ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

Legal Protections for Animals on Farms

TABLE OF CONTENTSFEDERAL LAWS

1 Federal Laws

No single federal law expressly governs the treatment of animals

2 State Laws
2		Animal Cruelty Statutes and Their Relation to
Farm Animals
4		Enforcement of State Animal Cruelty Laws
5		Strengthening Farm Animal Protection ThroughState and Local Legislation
8		Strengthening Farm Animal Protection ThroughBallot Initiatives

used for food while on farms in the United States. In fact, theseanimals do not have legal protections until they are transported
off the farm.1 Even then, poultry, which account for 98 percent
of animals raised for food, do not fall under the protection of
the few federal laws that apply to livestock.2 For example, boththe Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Twenty-Eight
Hour Law, the latter of which regulates when animals must be

12 Anti-Whistleblower State Laws

given food and time to rest during transport, exclude poultry.3

12 State Livestock Care Standards Boards

Moreover, the federal Animal Welfare Act4—a law providing

15 Industry Standards

minimal standards of care for certain animals—exempts farm

16 International Standards

animals, except those used in research.

16 Other Reports in This Series

To 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 food

Representatives.5 The bill, which aimed to limit the use of tiny

in the United States each year, yet the laws protecting theseveal crates that prevent calves from turning around or lying

animals are strikingly limited. The absence of legal protections

down, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock,for farm animals allows producers to keep them in inhumane

Dairy and Poultry, but never went before the full House forconditions with a poor quality of life. Throughout a majority

a 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 attained

deprived of the chance to exhibit natural behaviors. Common

six cosponsors and, after being referred to the subcommittee,

practices on factory farms include confining pregnant pigs

received no hearing.7 In 2010, Rep. Diane Watson (CA-33),

to crates so small they cannot turn around, confining hens

backed by animal advocacy groups, introduced a bill intended toto cramped, barren cages, castrating male pigs withoutprohibit the federal government from procuring food products

anesthesia, and killing sick and injured animals with blunt

from animals not given enough room to freely extend theirforce. Producers utilize these practices in order to maximize

limbs.8 While this bill had 40 cosponsors, it, too, was not given a

productivity and profits.

hearing by the subcommittee.9

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 1 ­­­­­­

The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013

to “carry out operations and measures to detect” and control

attempted 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 would

Unfortunately, the USDA has not used this authority to change

have been required to indicate on the product packaging if

how animals are treated on farms.

10

their 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 2014

STATE LAWS

(also referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill) were unsuccessful.12

Animal Cruelty Statutes and Their Relation to Farm Animals
Every state prohibits animal cruelty, but the definition of

The most recent attempt to improve on-farm protections

animal cruelty varies from state to state. The term animal

began on January 18, 2017, when the USDA announced a finalis also subject to varied definitions across states’ statutory

rule incorporating animal welfare standards into the National

codes—with the definitions often serving to exclude a

Organic Program.13 The rule claimed to “clarif[y] how organic

particular class of animal. For example, Delaware expressly

producers and handlers must treat their animals, bring[] clarity

excludes fish from the definition of animal, and Iowa excludes

to the existing USDA organic regulations, and add[] new“livestock” and “fur-bearing animals,” among others.24 A

requirements for organic livestock and poultry living conditions,common definition found in several states for animal, whichtransport, and slaughter practices.”14 The effective date of the

includes farm animals, is “every dumb creature.”25 Yet, many

new 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, until

companion animals under their cruelty statutes.

15

May 19 and then until November 14, 2017.17 At the time of thesecond delay, the USDA opened a second Organic Livestock

Many state cruelty codes exempt practices that are routinely

and Poultry Practices Proposed Rule for public comment toperformed on farm animals. Animal cruelty laws commonly

determine what action the USDA should take on the issue.18

protect nonfarm animals from neglect, mutilation, and otherforms of mistreatment. However, most state cruelty codes

After another rule delaying the effective date until May 14,

only protect farm animals from situations that no responsible

2018, was published in November, the USDA proposed a

farmer 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 to

Despite the fact that 63,000 of the 72,000 comments submitted

move.26 In 37 states, common or recognized animal husbandry

opposed this decision, the USDA withdrew the rule on March

practices—such as tail docking and castration without

13, 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 person

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) statutory authority to

who performed these acts on a dog or cat could be charged

promulgate animal welfare standards. Additionally, the AMS

with animal cruelty, but because the practices are considered

argued that the cost of implementation was too high for theroutine in the agriculture industry they can be performed on

benefits.19 Currently, the withdrawal of the organic rule is thefarm animals without penalty. In addition to having animal

subject of pending litigation in both the D.C. Circuit and thecruelty laws, some states have aggravated animal cruelty

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.20

statutes. Under these laws, individuals who abuse animals
can be charged with more severe penalties. However, as noted

While there are no laws other than the Organic Food

above, accepted agricultural husbandry practices may be

Production Act that directly address the treatment of animals

exempt from punishment.

on farms, the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) may
give the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Three states—Nebraska, Iowa, and Texas—have expressly

indirect authority to regulate the raising of animals for food.21

excluded livestock from their animal cruelty statute, and instead

Congress passed the AHPA in order to prevent and control

created specific legislation aimed at farm animal abuse.27

animal diseases and pests. It gives the USDA broad authority

Nebraska’s Livestock Animal Welfare Act makes it a crime to22

LEGAL 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.39

28

convicted of a class IV felony under 54-903 (the abandonment/
cruel neglect or mistreatment provision of the statute) from

After 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 livestock

performed “by a veterinarian for individual animals.”40

is much less severe than its counterpart for other animals;

Additionally the regulations allow for the de-beaking of birds

the law makes customary husbandry practices the accepted

if it is done in compliance with the United Egg Producers

welfare standard. Texas prohibits punishment for using any

Animal 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 does

the regulations.41

30

not expressly exclude them from the general cruelty law.

32

North Carolina’s criminal statute against cruelty to animals is
New Jersey is another state that treats farm animals

similar to other state cruelty statutes; however, North Carolina

uniquely under the law. In 1996, the New Jersey Legislature

has a civil remedy for animal cruelty, which distinguishes it

amended its cruelty law, delegating authority to the New

from other states.42 The law allows any interested person toJersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) to write regulations

file 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 was

like 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. In

care.44 This law is unique in that it allows any person, including

the final regulations, the department allowed an exemption

organizations, to stand up for animals, even farm animals,

to animal cruelty for “routine husbandry practices.” The

when they believe they are being abused. However, the law,

NJDA defined “routine husbandry practices” broadly tolike most cruelty laws, has an exemption for “lawful activities

mean “techniques commonly taught by veterinary schools,

conducted for purposes of … production of livestock, poultry, or

land grant colleges, and agriculture extension agents.”36 The

aquatic species.”45

34

35

regulations also named specific practices that would fall within
this 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 practices

The New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty tothat are routinely performed on farm animals, however. While

Animals (NJSPCA) sued the NJDA, arguing in part thatthe cruelty codes of three states do not include farm animals

adoption of the “routine husbandry practices” clause wasunder the definition of “animal,” each of these states coverarbitrary and capricious because of its broad definition. The

farm animals under a separate welfare statute that addresses

court agreed with this, and also agreed with the NJSPCA that

intentional neglect and/or cruelty. There is no question thatthe department did not show enough evidence to support

farm animals are treated far differently from other domestic

the assertion contained in the regulations that cattle tailanimals not used for commercial purposes and receive

docking was humane; therefore, the regulations allowing

significantly inferior protection under many state cruelty laws.

