TABLE OF CONTENTS FEDERAL LAWS - Animal Welfare Institute
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTELegal Protections for Animals on FarmsTABLE OF CONTENTSFEDERAL LAWS1 Federal LawsNo single federal law expressly governs the treatment of animals2 State Laws2 Animal Cruelty Statutes and Their Relation toFarm Animals4 Enforcement of State Animal Cruelty Laws5 Strengthening Farm Animal Protection ThroughState and Local Legislation8 Strengthening Farm Animal Protection ThroughBallot Initiativesused for food while on farms in the United States. In fact, theseanimals do not have legal protections until they are transportedoff the farm.1 Even then, poultry, which account for 98 percentof animals raised for food, do not fall under the protection ofthe few federal laws that apply to livestock.2 For example, boththe Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Twenty-EightHour Law, the latter of which regulates when animals must be12 Anti-Whistleblower State Lawsgiven food and time to rest during transport, exclude poultry.312 State Livestock Care Standards BoardsMoreover, the federal Animal Welfare Act4—a law providing15 Industry Standardsminimal standards of care for certain animals—exempts farm16 International Standardsanimals, except those used in research.16 Other Reports in This SeriesTo date, all federal efforts to change the legal status quo for farmanimals have failed. For example, in 1989, Rep. Charles Bennett(FL-3) introduced the Veal Calf Protection Act in the House ofNine billion land animals are raised and slaughtered for foodRepresentatives.5 The bill, which aimed to limit the use of tinyin the United States each year, yet the laws protecting theseveal crates that prevent calves from turning around or lyinganimals are strikingly limited. The absence of legal protectionsdown, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock,for farm animals allows producers to keep them in inhumaneDairy and Poultry, but never went before the full House forconditions with a poor quality of life. Throughout a majoritya vote.6 Federal legislators also tried to pass a law in 2008of their short lives, farm animals are closely confined andprohibiting cruelty to farm animals, but the bill only attaineddeprived of the chance to exhibit natural behaviors. Commonsix cosponsors and, after being referred to the subcommittee,practices on factory farms include confining pregnant pigsreceived no hearing.7 In 2010, Rep. Diane Watson (CA-33),to crates so small they cannot turn around, confining hensbacked by animal advocacy groups, introduced a bill intended toto cramped, barren cages, castrating male pigs withoutprohibit the federal government from procuring food productsanesthesia, and killing sick and injured animals with bluntfrom animals not given enough room to freely extend theirforce. Producers utilize these practices in order to maximizelimbs.8 While this bill had 40 cosponsors, it, too, was not given aproductivity and profits.hearing by the subcommittee.9LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS PAGE 1
The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013to “carry out operations and measures to detect” and controlattempted to enact on-farm protections for animals throughdiseases of livestock.23 This allows the USDA to regulate animalfederal legislation. It would have increased minimum cagehusbandry practices that could lead to disease outbreaks.size requirements for egg-laying hens and producers wouldUnfortunately, the USDA has not used this authority to changehave been required to indicate on the product packaging ifhow animals are treated on farms.10their eggs came from birds kept in cages. However, similar to11other on-farm federal legislation, the bill did not advance, andattempts to add its provisions to the Agriculture Act of 2014STATE LAWS(also referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill) were unsuccessful.12Animal Cruelty Statutes and Their Relation to Farm AnimalsEvery state prohibits animal cruelty, but the definition ofThe most recent attempt to improve on-farm protectionsanimal cruelty varies from state to state. The term animalbegan on January 18, 2017, when the USDA announced a finalis also subject to varied definitions across states’ statutoryrule incorporating animal welfare standards into the Nationalcodes—with the definitions often serving to exclude aOrganic Program.13 The rule claimed to “clarif[y] how organicparticular class of animal. For example, Delaware expresslyproducers and handlers must treat their animals, bring[] clarityexcludes fish from the definition of animal, and Iowa excludesto the existing USDA organic regulations, and add[] new“livestock” and “fur-bearing animals,” among others.24 Arequirements for organic livestock and poultry living conditions,common definition found in several states for animal, whichtransport, and slaughter practices.”14 The effective date of theincludes farm animals, is “every dumb creature.”25 Yet, manynew organics standards was initially March 20, 2017. However,states treat farm animals differently from dogs, cats, and otherthe USDA twice delayed the rule’s implementation16—first, untilcompanion animals under their cruelty statutes.15May 19 and then until November 14, 2017.17 At the time of thesecond delay, the USDA opened a second Organic LivestockMany state cruelty codes exempt practices that are routinelyand Poultry Practices Proposed Rule for public comment toperformed on farm animals. Animal cruelty laws commonlydetermine what action the USDA should take on the issue.18protect nonfarm animals from neglect, mutilation, and otherforms of mistreatment. However, most state cruelty codesAfter another rule delaying the effective date until May 14,only protect farm animals from situations that no responsible2018, was published in November, the USDA proposed afarmer would defend, such as kicking “downed” animals orrule to withdraw the OLPP final rule on December 18, 2017.stabbing animals with pitchforks in order to get them toDespite the fact that 63,000 of the 72,000 comments submittedmove.26 In 37 states, common or recognized animal husbandryopposed this decision, the USDA withdrew the rule on Marchpractices—such as tail docking and castration without13, 2018. The USDA cited as its reasons for withdrawal theanesthesia—are exempt from the definition of cruelty, unlessfact that the Organic Foods Production Act does not give thethe act is specifically prohibited (see Table 1, page 4). A personAgricultural Marketing Service (AMS) statutory authority towho performed these acts on a dog or cat could be chargedpromulgate animal welfare standards. Additionally, the AMSwith animal cruelty, but because the practices are consideredargued that the cost of implementation was too high for theroutine in the agriculture industry they can be performed onbenefits.19 Currently, the withdrawal of the organic rule is thefarm animals without penalty. In addition to having animalsubject of pending litigation in both the D.C. Circuit and thecruelty laws, some states have aggravated animal crueltyNinth Circuit Court of Appeals.20statutes. Under these laws, individuals who abuse animalscan be charged with more severe penalties. However, as notedWhile there are no laws other than the Organic Foodabove, accepted agricultural husbandry practices may beProduction Act that directly address the treatment of animalsexempt from punishment.on farms, the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) maygive the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Three states—Nebraska, Iowa, and Texas—have expresslyindirect authority to regulate the raising of animals for food.21excluded livestock from their animal cruelty statute, and insteadCongress passed the AHPA in order to prevent and controlcreated specific legislation aimed at farm animal abuse.27animal diseases and pests. It gives the USDA broad authorityNebraska’s Livestock Animal Welfare Act makes it a crime to22LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS PAGE 2
cruelly mistreat livestock, including poultry; but commonlyand castration of mammals could be humane; however, theaccepted husbandry practices are exempt from the statute.regulatory qualifications for performing these practices wereAn interesting provision in the law prohibits a person who isdeemed too vague.3928convicted of a class IV felony under 54-903 (the abandonment/cruel neglect or mistreatment provision of the statute) fromAfter the lawsuit, the NJDA rewrote some of its regulations.owning or possessing livestock for at least five years after theCurrently, they only allow for tail docking of cattle whendate of their conviction.29 Iowa’s statute for injuries to livestockperformed “by a veterinarian for individual animals.”40is much less severe than its counterpart for other animals;Additionally the regulations allow for the de-beaking of birdsthe law makes customary husbandry practices the acceptedif it is done in compliance with the United Egg Producerswelfare standard. Texas prohibits punishment for using anyAnimal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks, andgenerally accepted animal husbandry practices.31 Wyoming, byis performed by a knowledgeable individual, which is defined incomparison, has a separate cruelty statute for livestock but doesthe regulations.4130not expressly exclude them from the general cruelty