David Cassuto
From the email… Do yourself a favor: apply for this.
|
|
|
Filed under: animal law, animal law education, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, farmed animals | Leave a comment »
David Cassuto
From the email… Do yourself a favor: apply for this.
|
|
|
Filed under: animal law, animal law education, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, farmed animals | Leave a comment »
Seth Victor
Saratoga, WI is a small town in central Wisconsin. Set on the banks of the Wisconsin River, this community of a few thousand people is likely not a major destination for tourists roaming through the state, but by all appearances it seems a typical mid-western settlement from the 19th century that evolved into a small town befitting a Prairie Home Companion yarn. It is also the setting of an ongoing fight between the community and a proposed CAFO, one that has drawn intense public ire. Continue reading
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, climate change, factory farms, Uncategorized, veganism, vegetarianism | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal welfare, CAFOS, climate change, dairy, dairy farms, EIS, Environmental Impact Statement, factory farms, farmed animals, global warming, Golden Sands Dairy, industrial farming, Jim Wysocki, Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors, Saratoga, veganism, vegetarianism, WI, Wisconsin, Wysocki Produce Farms | 1 Comment »
Seth Victor
I’ll keep this short and sweet, because we’ve made this point on the blawg several dozen times. NPR reports that the recent outbreak of H5N2, or Avian Flu, has caused economic hardship for American farmers, to the point that the USDA is importing eggs from the Netherlands to meet demand.
Although it is mentioned in the lead paragraph, the fact that nearly 50 million chickens and turkey have been slaughtered to stem the virus is played off like any other economic number. As you read the article, look at the wording: these animals have been “destroyed,” not “killed” or “slaughtered.” The rest of the article is about the business model and bottomline consequences. It might as well be about how many iPhones had to be recalled for defective touch screens. These aren’t living things, remember; they’re just animals, cogs in the machine. Nowhere in the article is any suggestion that this outbreak could be avoided by not housing birds in CAFOs in the first place, save for one link that claims humans might be spreading the virus by entering CAFOs. Instead, the US government has taken the position that this virus is the fault of wild birds. Any guesses as to which lobbying group might have had a hand in that statement?
We. Can. Stop. This. H5N2 is not some mystery beyond comprehension. It is a result of the way we raise farmed birds. Stop purchasing eggs and meat from CAFOs, and they cannot exist without your dollars. It really is that simple.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal welfare, climate change, diet, factory farms, veganism, vegetarianism | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, battery cages, CAFOS, climate change, diet, egg production, factory farms, farmed animals, global warming, industrial farming, veganism, vegetarianism | 3 Comments »
The blawg previously commented on the ongoing issues surrounding California’s ban on the sale of foie gras, particularly the idea of giving away foie gras as a “complimentary side” when selling some other food. Last week Animal Legal Defense Fund filed another suit in the battle, arguing that La Toque restaurant was illegally selling foie gras in violation of California’s Health and Safety Code § 25982.
The suit, however, is somewhat of a moot point. On January 7th the California District Court overturned the Health and Safety Code banning the sale of foie gras, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, among whom is Hot’s Restaurant Group, the aforementioned makers of the complimentary foie gras side. The District Court summarize the issue as “whether a sales ban on products containing a constituent that was produced in a particular manner is an “ingredient requirement” under Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA).” The plaintiffs argued that the PPIA preempts the Health and Safety Code. Judge Stephen V. Wilson agreed, and has enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing the law. In summary, PPIA is a federal law that regulates the sale and distribution of birds and expressly prohibits states from imposing certain conditions on food and ingredients. Judge Wilson held that the Health and Safety Code, which is a state law, was in conflict with the federal law, and that the federal law must be held above state regulations. The “production” of including fatty liver in the sales of food is, apparently, an ingredient, and therefore must be regulated, with regards to foie gras, at the federal level.
Health and Safety Code § 25981, which bans the practice of force feeding a bird for the purpose of fattening the liver, was not before the District Court, and remains in effect. Also, there are several other facets of the plaintiff’s argument that were not granted summary judgment, including a Commerce Clause attack. The Commerce Clause argument and the remaining section banning “production” still presents an important argument, although the restaurants’ main challenge has now been overcome; Californian restaurants largely import all of their foie gras, thus the production bar will have a much smaller impact.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, diet | Tagged: ALDF, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, california, California District Court, California Health and Safety Code, farmed animals, foie gras, foie gras ban, geese, Hot's Kitchen, Judge Stephen V. Wilson, Poultry Products Inspection Act | 3 Comments »
Seth Victor
The New York Times this week published an investigation into U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, and, perhaps predictably, the results are disturbing. I heartily suggest reading the whole article, but for those in a rush, here are some of the interesting takeaway points:
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, factory farms | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal testing, animal welfare, animal welfare act, animals, AWA, bulls, CAFOS, calves, climate change, factory farming, factory farms, farmed animals, food, industrial farming, infrastructure, James Keen, lambs, meat, meat-eating, Michael Moss, New York Times, pigs, sheep, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, United States of America, veganism, vegetarianism | Leave a comment »
Christine Murphy
In some states, the act of entering onto another’s property and recording undercover videos revealing animal cruelty on farms is illegal. At first glance, this is understandable as everyone has an interest in their own property rights. But there’s a catch. What happens when the activities carried out on that land are not only illegal, but affect on society as a whole? Farm animals are slaughtered everyday and used for food, cosmetics, and even clothing products which enter the economy and are then provided to us for our use and consumption. The treatment of these animals before slaughter is horrifying, and yet this industry seems to be protected from revealing this information from the public.
In seven states today, ag-gag laws exist. These laws prohibit individuals from entering an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.
In Animal Legal Defense Fund et. al. v. Otter et. al., the Plaintiffs challenged Idaho’s ag-gag law Continue reading
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal law | Tagged: ag-gag, animal law, animal welfare, factory farms, farmed animals, industrial agriculture | 3 Comments »
Seth Victor
An article caught my eye this morning about a man in New Mexico who was charged with a felony for extreme cruelty against a dog. The man allegedly stabbed his girlfriend’s dog in the heart, and then marinated the remains of the animal in preparation to cook it. While animal cruelty is a crime in New Mexico, eating dogs or cats is not, and if the defendant is successful in showing he did not act cruelly, there is no consequence for killing a companion animal for food.
These types of cases crop up every once in a while, often accompanied by outrage from some segments of the population over the wanton nature of the act. As always, since the law codifies our social voice, some states have put laws in place to discourage this kind of behavior. In New York, for example, one may not ” slaughter or butcher domesticated dog or domesticated cat to create food, meat or meat products for human or animal consumption.”
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, diet, factory farms, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, CAFOS, cats, dogs, factory farms, farmed animals, industrial farming | 6 Comments »