37

cattle tail docking violated the statute.38 The court foundthat other husbandry practices such as de-beaking of birds

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 3 ­­­­­­TABLE 1. CRUELTY STATUTES: COMMON ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICE EXEMPTIONS 46
State

Statutory Code Section

State

Statutory Code Section

Alabama

Ala. Code § 13A-11-14.1(c)(1)

New Jersey

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-16(e)AlaskaAlaska Stat. § 11.61.140(c)(3)New Mexico

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-18-1(I)(4)

Arizona

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2910(c)(2)North Carolina

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-360(c)(5)ArkansasArk. Code Ann. § 5-62-105(a)(5)North Dakota

N.D. Cent Code § 36-21.2-01(4)Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-201.5(1)Ohio

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.13(4)Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247(b)OregonOr. Rev. Stat. § 167.335

FloridaFla. Stat. § 828.125(5)Pennsylvania

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5511(c)(3)Georgia

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-4(g)South Carolina

S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-40(c)Idaho

Idaho Code § 25-3514(5)South Dakota

S.D. Codified Laws § 40-1-17

Illinois

510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/13

Tennessee

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-202(f)(1)

IndianaInd. Code § 35-46-3-5(5)Texas

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09(f)(2)

Iowa

Iowa Code §§ 717B.1, 717B.3A(2)(c)Utah

Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-301(1)(b)(ii)

KansasKan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6412 (c)(6)Vermont

Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, § 351b(3)Maine

Me. Stat. tit. 7, § 4011(2)(d)Virginia

Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6570(c)MarylandMd. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 10-603(1)Washington

Wash. Rev. Code §§ 16.52.185, 16.52.205(6)MichiganMich. Comp. Laws § 750.50b(8)West Virginia

W. Va. Code § 61-8-19(f)Missouri

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.007(8)Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 951.14

MontanaMont. Code Ann. § 45-8-211(4)(b)Wyoming

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-203(m)Nebraska

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-907

Enforcement of State Animal Cruelty Laws

However, there have been some successful prosecutions under

As 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 offer

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) undercover

little to penalize those who abuse farm animals. Several

investigation revealed systematic, horrific treatment of farmstates (e.g., Nebraska47 and Ohio48) explicitly exclude cruelty

animals at a pig breeding operation in North Carolina, a grandto farm animals from felony charges, while Pennsylvania’s

jury indicted three workers and a manager for felony abuse.52 The

felony charges apply only to zoo animals, cats, and dogs. In

three workers were eventually convicted of animal cruelty andUtah, felony charges for animal cruelty can only be applied to

one served five months in jail.53 Another PETA investigation atcompanion animals. Oregon excludes “commercially grown

Seaboard 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.54

49

50

51

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 4 ­­­­­­In Iowa, the top pork-producing state, 22 charges were brought

reversed the district court decision in 2017, reinstating the ban.

against workers at a pig farm after an undercover investigation

Opponents then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ ofrevealed the workers beating pigs with metal rods and stabbing

certiorari. The court asked the solicitor general to file a briefclothespins into the animals’ faces. Five of the six employees

in the case. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will deny or

pleaded guilty to the charges against them.56

grant certiorari until 2019.61 There have also been attempts

55

to prohibit the sale of foie gras in New York state throughThese and similar cases illustrate how animal cruelty statutes

litigation, but these attempts have proven unsuccessful thus

can be used to protect farm animals. However, prosecutors

far.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.63

unfortunately, animal cruelty is often low on the list.57 Thismay be due, in part, to the fact that it is often difficult, if not

In 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 that

employee whistleblowers; confined animal housing facilities

protects and maintains their health, and “reasonable medical

are 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 gives

farm animal abuse. Employees are punished for their egregious

authority to the Department of Environmental Conservation

actions 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 to

Alaska’s Office of the State Veterinarian (OSV), a subdivision

operate as before once the attention has died down.

of the DEC, initiated a process to adopt more comprehensive
animal care standards.65 By July 2012 the OSV had drafted

Strengthening Farm Animal Protection Through State andstandards and taken public comments on them, but final

Local Legislation

standards have yet to be adopted.

In addition to broad animal cruelty laws, a number of states
have enacted legislation specifically targeting some of the

In 2007, Oregon became the first state to limit the use of

agriculture industry’s most egregious animal husbandrygestation crates through the legislative process.66 The law

practices. (These laws are described in Table 2.) Efforts havemakes it illegal to confine a pregnant pig for more than 12

focused on limiting gestation crates for pregnant sows, crates

hours 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 Governor

tail docking of meat and dairy cows, and, on a smaller scale,

Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law on June 28, 2007, when

the force-feeding of ducks and geese for foie gras. Advocates

there were approximately 4,000 breeding sows in the state.68

have focused on these abusive practices, which otherwise

Enforcement of this law could be difficult, however, because

would often be considered “routine husbandry practices” andof the time element.69 In order to build a case against a pork

therefore exempt from animal cruelty statutes. Below is a

producer, one would need to show an animal being confined

chronological 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 gestation
In 2004, California became the first and only state to ban thecrates for pregnant pigs and crates that do not allow veal calves

force-feeding of ducks and geese used for foie gras. As written,

to turn around and lie down.70 The statutory language is similar

the law prohibited selling products from birds who wereto Oregon’s, but Colorado’s prohibition is likely easier to enforce

forcefully fed in order to enlarge their livers. The law wentas there is no allowance for restriction less than 12 hours per

into effect in 2012 after contentious attempts by producers andday.71 The one subsection in the Colorado statute that may

some restaurants to stop it through litigation.59 In 2015, a US

create 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 difficult

foie gras.60 California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit

for those attempting to enforce the law to obtain expected

Court of Appeals, and the three judge panel unanimously

farrowing dates or determine if a sow has been confined longer

58

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 5 ­­­­­­

than 12 days. Violation of this law is a class two misdemeanor,

bill with language taking animal welfare into account. The

punishable by up to one year in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both.

industry went along with the plan in order to stop animal

73

advocates from pursuing a citizen initiative campaign to place
In 2008, Arizona enacted legislation giving authority to thea stronger animal protection measure on the state ballot. The

director of the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules for

Michigan Senate passed the new version unanimously, while

poultry husbandry standards, but limited the rules to egg

the House passed it 86 to 22.87

producers with at least 20,000 hens at each facility. The law
74

also explains that poultry husbandry practices are a statewide
issue and counties, cities, and towns cannot adopt further‐‐ California passed a bill that banned tail docking of cattle
unless necessary to save the animal’s life or relieve its pain.88

regulation over the subject matter.75 In the year following the
law’s enactment, the director codified poultry husbandry

Also in 2009, Maine passed a resolution authorizing thestandards in the Arizona Administrative Code. The rule adopts

state’s commissioner of agriculture, food, and rural resources

United Egg Producer’s 2008 Animal Husbandry Guidelines,

to develop best management practices for poultry facilities

which allow as little as 67 square inches of floor space per birdwith more than 10,000 birds.89 The resolution followed an

and do not provide for any form of enrichment for the hens.

undercover investigation at the largest egg farm in New

All eggs sold in the state must come from hens raised underEngland, which captured images of workers swinging birds

these standards, unless the operation maintains fewer thanin circles by their necks to kill them, rotting carcasses left

20,000 hens or the hens are raised cage-free. Additionally, allin cages with living birds, and birds with broken bones andeggs sold in Arizona must display the UEP certified logo or an

open wounds.90 The commissioner subsequently developed

equivalent third-party certification.79

standards, but did not stray far from the industry’s status quo.

