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. |
|
