to grow much faster than normal using genetic material from an ocean pout. Faced with concerns from scientists and the public that these “super” salmon will escape into the wild and be the final blow to wild salmon, proponents crafted a scheme that is half Michael Crichton, half Kurt Vonnegut: The engineered salmon eggs will begin life in a lab on a frozen Canadian island, then be airlifted to a guarded Panamanian fortress, where they will grow in inland tanks. After the fish reach maturity, the company will ship them back to the U.S. and sell them in grocery stores, likely without any labeling. Unfortunately, this is not a bad science fiction novel. How did we get to this juncture, the brink of this approval? This Essay is a snapshot of GE animals through the lens of the first one proposed for commercial approval. |
| Religious Exemptions -- Applicability to Vegetarian Beliefs | Caroline L. Kraus | 30 Hofstra L. Rev. 197-224 (2001) |
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. |
| The Environmental Effects of Cruelty to Agricultural Animals | Kyle H. Landis-Marinello | 106 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 147 (2008) | In his article, Landis-Marinello argues laws criminalizing animal abuse should apply to the agricultural industry. He further argues that when the agricultural industry is exempted from these laws, factory farms increase production to unnaturally high levels. This increased production causes devastating environmental effects, such as climate change, water shortages, and the loss of topsoil. In light of these effects, Landis-Marinello argues, the law needs to do much more to regulate the agricultural industry, and the first step should be to criminalize cruelty to agricultural animals. This would force the industry to slow down production to more natural levels that are much less harmful to the environment. |
| LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE WELFARE OF FISH | Kelly Levenda | 20 Animal L. 119 (2013) | 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. |
| THE REGULATION OF KOSHER SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES: HOW TO SUPPLEMENT RELIGIOUS LAW SO AS TO ENSURE THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS | Melissa Lewis | 16 Animal L. 259 (2010) |
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. |
| The Ethical Case For European Legislation Against Fur Farming | Andrew Linzey | 13 Animal Law 147 (2006) |
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. |