76

77

78

The standards specify that (1) companies must designate an
Three states—Maine, Michigan, and California—passed

individual responsible for overseeing the care and welfare oflegislation in 2009 to limit cruel animal agriculture practices:animals, (2) new housing built after January 1, 2010, mustallow for 76 square inches of floor space per brown egg-laying‐‐ Maine banned the binding or restricting of sows or calves
for a majority of the day in a manner that stops them fromhen and 67 square inches for white leghorn hens, and (3) beaktrimming without anesthesia is allowed.91

lying down, standing up and fully extending their limbs, andturning around freely.80 A first violation is considered a civil

In 2010, California passed a law banning the sale of shelled

violation and can result in a fine of up to $2,500.81

eggs from egg-laying hens confined in a manner not incompliance with the codified language of Proposition 2, a‐‐ Michigan passed a law that limited the use of gestation

California ballot measure that passed in 2008.92 The law allows

crates, veal crates, and battery cages.82 The law provides thathens raised in California to be kept confined only if they cancovered animals—gestating sows, calves raised for veal, andturn around, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their wings

egg-laying hens— shall not be confined for a majority of the

without touching the sides of a cage.93 In addition to the

day in a manner that prohibits the animal from performing

welfare concerns, California passed the shelled-egg law tomovements such as turning around. The law further requires

create an even playing field between in-state and out-of-state

144 square inches of floor space for each egg-laying hen.84 The

egg producers.94 Violation of the law is punishable by a fine ofprovision relating to veal calves went into effect in 2012, while$1,000, and up to 180 days in jail.95

83

the provisions relating to gestation crates and egg-laying hens
go into effect in 2019.85

Additionally, in 2013, the California Department of Food andAgriculture (CDFA) promulgated regulations pertaining to theOriginally, the Michigan Legislature introduced two industry-

confinement of egg-laying hens as a matter of food safety.96

backed bills, the first codified the industry’s quality assurance

The regulation states that after January 2015, “no egg handler

programs and the second created an industry-stacked animalor producer may sell or contract to sell a shelled egg for humancare advisory board.86 Unimpressed, animal advocacy groups

consumption in California if it is the product of an egg-laying

pressured the legislature to substitute the language of thehen that was confined in an enclosure that fails to comply

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 6 ­­­­­­

with [the expressed standards].”97 Each egg-laying hen, whenenough space to turn around and stretch their wings “without

there are nine or more birds, must be provided with 116 squaredifficulty,” (2) each bird be allotted a minimum of 116.3 square

inches of floor space.98 The formula used to determine the space

inches (including nest space), (3) hens have access to a forage orallotted per bird if there are fewer than nine birds is: 322+[(n-1)

scratch mat at all times, (4) a nest box must be within each unit,

x 87.3]/n, where n is equivalent to the number of birds.99

and (5) perches must be provided.110

In February 2014, 11 months before the law went into effect,

However, the Oregon regulations only provide that enclosures

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and five other state

constructed after January 1, 2012, “must be convertible into an

attorneys general filed a lawsuit against California, attempting

enclosure that allows a minimum of 116.3 square inches of floor

to stop the law from taking effect.

space per hen, including nest, and not less than 17.7 inches

100

The states challenged

the California law based on the Commerce and Supremacyof height,” or must directly meet these space requirements.111

Clauses of the United States Constitution. In response to theseThis leaves several important welfare requirements of AHA

legal challenges, the District Court for the Eastern District ofcertification out of Oregon’s regulatory framework. Though,California dismissed the claims, finding that the states failed

according to officials in Oregon’s Department of Agriculture,

to demonstrate that their citizens suffered an injury in fact.101

the regulations will be amended to reflect certain standards

Without a substantial harm to their citizenry, the states were

found within the AHA welfare program.112

unable to establish constitutional standing.

102

On appeal, theNinth Circuit affirmed and remanded the case, agreeing that

Washington also codified rules for egg-laying hens in 2011.

the allegations claiming the law “would result in fluctuations

The law is similar to Oregon’s law in that it sets timelines forof egg prices” was insufficient to establish standing.

when egg producers must comply with the law’s standards.

103

Finally,in 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to

For example, “all new and renewal [egg handler or dealer]hear the case, allowing the Ninth Circuit decision to stand.

applications submitted … on or after January 1, 2026, must

104

include proof that all eggs and egg products provided in
Despite the various legal challenges, the 2010 shelled-egg law,

intrastate commerce … are produced by commercial egg

the CDFA’s shell egg food safety regulations, and Proposition 2 alllayer operations that either” are approved by AHA “enrichedwent into effect on January 1, 2015. Two years later, on Februarycolony cage” protocol or equivalent standards set by the17, 2017, California brought the first-ever criminal charges against

regulating agency.113 The law exempts producers with fewer

an egg-producer within the state.105 Brought by District Attorneythan 3,000 egg-laying hens.114 Unlike Oregon, the Washington

Michael Ramos (who also prosecuted the Westland/Hallmark

law mandates that egg-laying hens have “areas for nesting,downed cattle case mentioned later in this report), the charges

scratching, and perching.”115

included 39 counts of violating California’s Proposition 2.

106

In 2012, Rhode Island passed a law banning gestation crates,
In 2011, Oregon again enacted legislation pertaining toveal crates, and routine tail docking.116 Under the law, anyone

animal confinement—this time affecting egg-laying hens.

who intentionally cuts the tail off any bovine is guilty of a

The law puts a timeline in place for egg producers to move

misdemeanor unless performed by a “veterinarian for veterinaryhens into “enriched colony cages” by 2026, a process which is

purposes,” and the animal is anesthetized, the procedure is

to be monitored by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.107

done in a manner that minimized long-term pain and suffering,

According to the law, a person must not sell eggs or egg

and the procedure is performed using suitable instruments in

products if they know, or reasonably should know, that the

hygienic conditions.117 Violating the law is punishable by up to a

products came from hens confined in a manner that doesyear in prison and a $500 maximum fine.118

not comply with the law and its regulations.