law.32North Carolina’s criminal statute against cruelty to animals isNew Jersey is another state that treats farm animalssimilar to other state cruelty statutes; however, North Carolinauniquely under the law. In 1996, the New Jersey Legislaturehas a civil remedy for animal cruelty, which distinguishes itamended its cruelty law, delegating authority to the Newfrom other states.42 The law allows any interested person toJersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) to write regulationsfile a lawsuit, even if that person does not have “possessory orconcerning the “humane raising, keeping, care, treatment,ownership rights in an animal.”43 If a plaintiff prevails in a casemarketing, and sale of domestic livestock.”33 The NJDA waslike this, the court may give them ownership of the animal andtold to look to “whether the treatment of [the] animals wasorder the defendant to pay the cost of food, water, shelter, and‘humane’” as a guiding principle in creating regulations. Incare.44 This law is unique in that it allows any person, includingthe final regulations, the department allowed an exemptionorganizations, to stand up for animals, even farm animals,to animal cruelty for “routine husbandry practices.” Thewhen they believe they are being abused. However, the law,NJDA defined “routine husbandry practices” broadly tolike most cruelty laws, has an exemption for “lawful activitiesmean “techniques commonly taught by veterinary schools,conducted for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, orland grant colleges, and agriculture extension agents.”36 Theaquatic species.”453435regulations also named specific practices that would fall withinthis exemption and were presumptively humane.In sum, state cruelty laws do not exempt farm animals per se.Many state cruelty codes do exempt a number of practicesThe New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty tothat are routinely performed on farm animals, however. WhileAnimals (NJSPCA) sued the NJDA, arguing in part thatthe cruelty codes of three states do not include farm animalsadoption of the “routine husbandry practices” clause wasunder the definition of “animal,” each of these states coverarbitrary and capricious because of its broad definition. Thefarm animals under a separate welfare statute that addressescourt agreed with this, and also agreed with the NJSPCA thatintentional neglect and/or cruelty. There is no question thatthe department did not show enough evidence to supportfarm animals are treated far differently from other domesticthe assertion contained in the regulations that cattle tailanimals not used for commercial purposes and receivedocking was humane; therefore, the regulations allowingsignificantly inferior protection under many state cruelty laws.37cattle tail docking violated the statute.38 The court foundthat other husbandry practices such as de-beaking of birdsLEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS PAGE 3
TABLE 1. CRUELTY STATUTES: COMMON ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICE EXEMPTIONS 46StateStatutory Code SectionStateStatutory Code SectionAlabamaAla. Code § 13A-11-14.1(c)(1)New JerseyN.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-16(e)AlaskaAlaska Stat. § 11.61.140(c)(3)New MexicoN.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-18-1(I)(4)ArizonaAriz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2910(c)(2)North CarolinaN.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-360(c)(5)ArkansasArk. Code Ann. § 5-62-105(a)(5)North DakotaN.D. Cent Code § 36-21.2-01(4)ColoradoColo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-201.5(1)OhioOhio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.13(4)ConnecticutConn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247(b)OregonOr. Rev. Stat. § 167.335FloridaFla. Stat. § 828.125(5)Pennsylvania18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5511(c)(3)GeorgiaGa. Code Ann. § 16-12-4(g)South CarolinaS.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-40(c)IdahoIdaho Code § 25-3514(5)South DakotaS.D. Codified Laws § 40-1-17Illinois510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/13TennesseeTenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-202(f)(1)IndianaInd. Code § 35-46-3-5(5)TexasTex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09(f)(2)IowaIowa Code §§ 717B.1, 717B.3A(2)(c)UtahUtah Code Ann. § 76-9-301(1)(b)(ii)KansasKan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6412 (c)(6)VermontVt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, § 351b(3)MaineMe. Stat. tit. 7, § 4011(2)(d)VirginiaVa. Code Ann. § 3.2-6570(c)MarylandMd. