Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

May 1997
Farm Animals and the Law

By David Wolfson
 


Attorney David Wolfson recently surveyed United States law -- both federal and state -- to determine what protection animals raised for food and food production have. He also compared the trends in federal and state law in the U.S. with legislative trends in Europe.

Animals raised for food or food production are by far the vast majority of animals killed in the United States -- 96 percent -- and have virtually no legal protection from cruel treatment. Thus we can say that 96 percent of animals raised and killed in the U.S. every year have virtually no legal protection.

Federal Law
No federal legal protection exists for farm animals when they are raised on the farm, even though conditions in which they are raised means overcrowding, unnatural surroundings, and no social contact with fellow species and their young. There is a very weak law in relation to transporting farm animals across state lines. And there was a law that might have had some relevance to the treatment of farm animals in stockyards -- the Federal Packers and Stockyards Act. However, a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has limited that act in relation to cruelty to farm animals. It's fair to say, at this time, that this Act is of little value to animals. The major federal act that people talk about in regard to animals -- the Animal Welfare Act -- also excludes animals raised for food production, while the Humane Slaughter Act exempts all domestic fowl, which includes chickens, turkeys, ostriches, emus, ducks and geese. That means that all seven billion fowl -- the overwhelming majority of animals killed for food -- slaughtered in the U.S. annually can be put to death in any manner convenient to the processor.

State Law
Most protection for animals is found on a state level, in state anti-cruelty laws. State anti-cruelty laws are criminal laws, ranging from misdemeanors with minimum monetary penalties to felonies with jail sentencing, and are enforced by the District Attorney or the state humane enforcement agencies. These laws are problematic, whether it is a dog that's been beaten to death on the street, a horse that is neglected, or an animal that is abused in farming. The agencies mandated to enforce the laws are already stretched beyond their limit to respond effectively to animal cruelty complaints, and lack funding to see animal cruelty cases brought to court. When they do focus on animal cruelty issues, these agencies focus on dogs and cats rather than farm animals. Very little state case law is available for many prosecutors throughout the country and the courts are not very interested in animal cruelty. As a result, state anti-cruelty laws are not effectively enforced.

Amending Laws
In the last 10 years or so, there has been a growing trend of states amending their anti-cruelty laws to exempt "customary," or "normal," or "accepted" farm practices. This means that once a farming practice is defined as customary or accepted it cannot be found by a court to be cruel and cannot be prosecuted.


"Customary," "accepted," or "normal" farming practices are whatever the farming community decides they are. So, if 25 people are doing it, and that's considered to be common; the judge cannot even look at the practice to determine if it is cruel. In a recent case in Pennsylvania, a man was prosecuted for starving horses to death for dog food. He argued that he was pursuing a normal farming practice and was thus exempt from the anti-cruelty statute. While the judge did not agree, the judge did suggest that if the man had proven that enough people were starving horses for dog food, and that it was therefore common and normal, he would have been immune from prosecution.

Twenty-eight states now exempt farm animal practices in some form. 17 states in 10 years, 10 states in the last six years, and four in 1994 alone amended their statutes to exclude "normal" farming practices from existing animal cruelty statutes. One can conclude that the farming industry has decided to act. Why? In the past, judges or district attorneys would never have thought of prosecuting farmers under state anti-cruelty laws. But times are changing, people are becoming educated, and there is a possibility that these laws may be used against the battery cage, or the veal crate, or more general farm animal abuse.

In Tennessee earlier this year, a bill was passed to deny humane agencies the power to enforce anti-cruelty statutes in relation to farming. In short, the agencies are not allowed on to farms anymore. Furthermore, while the police can go onto farms, they can inspect abuse only if they go with an agricultural officer, as defined by the Tennessee law. Four or five other states are considering bills similar to the one in Tennessee.

Meanwhile in Europe...
While the legal protection for animals in the U.S. is getting worse, in Europe it is getting better. The United Kingdom has banned the veal crate, in 1999 the gestation crate for pigs will be prohibited, and the battery cage has been prohibited in Switzerland and Sweden. The European Commission has also indicated that it will ban the veal crate. New European transportation laws limit the length of time animals can be transported in certain situations. Obviously we don't know how well-enforced these laws are, but at least laws exist and indicate that European governments now agree that, at the very least, there are some farming practices which, no matter how common, should be prohibited and abolished.

Strategies
Of all the abuses surrounding animals, those concerning farm animals are by far the hardest to address, recognize and change. They are the most prevalent, day in and day out, and most are accepted by society. The one thing lawyers can do at the moment is to push district attorneys to prosecute outrageous cruelty. For example, Farm Sanctuary was successful in New York state when it got a DA to prosecute an individual under the New York anti-cruelty statute who had left a cow to die for seven hours without food or water in a stockyard. But even when a lawyer has a statute that hasn't exempted a common farming practice -- such as in New York -- he or she is still not going to be able to go into a New York court and argue that veal crates should be prohibited because they are torturing an animal. The lawyer won't win because society hasn't said that putting baby calves in veal crates is a bad thing...yet.

I would rather have an anti-cruelty statute that says "you cannot torture an animal," and doesn't exempt farm animals but isn't applied today. Because in 15 or 30 years, when society's attitudes change, I have a law I can actually use. But if customary farming practices become exempt, humane agents aren't allowed to enter farms, and police are only allowed to go in with an agricultural officer, it's a difficult situation. It is far harder to put something back than to stop it being taken out.

Citizens need to be aware when state anti-cruelty statutes are being amended, and mobilize to prevent it. The problem is often no-one knows these laws are being amended; the Tennessee bill happened overnight, and the community didn't have enough time to mobilize. Anti-cruelty statutes that have not been amended by the farm lobby may be problematic, but they are preferable to the amended statutes.

We need to do three things. First, become familiar with state anti-cruelty laws and watch out for legislation to weaken existing laws. Let your elected state representative hear from you whenever legislation is introduced to weaken these laws! Secondly, encourage the proper enforcement of existing anti-cruelty statutes and federal laws in relation to the treatment of farm animals and work to outlaw certain farming practices like the veal crate and battery cage. Finally, individuals can reduce the problem at its source by adopting a vegetarian diet.

David Wolfson is Staff Attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. For more information on his survey, contact the ALDF: 491 East Jefferson Street, Suite 206, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel.: 301-294-1617.

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.