108

Five stages,

running from 2012 to 2026, slowly push producers to, in the end,

In 2018, Rhode Island added battery cages to the list of extreme

meet enclosure standards equivalent to the requirements forconfinement practices that the state will phase out. The law

certification of enriched colony facility systems established instates that egg-laying hens raised in Rhode Island must be

the American Humane Association’s (AHA) farm animal welfare

allocated at least 216 square inches and must be able to fully

program.

spread both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or109

The AHA certification requires that (1) all birds have

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 7 ­­­­­­

other hens. This is currently the highest legal minimum space

However, Michigan has not indicated what type of housing will

requirement for egg-laying hens in the United States.

be mandated under the law, and California allows producers to119

use battery cages with fewer birds, so long as the legal space
In summary, through legislation during the past decade, four

requirement is met. California also allows—along with Oregon

states banned or limited the use of sow gestation crates, fourand Washington—the use of larger “colony” cages, which arestates banned or limited the use of conventional battery cages for

similar to conventional battery cages but accommodate larger

housing egg-laying hens, four states banned or limited the use of

numbers of hens. All colony cages provide more space per hen

veal crates, one state prohibited the force-feeding of birds for foie

than conventional cages, and “enriched” forms of the colonygras, and two states put a strict limit on cattle tail docking.

cage also provide perches, nest boxes, and scratching areas.
But because California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon,

Many of the state laws limiting specific farming practices,and Rhode Island do not require these enrichments, cages

however, have language that may make regulation difficult.

lacking enrichments are acceptable in these states. At this time,

Anti-confinement laws have several common exemptions for

Washington is the sole state that expressly mandates the use of

periods when animals are on exhibition, in use for agriculture

enrichments for egg-laying hens.122

research, being transported, and being examined —although120

the overall impact of these exemptions is likely minimal. Two

While many states make strides toward higher welfare eggsof the practices targeted by state legislation—tail docking andby prohibiting extreme confinement, Iowa appears committed

veal crates—are being voluntarily phased out by the industry.

to maintaining the status quo. In 2018, Iowa became the121(The threat of legislative bans likely had an impact on thefirst state to pass a law mandating that grocery stores sellindustry’s decision to end the practices, particularly in theconventional eggs from caged hens. Specifically, the law

case of dairy cattle tail docking.) Moreover, and perhaps mostrequires any grocery store participating in a federal foodimportantly, many of the states that have enacted legislation

program selling “specialty eggs” (cage-free, free-range, or

limiting animal husbandry practices do not have large numbers

enriched colony cages) to also stock eggs from hens housed inof farmed animals impacted by the curtailed practices; in someconventional battery cages.123

cases, the number is very small or zero.
Despite these shortcomings, anti-confinement laws do further
Anti-confinement laws passed to date have not actually banned

the goal of improving farm animal welfare. First and foremost,close confinement altogether. The laws limit or ban some ofthey serve to educate elected officials, media, and the public

the most extreme confinement methods, such as gestation andregarding the treatment of animals raised for food. Increased

veal crates. But producers remain free to place gestating sowsawareness may in turn impact consumer food choices and thein “turn-around” crates, and calves raised for veal may still be

requirements that food retailers impose on their suppliers. The

housed in small stalls so long as the animal can turn around.

laws probably also deter industrial farms from planting roots

It appears that producers have opted to discontinue use of

in a particular state. They codify standards for farm animal

gestation and veal crates in response to the laws passed thus far.

production practices in state law, and may eventually lead to

However, none of the laws provide for the welfare of the animals

federal regulation of farm animal welfare.

in terms of mandating group housing or requiring appropriate
bedding and environmental enrichment—and there are noStrengthening Farm Animal Protection Through Ballot

guarantees that producers will address these issues in order toInitiatives

maximize animal welfare and minimize disease and mortality.

In addition to working through the legislative process, animal
advocates have sought to pass farm animal protection laws

While the gestation and veal crate laws appear to have been

through citizen-initiated state ballot measures. (Laws passed

successful in eliminating extreme confinement, this is not thethrough the ballot initiative process are included in Table 2,case for hen battery cages. As stated above, laws to restrict

page 10.) Twenty-four states allow for citizen initiative ballot

the use of battery cages have been passed in Michigan,measures, which give citizens the power to bring proposals to

Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington by legislation and instatewide elections.124 Since the 1920s, animal advocates have

California and Massachusetts by ballot initiative (discussed

used the ballot initiative process to influence how animals

in the next section).

are treated.125 But it was not until 1998 that a ballot initiative

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 8 ­­­­­­

relating to the consumption of animals passed: That year,

language is similar to many of the other state restrictions on

California voters approved a ban on horse slaughter for humanspecific husbandry practices—it prohibits confining or tethering

consumption.126

sows, veal calves, and egg-laying hens for all or a majority ofthe day in ways that prevent them from lying down, turning

To date, four states—Arizona, California, Florida, andaround, standing up, and fully extending their limbs.142 The

Massachusetts—have placed limits on specific animal

CDFA determined that 116 square inches per bird meets thehusbandry practices through the ballot initiative process.

requirement, but many advocacy groups believe the standards

Florida limited the use of sow gestation crates through the

can only be met with cage-free systems.143 Violation of the law

initiative process on November 5, 2002—the first time a

is a misdemeanor; upon conviction a person may be fined up to

ballot initiative was used to improve living conditions for$1,000, imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.144

conventionally raised farm animals. Fifty-five percent
127

of Florida voters (over 2.6 million people) voted in favor of

In 2016, Massachusetts placed Question 3, An Act to Preventthe initiative.128 The measure is now codified in the Florida

Cruelty to Farm Animals, on its November ballot.145 The

Constitution. In addition to the anti-confinement language,

initiative prohibited the cruel confinement of animals, defined

the Florida Constitution now states, “Inhumane treatment ofas “confined so as to prevent a covered animal from lying

animals is a concern of Florida citizens.” Persons found guilty

down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, orunder the constitutional amendment can be fined up to $5,000

turning around freely.”146 In addition, the proposed language

and imprisoned for up to one year.130 Each sow held in illegal

implemented a sales ban on products from animals confined inconfinement is considered a separate offense for the violator.131

a cruel manner.147 Before the proposal was placed on the ballot,

129

the highest court in Massachusetts unanimously ruled thatIn 2006, Arizona passed an initiative, known as the Humane

the sales provisions and the animal welfare concerns “share

Treatment of Farm Animals Act, which restricted the use of

a common purpose of preventing farm animals from being

gestation crates and veal crates, by a margin of 62 percent to 38

caged in overly cramped conditions.”148 The initiative passed

percent.132 The law went into effect six years later, on December

overwhelmingly, with 78 percent of the vote (over 2.5 of nearly 3.3

31, 2012.133 Arizona had approximately 31,000 sows in the state

million votes cast) in favor of the referendum.149 The rule requires

at the time voters passed the measure, most confined in 2’ x 7’

a phase-in program, with full compliance required by January

crates.134 The measure also created the Arizona Humane

1, 2022.150 Finally, the law allows the Massachusetts attorney

Treatment of Farm Animals Fund.135 This fund allows thegeneral to impose a $1,000 civil fine for each violation.151

Arizona attorney general to deposit money into a fund when
violators of the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act are

Ballot initiatives contribute to the forward movement of farm

fined and when donations are made.136 The funds are used foranimal welfare in the United States, particularly in terms

mandatory and administrative expenses of the law.

of public awareness, since measures on the ballot generally

137

receive far greater media attention than bills introduced in theThrough a 2008 ballot initiative, California restricted three forms

state legislature. In fact, it could be argued that California’sof cruel confinement: battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation

Prop. 2 campaign represents the single most significant event

crates, and veal crates. A majority of California citizens—more

to date for farm animal protection, responsible for generating

than 8.2 million people—voted yes on the ballot measure known

mainstream interest in the treatment of farm animals

as Proposition 2. In 2007, the year before Proposition 2 was on

throughout the country.