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 10-603(1)WashingtonWash. Rev. Code §§ 16.52.185, 16.52.205(6)MichiganMich. Comp. Laws § 750.50b(8)West VirginiaW. Va. Code § 61-8-19(f)MissouriMo. Rev. Stat. § 578.007(8)WisconsinWis. Stat. § 951.14MontanaMont. Code Ann. § 45-8-211(4)(b)WyomingWyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-203(m)NebraskaNeb. Rev. Stat. § 54-907Enforcement of State Animal Cruelty LawsHowever, there have been some successful prosecutions underAs noted above, state animal cruelty laws are limited instate cruelty laws for on-farm animal abuse. In 1998, after aterms of protecting farm animals, and they generally offerPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) undercoverlittle to penalize those who abuse farm animals. Severalinvestigation revealed systematic, horrific treatment of farmstates (e.g., Nebraska47 and Ohio48) explicitly exclude crueltyanimals at a pig breeding operation in North Carolina, a grandto farm animals from felony charges, while Pennsylvania’sjury indicted three workers and a manager for felony abuse.52 Thefelony charges apply only to zoo animals, cats, and dogs. Inthree workers were eventually convicted of animal cruelty andUtah, felony charges for animal cruelty can only be applied toone served five months in jail.53 Another PETA investigation atcompanion animals. Oregon excludes “commercially grownSeaboard Farms in Oklahoma led to a plea agreement in whichpoultry” unless there is evidence of gross negligence.the defendant pleaded guilty to felony animal cruelty charges.54495051LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS PAGE 4
In Iowa, the top pork-producing state, 22 charges were broughtreversed the district court decision in 2017, reinstating the ban.against workers at a pig farm after an undercover investigationOpponents then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ ofrevealed the workers beating pigs with metal rods and stabbingcertiorari. The court asked the solicitor general to file a briefclothespins into the animals’ faces. Five of the six employeesin the case. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will deny orpleaded guilty to the charges against them.56grant certiorari until 2019.61 There have also been attempts55to prohibit the sale of foie gras in New York state throughThese and similar cases illustrate how animal cruelty statuteslitigation, but these attempts have proven unsuccessful thuscan be used to protect farm animals. However, prosecutorsfar.62 Additionally, Chicago banned foie gras in 2006, but inhave discretion over which cases they want to take on and,2008 the city council overturned the ban.63unfortunately, animal cruelty is often low on the list.57 Thismay be due, in part, to the fact that it is often difficult, if notIn 2004, Alaska adopted standards of care for animals withimpossible, to gather sufficient evidence of animal abuse onbare minimum requirements: animals must be given enoughfarms without undercover investigations or the testimony offood and water to maintain their health, an environment thatemployee whistleblowers; confined animal housing facilitiesprotects and maintains their health, and “reasonable medicalare routinely closed off to the public. Additionally, animalcare at times and to the extent available and necessary tocruelty prosecutions do not always get to the root cause of themaintain animal[s] in good health.”64 The law also givesfarm animal abuse. Employees are punished for their egregiousauthority to the Department of Environmental Conservationactions but those in managerial positions who allowed these(DEC) to write regulations to implement the law. In 2011,practices to take place usually are not—and continue toAlaska’s Office of the State Veterinarian (OSV), a subdivisionoperate as before once the attention has died down.of the DEC, initiated a process to adopt more comprehensiveanimal care standards.65 By July 2012 the OSV had draftedStrengthening Farm Animal Protection Through State andstandards and taken public comments on them, but finalLocal Legislationstandards have yet to be adopted.In addition to broad animal cruelty laws, a number of stateshave enacted legislation specifically targeting some of theIn 2007, Oregon became the first state to limit the use ofagriculture industry’s most egregious animal husbandrygestation crates through the legislative process.66 The lawpractices. (These laws are described in Table 2.) Efforts havemakes it illegal to confine a pregnant pig for more than 12focused on limiting gestation crates for pregnant sows, crateshours a day in a space that prohibits her from lying down andor tethers for veal calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens,fully extending her limbs, or turning