Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIVING SLAUGHTERHOUSES GLASS WALLS: A NEW DIRECTION IN FOOD LABELING AND ANIMAL WELFARE | Zak Franklin | 21 Animal L. 285 (2015) | 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. | Article |
| Finding Our Voice: Challenges and Opportunities For The Animal Law Community | Pamela D. Frasch | 14 Animal Law 1 (2007) |
In this introduction to Volume 14 of Animal Law, the author reflects on the progress of the animal law movement. |
Article |
| State Animal Anti-Cruelty Statutes: An Overview | Pamela D. Frasch | 5 Animal L. 69 (1999) |
This article provides an introduction to the current status of state animal anti-cruelty laws throughout the United States. Extensive exploration of the similarities and differences between these statutes, combined with detailed statutory citations, enables this article to serve as a useful resource for research and statistical purposes. Additionally, the article offers an opportunity to review many of the provisions contained within these anti- cruelty statutes and to identify those in need of improvement. |
Article |
| STATE ANIMAL ANTI-CRUELTY STATUTES: AN OVERVIEW | Pamela D. Frasch, Stephan K. Otto, Kristen M. Olsen, and Paul A. Ernest | 5 Animal L. 69 (1999) | This article provides an introduction to the current status of state animal anti-cruelty laws throughout the United States. Extensive exploration of the similarities and differences between these statutes, combined with detailed statutory citations, enables this article to serve as a useful resource for research and statistical purposes. Additionally, the article offers an opportunity to review many of the provisions contained within these anti-cruelty statutes and to identify those in need of improvement. | Article |
| Overview of Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Animal swap meets are places where people buy, sell or trade animals in an open-air, flea-market-style setting. The most commonly sold animals are chickens and other birds, rabbits, pigs, reptiles, and dogs. |
Article |
| Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland |
Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws
|
Topical Introduction | |
| Detailed Discussion of Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This article provides a detailed definition of swap meets and explores both existing laws that could be used to regulate swap meets and swap-meet specific legislation. It analyzes swap meet regulations at the local and state level. It concludes with some thoughts about how to make swap meet laws more effective, and how political barriers stand in the way of doing so. | Article |
| Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
Animal swap meets are places where people buy, sell or trade animals in an open-air, flea-market-style setting. Swap meet vendors sell and trade a wide range of animals, from birds, to farm animals, to cats and dogs. |
Article |
| Oats, Water, Hay, And Everything Else: The Regulation of Anabolic Steroids In Thoroughbred Horse Racing | Bradley S. Friedman | 16 Animal L. 123 (2009) |
This Article provides an overview of those anabolic steroid regulations in the context of the history of regulation in Thoroughbred horse racing. This Article concludes that while the current limitation on the effectiveness of anabolic steroid regulation is a lack of research and accurate laboratory testing, using a pervasive federal law might be the most effective way of ending the use of anabolic steroids in horse racing. |
Article |
| MEAT LABELING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS | Bruce Friedrich | 20 Animal L. 79 (2013) | 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. | Article |