138

139

the ballot, an undercover investigation of Hallmark Meat Packing
Company in Chino, California, led to the largest meat recall in US

Nevertheless, there are limits to the ballot initiative strategy.

history.140 Media coverage of this incident helped show Americans

Twenty-six states do not have the ballot measure process,the severe abuses that take place on factory farms. This helped

and many of these states are top animal production states.

propel the ballot initiative to victory the following year.

For example, Iowa, the state with the highest egg production(with production nearly double that of Ohio, its nearest

California codified Proposition 2 into its Health and Safetycompetitor)152 does not allow for citizen-initiated ballot

Code, and the law went into effect January 1, 2015.141 The

measures. The states with the second-, third-, and fourth-

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 9 ­­­­­­

largest red meat production in 2012 (Iowa, Kansas, and Texas)

operations from further restrictions make ballot initiatives

also do not allow for citizen initiatives. In addition, theregulating industrial livestock production difficult or nearlyadvent of right-to-farm laws that seek to shield agricultural

impossible to pass.154

153

TABLE 2. STATE LAWS LIMITING FARM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICES
Tail Docking
State

Year

Text

Enacted ThroughCalifornia

2009

Prohibits tail docking of cattle unless for emergency purposes.

Legislation:
Cal. Penal Code § 597n

New Jersey

2012

Prohibits tail docking of cattle unless performed by a veterinarian for individual
animals.

Regulation:
N.J. Admin. Code § 2:8-2.6

Ohio

2011

Prohibits tail docking of dairy cattle unless performed by a veterinarian andmedically necessary.

Regulation: Ohio Admin. Code901:12-6-02

Rhode Island

2012

Prohibits tail docking of cattle unless performed by a veterinarian for veterinary
purposes and the animal is anesthetized.

Legislation: 4 R.I. Gen. Laws
Ann. § 4-1-6.1

Sow Gestation Confinement
State

Year

Text

Arizona

2006

Prohibits confining a pig during pregnancy for all or a majority of the day in amanner that prevents her from lying down and fully extending her limbs, or
turning around freely.

Ballot Initiative codified as:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132910.07

California

2008

Prohibits confinement of sows for a majority of the day in a manner that does notallow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around.

Ballot Initiative Codified as:Cal. Health & Safety Code §25990

Colorado

2008

Prohibits confinement of sows in a manner that does not allow them to standup, lie down, and turn around without having to touch the sides of enclosures.
However, sows can be placed in farrowing crates 12 days prior to expected
farrowing date.

Legislation:
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3550.5-102

Florida2002

Prohibits confinement of pregnant pigs in a manner that does not allow them toturn around freely; there is a separate offense for each sow so confined.

Ballot Initiative Codified as:Fla. Const. art. X, § 21

Maine

2009

Prohibits confinement of sows for a majority of the day in a manner that does notallow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely.

Legislation:
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 4020

Massachusetts

2016

Prohibits confinement of sows in a manner that prevents them from lying down,
standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.

Ballot initiative codified as:
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 129 App.,§ 1-5

Michigan

2009

Prohibits confinement of sows for a majority of the day in a manner that does notallow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely.

Legislation:
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §287.746

Ohio

2010

As of 2026, gestation stalls can only be used post weaning for a period of time thatseeks to maximize embryonic welfare and allows for confirmation of pregnancy.

Regulation:
Ohio Admin. Code 901:12-8

Oregon2007

Prohibits confinement of sows for a majority of the day in a manner that does notallow them to lie down, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely.

Legislation: Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 600.150

Rhode Island

2012

Prohibits knowing confinement of sows in a manner that does not allow them to lie
down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely.

Legislation: 4 R.I. Gen. Laws
Ann. § 4-1.1-3

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 10 ­­­­­­

Enacted ThroughVeal Calf Confinement
State

Year

Text

Enacted ThroughArizona

2006

Prohibits confining a veal calf for all or a majority of the day in a manner thatprevents him from lying down and fully extending his limbs, or turning aroundfreely.

Ballot Initiative codified as:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132910.07

California

2008

Prohibits confinement of veal calves for a majority of the day in a manner that
does not allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turnaround.

Ballot Initiative codified as:Cal. Health & Safety Code §25990

Colorado

2008

Prohibits confinement of calves in a manner that does not allow them to stand up,lie down, and turn around without having to touch their enclosures.

Legislation: Colo. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 35-50.5-102

Kentucky

2014

Veal calves must be raised in group pens.

Regulation:
302 Ky. Admin. Regs. 21:030

Maine

2009

Prohibits confinement of calves for a majority of the day in a manner that does
not allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn aroundfreely.

Legislation:
Me. Rev. Stat. tit.7 § 4020

Massachusetts

2016

Prohibits confining of veal calves so as to prevent them from lying down, standingup, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.

Ballot initiative codified as:
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 129 App.,§ 1-5

Michigan

2009

Prohibits confinement of veal calves for a majority of the day in a manner that
does not allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turnaround freely.

Legislation:
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §287.746

Ohio

2010

Veal calves must be housed in group pens by 10 weeks of age. Calves must beable to stand without impediment, rest using normal postures, groom, eat, turnaround, and lie down.

Regulation:
Ohio Admin. Code §§ 901:12-4,
901:12-5-03

Rhode Island

2012

Prohibits knowing confinement of veal calves in a manner that does not allow
them to lie down, stand up, fully extending their limbs, and turn around freely.

Legislation:
4 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 4-1.1-3

Egg-laying Hen Confinement
State

Year

Text

California

2008

Prohibits confinement of egg-laying hens for the majority of the day in a mannerthat does not allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turnaround.

Ballot Initiative Codified as:Cal. Health & Safety Code§ 25990

Massachusetts

2016

Prohibits confining egg-laying hens so as to prevent them from lying down,
standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.

Ballot initiative codified as:
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 129 App.,§ 1-5

Michigan

2009

Prohibits confinement of egg-laying hens for a majority of the day in a mannerthat does not allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turnaround freely. Fully extending limbs is defined as “at least 1.0 square feet of usable
floor space per hen.”Legislation:
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §287.746(g)Oregon2011

Dept. of Agriculture has authority to create regulations that will phase in colony
cages by 2026 that comply with American Humane Association’s farm animal
welfare certification standards or their equivalent.

Legislation:
Or. Rev. Stat. § 632.840

Rhode Island

2018

Prohibits confinement of egg-laying hens in a manner that prevents them fromfully stretching their wings without touching the sides of the enclosure or otherbirds. Also mandates each hen have access to usable floor space of 1.5 square feet.