around freely.67 Governortail docking of meat and dairy cows, and, on a smaller scale,Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law on June 28, 2007, whenthe force-feeding of ducks and geese for foie gras. Advocatesthere were approximately 4,000 breeding sows in the state.68have focused on these abusive practices, which otherwiseEnforcement of this law could be difficult, however, becausewould often be considered “routine husbandry practices” andof the time element.69 In order to build a case against a porktherefore exempt from animal cruelty statutes. Below is aproducer, one would need to show an animal being confinedchronological account of recent efforts to limit specific forms offor more than 12 hours.farm animal abuse through state legislation.Following Oregon’s lead, in 2008, Colorado limited gestationIn 2004, California became the first and only state to ban thecrates for pregnant pigs and crates that do not allow veal calvesforce-feeding of ducks and geese used for foie gras. As written,to turn around and lie down.70 The statutory language is similarthe law prohibited selling products from birds who wereto Oregon’s, but Colorado’s prohibition is likely easier to enforceforcefully fed in order to enlarge their livers. The law wentas there is no allowance for restriction less than 12 hours perinto effect in 2012 after contentious attempts by producers andday.71 The one subsection in the Colorado statute that maysome restaurants to stop it through litigation.59 In 2015, a UScreate enforcement difficulties allows for sows to be kept inDistrict Court overturned the section of law banning the sale ofcrates 12 days before farrowing (giving birth).72 It may be difficultfoie gras.60 California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuitfor those attempting to enforce the law to obtain expectedCourt of Appeals, and the three judge panel unanimouslyfarrowing dates or determine if a sow has been confined longer58LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS P
Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks, and is performed by a knowledgeable individual, which is defined in the regulations.41 North Carolina’s criminal statute against cruelty to animals is similar to other state cruelty statutes; however, North Carolina has a civil remedy for animal cruelty, which distinguishes it
laws, foreign investment is governed by laws of general application (e.g., company laws, contract laws, environmental protection laws, land-use laws, laws guaranteeing compensation for expropriation of property, etc.), along with sector-specific laws, which govern the admission of new investment in sectors
21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership . About the Laws The laws can be learned The laws can stand alone The laws carry some consequences The laws are the foundation of leadership . 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership . The Law of
enforcement of other criminal laws, 8such as apostasy laws, anti-conversion laws, incitement to religious hatred laws (also often referred to as "hate speech" laws), anti-extremism laws, and even anti-witchcraft laws. Mob activity, threats, and/or violence around blasphemy allegations occur both at times when the state enforces the law
Creating a table of contents The Insert Index/Table window (Figure 1) has five tabs. All of them can be used when creating a table of contents: Use the Index/Table tab to set the attributes of the table of contents. Use the Entries and Styles tabs to format the entries in the table of contents. Use the Background tab to add color or a graphic to the background of the table of
Myanmar language. · Moreover, it translated laws into English and published in three volumes as "Myanmar Laws( 1988-1989)", "Myanmar Laws( 1997)" and "Myanmar Laws( 1998-1999)". This issue "Myanmar Laws(2000)" is the·con inuation of the publication mentioned above. "Myanmar Laws(1990)"
Federal Pesticide Laws Chapter 2 National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual. CHAPTER 2 Federal Pesticide Laws This module will help you: vUnderstand key federal laws and regul
Genesis 3 laws Exodus 111 laws Leviticus 247 laws Numbers 52 laws Deuteronomy 200 laws As shown above, the laws are contained inside a story framework that traces the “history” events from the moment of creation in Genesis 1 down to the
laws, at least 25 criminalize blasphemy, and at least 29 have laws against hate speech In exploring the prevalence and nature of these laws, this report shines light on the following trends: Blasphemy and apostasy laws are often overbroad and can be used to limit a variety of religious expression These laws violate international
