Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 103
Title Authorsort descending Citation Summary
COALITIONS IN THE JUNGLE: ADVANCING ANIMAL WELFARE THROUGH CHALLENGES TO CONCENTRATION IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY Kamila Lis 19 Animal L. 63 (2012) The meat processing conglomerates that currently control the majority of the market share in the meatpacking industry are responsible for its most systemic animal abuses. Increased concentration has enabled these larger processors to dictate animal treatment standards maintained by meat producers, most of whom have caved to economic pressure and moved their animals from small farms into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Animal welfare proponents have failed to adequately challenge the concentration of the meat industry and in 2012 have yet to fully explore strategies made available by the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA). This Article proposes that a coalition between animal welfare activists and small meat producers, who have yet to be absorbed or driven out of business by the meatpacking giants, could effectively attack the concentration of the meat industry. First, animal welfare activists should work with small producers to expose to the public the negative human externalities associated with market concentration, such as intensive farming techniques that directly compromise consumer health. Second, the animal welfare movement should harness its legal experience to encourage small meat producers to pursue PSA-based civil suits aimed at challenging the power of the meatpacking conglomerates.
California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law Jonathan R. Lovvorn & Nancy V. Perry 15 Animal L. 149 (2008)

This essay explores the legislative and legal campaign to enact California Proposition 2: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, approved by California voters on November 4, 2008. The authors direct the legislation and litigation programs for The Humane Society of the United States, and, along with many other individuals and organizations, were centrally involved in the drafting, campaigning, and litigation efforts in support of the measure.

FREE SPEECH, ANIMAL LAW, AND FOOD ACTIVISM Howard F. Lyman 5 Animal L. i (1999) Howard Lyman discusses a case that provides an example of using the law to force activists to use their scarce resources in court to defend the right of free speech.
Natural Behavior Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson 16 Animal L. 1 (2009)

This introduction to Volume 16 is provided by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of such book as When Elephants Weep, and The Pig Who Sang. to the Moon.

Got Organic Milk? "Pasture"-Ize it!: An Analysis of the UDSA's Pasture Regulations for Organic Dairy Animals Fatema Merchant 14 Animal Law 237 (2007) This article discusses the “access to pasture” issue and analyzes the ambiguity that has lead to widely varied farming practices and finished products. The vague language undermines the goals of the National Organic Program and threatens the integrity of the organic seal. This article suggests ways to clarify the standards and offers alternative solutions to the problems facing consumers, organic food advocates, and farmers because of the vague regulations
Standing on New Ground: Underenforcement of Animal Protection Laws Causes Competitive Injury to Complying Entities Samantha Mortlock 32 Vt. L. Rev. 273 (2007)

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.

What About Wilbur? Proposing a Federal Statute to Provide Minimum Humane Living Conditions for Farm Animals Raised for Food Pro Amy Mosel 27 UDTNLR 133 (2001)

This article proposes federal legislation that would provide minimum standards for the daily living conditions of animals raised for food production.

FEEDLOTS—RURAL AMERICA’S SEWER Marilyn Lee Nardo 6 Animal L. 83 (2000) Over one billion tons of animal waste is produced each year in the United States by animal feedlot operations (AFOs). In 1995 alone, 63.5 million gallons of manure spilled from AFOs. Manure spills poison rivers, lakes, and ponds, seep into groundwater, causing fishkills, human disease, and death. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, reports that AFOs are a primary factor in the impairment of forty percent of the nation's waterways. Despite these conditions, there are no federal standards for the storage, application, or management of animal waste. This Comment evaluates the existing regulation of AFOs under the Clean Water Act and proposes that new regulations and stricter enforcement of the current NPDES program are necessary to protect public and environmental health from manure contamination.
FEEDLOTS-RURAL AMERICA'S SEWER Marilyn Lee Nardo 6 Animal L. 83 (2000) Over one billion tons of animal waste is produced each year in the United States by animal feedlot operations (AFOs). In 1995 alone, 63.5 million gallons of manure spilled from AFOs. Manure spills poison rivers, lakes, and ponds, seep into groundwater, causing fishkills, human disease, and death. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, reports that AFOs are a primary factor in the impairment of forty percent of the nation's waterways. Despite these conditions, there are no federal standards for the storage, application, or management of animal waste. This Comment evaluates the existing regulation of AFOs under the Clean Water Act and proposes that new regulations and stricter enforcement of the current NPDES program are necessary to protect public and environmental health from manure contamination.
LUKUMI AT TWENTY: A LEGACY OF UNCERTAINTY FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS James M. Oleske, Jr. 19 Animal L. 295 (2013) Twenty years after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, uncertainty reigns in the lower courts and among commentators over the issue of constitutionally compelled religious exemptions. Despite the Court’s general disavowal of such exemptions in Employment Division v. Smith, Lukumi appeared to breathe life into a potentially significant exception to Smith. Under that exception—which this Article calls the “selective-exemption rule”—the Free Exercise Clause may still require religious exemptions from a law when the government selectively makes available other exemptions from that law. This Article addresses the key unresolved questions about the scope of the selective-exemption rule and challenges the broad interpretation of the rule that leading religious-liberty advocates have been pressing in courts around the country. That broad interpretation, which played a prominent role in the recent animal-sacrifice case of Merced v. Kasson and has been further developed in the ongoing Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky litigation over emergency contraception, would go a long way to achieving a de facto reversal of Smith. But while there are credible arguments for reconsidering Smith and its “equal protection” interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, those arguments should not be advanced through the backdoor of the selective-exemption rule. That rule was adopted as part of the Smith paradigm, and it only makes sense to interpret it within that paradigm. Accordingly, this Article makes the case for a more appropriately tailored reading of the selective-exemption rule—a reading grounded in the rule’s origins as a tool to prevent intentional discrimination, and a reading that would enable the government to enforce animal welfare laws that have only an incidental effect of limiting religious animal sacrifice.

Pages