Enacted Through Legislation:
R.I. Gen. Laws Ann §§ 4-1.1-1
to 1.5

Washington

2011

As of 2026, for commercial producers with 3,000 egg-laying hens or more, eachhen must have 116.3 square inches of space and access to areas for nesting,scratching, and perching.

Legislation:
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 69.25.065,
69.25.107

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 11 ­­­­­­

Enacted ThroughANTI-WHISTLEBLOWER STATE LAWS
Farm animal welfare improvements over the past several
years have resulted in significant push-back from the animal
agriculture industry. Attempts have been made in several states
to pass legislation that makes it a crime to take unauthorizedvideos and photographs at farming facilities. Some states have
tried to make it a crime to lie on employment applications,while other states have tried to place restrictions on whenevidence of animal abuse can be turned in to state authorities.
These whistleblower suppression bills, often referred to as“ag-gag” legislation—a term coined by Mark Bittman in 2011—
specifically target animal advocates and criminalize attempts tomake agriculture facilities more transparent.155
Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota have had whistleblower
suppression laws for almost 25 years. All three states
criminalize entering an animal agriculture facility to takerecordings without approval.156 In recent years, the industry
has been pushing for more whistleblower suppression laws.
Iowa passed legislation in 2012 making it illegal to give false
information on an application to work in an agriculture
facility—in order to prevent undercover animal advocatesfrom obtaining employment.157 Utah and Missouri also passed

2016.161 This was the first ag-gag bill to impose a civil, rather
than criminal, penalty. In 2017, Arkansas became the latest
state to enact ag-gag legislation.162 Like North Carolina, theArkansas legislation creates a civil cause of action, but it
only applies to whistleblowers on agricultural and businessproperties.163 Despite attempts by animal welfare organizations
to stop the bill, the governor signed it and the Arkansas ag-gag
law went into effect on March 23, 2017.164
Animal and consumer advocates are challenging several ofthese anti-whistleblower laws in court. In 2015, a federal district
court found Idaho’s law to be unconstitutional and overturned
it.165 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed thelower court’s holding, finding that the law violated the First
Amendment.166 A challenge to Utah’s ag-gag law resulted in thelaw being struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.
Utah did not appeal the case and was ordered to pay a $349,000
settlement to the plaintiffs in the case.167 In February 2018, a
coalition of organizations brought a lawsuit in federal court
challenging Iowa’s ag-gag statute. The suit is ongoing.168 In
June 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal
district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit challenging the North
Carolina ag-gag law, allowing the case to move forward.169

legislation in 2012: it is a misdemeanor in Utah to record
requires employees to deliver any recordings of animal abuse

STATE LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDSBOARDS

to authorities within 24 hours of the recording, effectively

In addition to whistleblower suppression laws, the agriculture

cutting short investigations and preventing investigators fromindustry has persuaded some states to delegate authority forgathering enough evidence to establish a pattern of animal

oversight of farm animal welfare to state livestock boards.

abuse that would be necessary for successful prosecution.158

Some states have also taken the power to regulate animal

images or sounds at an agriculture facility, while Missouri’s law

care away from local governments. Oklahoma, Georgia, SouthIn 2013, whistleblower suppression legislation was introduced

Carolina, and Alabama all have specific statutes preempting

in 11 states: Arkansas, California, Indiana, Nebraska, New

counties, municipalities, and other local governments from

Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,

promulgating animal husbandry standards.170

Tennessee, Wyoming, and Vermont. None of these bills
passed, but the industry has not been deterred. In 2014, Idaho

The following states have established livestock care standards

passed anti-whistleblower legislation making it illegal toboards: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Rhoderecord conduct at an agriculture facility or obtain employment

Island, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. These boards either

through misrepresentation.159 Bills were also introduced inregulate animal care in the state or act in an advisory capacity to

several other states in 2014. In 2015, North Carolina passed anstate authorities. For the boards that have promulgated written

expansive anti-whistleblower bill that prohibits informants

standards of care, most have codified the agriculture industry

from disclosing information obtained not only from agriculture

status quo. This is likely due in large part to the composition offacilities, but also from other nonpublic businesses.160 Norththe boards—most consist primarily of conventional industry

Carolina’s governor vetoed the bill, but the legislature

representatives and do not include animal welfare specialists.

overturned the veto, and the law went into effect January 1,(See Table 3, page 15, for further details.)

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 12 ­­­­­­

Ohio created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards

recommended that during gestation, sows be kept in a manner

Board (OLCSB) in 2009 via an amendment to the statethat allows them to “turn around freely, lie down, stand up, andconstitution.171 The board has the authority to “establish

fully extend their limbs.” However, this statement was qualified

standards governing the care and well-being of livestockby the recommendation that “the use of crates for limited

and poultry in [the] state.”172 However, an underlying

restraint of swine for purposes of feeding, breeding, handling,goal for creating the board was to stop animal advocacy

farrowing and disease control be permitted [and] the Council

organizations from achieving farm animal care standards

does not support an outright ban on gestation crates.”183

through legislation or ballot initiative.173 The OLCSB has set
livestock care standards that, in many respects, do not stray

Utah and Kentucky also created advisory livestock care boards

far from industry standards. For example, physical alterationsin 2010. Kentucky’s Livestock Care Standards Commission

can be performed without pain medication, and euthanasia

advises the Board of Agriculture on standards “governing

practices include blunt force trauma, electrocution, and gun

the care and well-being of on-farm livestock and poultry.”184

shot. There has been slight progress with respect to species-

Kentucky published final regulations in 2014.185 They require

specific regulations: Veal crates and tail docking of dairy cattle

that veal calves be raised in group housing by 2017.186 However,were phased out at the end of 2017, and gestation crates will

they allow for nonambulatory animals to be shipped tobe phased out by 2025. In addition, new egg farms are notslaughter and mutilations to be performed without anesthesia

permitted to use conventional battery cage systems.175

and at any age.187 Utah created its agriculture advisory board

174

in 1979; in 2010, the Utah Legislature authorized the board
In 2010, several other states created livestock boards, or gave

to advise the agriculture commissioner on the standards ofexisting authorities power over all animal care standards.

care for farm animals.188 Utah has not produced animal care

For example, Vermont created the Livestock Care Standards

regulations as of the writing of this text.

Advisory Council (LCSAC), consisting mostly of members
representing the agriculture industry.176 However, theIllinois and West Virginia also created livestock care boards in

LCSAC does provide a seat for a member with experience in2010. In Illinois, the Department of Agriculture must submit

investigating animal cruelty, and another for a representative

rules and regulations pertaining to the “well-being of domesticof a local humane society. The addition of these seats would

animals and poultry” to the state’s Advisory Board of Livestock

seem to increase the potential that adequate standards forCommissioners for approval.189 However, to date the advisory

animal care could be implemented; however, the board only

board has not yet approved standards for on-farm treatment

acts in an advisory capacity, and animal welfare advocates areof animals. West Virginia’s board must establish animal carestill a minority among board members. Since taking effectstandards for livestock, including determining agriculture

in 2010, the board has held several meetings and publishedbest management practices for farm animals, which thenposition statements on some of the more egregious farming

must be approved by the state legislature.190 In 2014, West

practices. In 2015 and 2016, the board wrote transportation

Virginia wrote minimal animal care standards, which allow

guidelines for cattle and newborn calves that also provide

for nonambulatory animals to suffer indefinitely and do notcursory on-farm recommendations.179

require pain relief for physical alterations.191

Unfortunately, LCSAC positions often align with industry

Indiana took another route, and in 2011 gave the existing

standards. For example, in 2012 the council recommended a

Board of Animal Health (BOAH) the discretionary authority“no” vote on S. 107, a bill prohibiting tail docking on horses

to adopt rules governing the care of livestock and poultry.192

and bovine unless performed by a veterinarian,180 stating, “ItThis legislation came about because agriculture industry

is the overall consensus of the Council that criminalizing thegroups feared animal advocates would try to push for strong

act of tail docking or the owners of animals with docked tails

animal care standards in the state, as they had a few years

is not the best way to effect change within the Vermont dairy

earlier in neighboring Michigan. The Indiana Farm Bureau’s

industry.” Consequently, the bill was never enacted.

director of state government relations, Bob Craft, stated,

177

178

181

182

When

the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture requested“[the Indiana Farm Bureau] support[s] this legislation so thatthe council’s position on the use of gestation crates, it

what happened in Michigan will not happen in Indiana.”193

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 13 ­­­­­­

In Michigan, animal advocacy groups had threatened to get

In Louisiana, the Board of Animal Health is responsible forlegislation enacted through a state ballot measure to improve

adopting standards applicable to the care of farm animals,

the lives of farm animals.194 To avoid a fight at the ballot box,

subject to the approval of the Department of Agriculture

the animal agriculture industry came to an agreement withand Forestry commissioner.204 The same law that provides

animal advocates to instead pass legislation limiting thefor this process also prohibits municipalities and other local

use of battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates forgovernments from adopting their own regulations pertaining

pregnant sows, and veal crates for young calves.195

to the care of farm animals.205 Local governments can request
to amend the standards to provide for specific problems within

The Indiana livestock care statute listed factors BOAH cantheir geographic area, however.206

consider when promulgating rules, none of which directly
reference animal welfare.196 The regulations require caretakers

In 2013, Louisiana’s Board of Animal Health adopted animal care

to provide “animals with an environment that can reasonably

standards with the commissioner’s approval. The standards are

be expected to maintain the health of animals of that species,

broad and leave a significant amount of room for interpretation.

breed, sex, and age, raised using applicable production

For example, regulations read: “Livestock personnel shallmethods.”197 Several other sections in the regulations provide

have the proper level of knowledge, ability, and competency

similarly vague statements, allowing for broad interpretations

to maintain the health and care and well-being of livestockof the rules and reliance on conventional industry practices.198

as specified in this Code.”207 There is no definition within theregulations for “proper level,” or “ability, and competency.”

The Rhode Island Legislature created a livestock advisory board
in 2012 to help the state agriculture department review andSome of the species-specific standards in Louisiana allow forevaluate laws and rules relating to agriculture best management

extreme confinement and mutilation of animals. Sows, forpractices and the overall health and welfare of livestock—aexample, can be kept in gestation crates and farrowing stalls.

purpose that departs from other livestock boards.199The board

The standards specify that sows must be able to get up andis responsible for defining an “adequate living condition” forlie down at will and, when standing, touch only one side of

livestock, which it did on July 1, 2014. According to Rhode Island

the enclosure; the ability to turn around is not a requirement,

State Veterinarian Scott Marshall, these standards help law

however.208 The poultry standards codify the National Chicken

enforcement determine what constitutes an “adequate living

Council’s stocking density, which currently allows for up

condition.” Persons not in compliance with the standards can be

to 9.0 pounds per square foot.209 Mutilations such as beakcharged with animal cruelty.

trimming, tail docking, and claw removal can be performed
without anesthesia, but must be performed within a certain

The Livestock Welfare and Care Standards adopted by the

number of days after the animal is born.210

Rhode Island board are similar to those set in Ohio. The
standards provide that dairy cattle kept in tie stalls must be

In sum, livestock boards have the power to enrich the lives

given the opportunity to exercise and enough room to standof farm animals, but they also have the power to maintainup, lie down, eat, drink, defecate, and urinate comfortably.200

the status quo, which is generally what they’ve done thus

For beef cattle, pain management must be used if dehorning

far. However, in a very few instances they have implemented

occurs after eruption.201 Additionally, calves with navels

standards that (after their effective dates ) will elevate farmthat have not dried after birth cannot be transported to aanimal welfare within the state, as in the limits placed byslaughterhouse, a market, or collection facility.202 These are

Ohio’s board on the use of gestation crates and veal crates andmovements in the right direction. However, there are several

the practice of docking the tails of dairy cattle.

other provisions in the document that are paltry and vague.
For example, castration of pigs should be done at “as young
an age as is practical,” but if done on “older and larger boars”
pain management must be used. Unfortunately, there is no
definition for “older and larger boars.”203

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 14 ­­­­­­TABLE 3. STATE LIVESTOCK BOARDSStateBoard Name

Obligated toWrite Animal
Care Standards?

Animal Welfare
Board Member?

Standards
Written?

Illinois

Advisory Board of Livestock Commissioners

No

No

No

Indiana

Board of Animal HealthNo

No

Yes, 345 Ind. Admin.
Code 14-2-1-14-2-5

KentuckyLivestock Care Standards Commission

No

No

Yes, 302 Ky. Admin.
Regs. 21:001-080

Louisiana

Board of Animal Health

Yes

No

Yes, La. Admin. Codetit. 7, § 3101-3117

Ohio

Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board

NoA

YesB

Yes, Ohio Admin.
Code 901:12-1-15

Rhode Island

Livestock Welfare and Care Standards Advisory
CouncilNo

Yes

Yes, but not codified
as of 2014

Utah

Agriculture Advisory Board

NoC

No

No

Vermont

Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council

No

YesD

YesE

West Virginia

Livestock Care Standards Board

Yes

YesF

Yes

A. “The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.”
B. One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.
C. Obligated to advise on establishment of standards governing the care of livestock and poultry.
D. A person with experience investigating charges of animal cruelty involving livestock and a representative of a local humane society or organization.
E.

The board wrote transportation guidelines (with minimal on-farm recommendations) for newborn calves in 2015, and has provided other superficial recommendations.

F.

One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

pertaining to acceptable methods of forcing hens to molt.216

Advances for farm animal welfare have also been madeIt prohibited water- and feed-withdrawal molting methods

through changing the policies of industry trade associations.

and required that lighting periods be at least eight hours in

Animal advocacy organizations push industry associations—length.217 These industry-initiated phase-outs of conventional

along with retailers and individual producers—to phasepractices are merely voluntary, however, and the percent ofout the worst animal husbandry practices. For instance, in

producers complying with the recommendations is unknown.

2007 Strauss Veal and March Farms, two of the largest veal
producers in the United States, pledged to go crate-free

While the industry is making self-imposed changes, retail

within two years.211 Soon after, the American Veal Association

food companies such as Wendy’s, The Cheesecake Factory,(AVA) encouraged all veal producers to go crate-free by

Safeway, Papa John’s Pizza, and Target pressure the industry to

2017.212 In January 2018, the AVA announced that all member

modify their practices incrementally as well. These companies,

companies had completed this transition.213 Similarly, in 2013,

along with others, have announced that they will not buy

the National Milk Producers Federation recommended thatpork products from producers using gestation crates after atail docking of dairy cattle be phased out by 2022.214 Two years

phase-in period. In fact, in 2013 Safeway announced that its

later, it moved up the phase-out date to 2017 at the request of

entire eastern division of pork supply had eliminated gestation

dairy retailers.215 The first industry trade association to limit

crates.218 Retailers are also pushing the industry to move toward

a conventional animal husbandry practice was United Egg

cage-free systems for egg-laying hens. Numerous companies

Producers, which in 2002 amended its animal care guidelines

have made cage-free commitments. In fact, if the companies

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 15 ­­­­­­

that have already made commitments stick to them, over 60

industry-recommended codes of practice. For example, in 2013

percent of eggs will come from cage-free hens by 2025.

Canada’s National Farm Animal Care Council published the219

Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle.224
Extreme confinement has been the main target when

The document covers both recommended and requiredpressuring companies to improve how they treat animals

practices, which may be enforceable under national andraised for food. Other areas have received some attention,

provincial regulation in Canada. The code for beef cattle ishowever. In 2013, Tyson announced that its contract farmers

generally consistent with the OIE standards for the welfare of

can no longer euthanize sick or injured piglets by blunt force,

animals in beef production systems.

which includes slamming their heads into the ground.220
This was the only new requirement announced by Tyson at

Unlike the United States, many developed countries havethe time, but the company also urged its farmers to use pain

enacted comprehensive regulations and/or industry best

mitigation for tail docking and castration of piglets and topractices to address the welfare of animals raised for food. As

use video monitoring in barns, as well.221 Additionally, many

mentioned above, Canada has enacted a comprehensive code

companies are committing to better welfare practices forof practice for beef cattle. In recent years it also publishedbroiler chickens. These include environmental enrichments,

revised standards for the raising of pigs and revised standards

more space, and a switch to slower-growing breeds (that arefor egg-laying hens.225 The pig standards phase out the use of

not as subject to health issues).

gestation crates.226 As of July 1, 2014, all new installation and222

replacement of existing individual stalls must allow sows to

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

stand up without touching both sides of their stalls and to lie
down.227 By 2024, all sows and gilts must be housed in groups,

The World Organisation for Animal Health (known by

individual pens, or stalls, provided the stalls allow them to turnits French abbreviation, “OIE”) is an intergovernmental

around or get periodic exercise (to be defined in more detail byorganization made up of 180 member states. Since 20052019).228 In addition to addressing confinement housing, thethe organization has adopted 11 sets of farm animal welfare

code requires environmental enrichment for pigs229 and the use

standards, which cover transport by land, sea, and air;of analgesics for the castration230 and tail docking231 of pigs.

transport of farmed fish; the slaughter process; killing ofanimals for disease control purposes; and the welfare ofanimals in beef, dairy, and broiler production systems.223
The OIE intends to produce standards to cover the on-farmtreatment of other species, including pigs, and laying hens.
In the United States, interested stakeholders have theopportunity to participate in the OIE standards-setting
process through submitting comments on proposed animal
welfare standards to the USDA Veterinary Services. Veterinary
Services in turn submits comments on behalf of the UnitedStates to the OIE. Stakeholders, including animal welfareorganizations, have had some success in influencing USDA
submissions over the past few years. To date, the USDA
has failed to implement most OIE standards in regulationor to recommend statutory amendments to Congress.
Consequently, the United States is not in compliance with OIE
standards in many aspects of farm animal welfare.

OTHER REPORTS IN THIS SERIES:
Legal Protections for Farm Animals During Transport

Several countries have taken steps to implement OIE

Legal Protections for Nonambulatory (or “Downed”) Farm Animals

standards. This includes both national regulations andLegal Protections for Farm Animals at Slaughter

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 16 ­­­­­­

For a detailed review of legal protections related to transport toslaughter, please see Animal Welfare Inst., Legal Protections
for Farm Animals During Transport (2017), available at https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/fa-legalprotec
tionsduringtransport-12262013.pdf.
1

See 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (1978) (limiting the humane slaughter laws to“cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock”
which, has not been interpreted to include poultry); see also Clay v.
N.Y. Cent. R. Co., 224 A.D. 508, 511-512 (App. Div. 1928)(holding that
the Twenty-Eight Hour Law applies only to “cattle, sheep, swine, andother animals” but, does not apply to poultry).
2

Bruce Wagman et al., Animal Law: Cases and Materials 420 (4thed. 2009).
3

Transportation, Sale, and Handling of Certain Animals, 7 U.S.C. §§2131-2159 (1966) (otherwise known as the Animal Welfare Act).
4

5

Veal Calf Protection Act, H.R. 84, 101st Cong. (1989).

21

Id.

22

Id.

Agric. Mktg. Serv., Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Second
Proposed Rule, U.S. Dep’t Agric., https://www.ams.usda.gov/rulesregulations/national-organic-program-organic-livestock-andpoultry-practices-second-proposed (last visited June 23, 2017).
23

24

Del. Code Ann. tit.11, § 1325 (2016); Iowa Code § 717B.1 (2013).

25

For an example, see Cal. Penal Code §599b (2003).

In an undercover investigation, farm employees were caught
performing such heinous acts on dairy calves and cows. See Mercy
for Animals, Ohio Dairy Farm Brutality, YouTube (May 25, 2010),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYTkM1OHFQg; see also Pamela
D. Frasch et al., State Animal Anti-Cruelty Statutes: An Overview,
5 Animal L. 69, 77-76 (1999)(explaining the state exemptions forlivestock).
26

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 54-901 to 54-913 (2013); Iowa Code §§ 717.1-717.6(2011); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09 (2007).

Id.; see also Actions Overview H.R.84—101st Congress (1989-1990),
Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/
house-bill/84/actions (last visited June 23, 2017) (indicating that thebill was introduced to the House on January 1, 1989, but did not go
to a vote).

27

7
8

6

28

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 54-902, 54-903, 54-907 (2013).

29

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-909 (2010).

Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act, H.R. 6202, 110th Cong. (2008).

30

Iowa Code §§ 717.1-717.6 (2011).

Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, H.R. 4733, 111th Cong. (2010).

31

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09 (2007).

See Cosponsors: H.R.4733—111 Congress (2009-2010), Congress.
gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4733/
cosponsors (last visited June 23, 2017) (listing the forty cosponsorsof the Bill); see also All Actions H.R. 4733—111th Congress (20092010), Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/
house-bill/4733/all-actions (last visited June 23, 2017) (indicatingthat the bill was not given a hearing before a subcommittee).

32

9

th

Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013, H.R. 1731, 113th
Cong. (2013).
10

11

Id.

See Agricultural Act of 2014, H.R. 2642, 113th Cong. (2014).
Additionally, the two driving forces behind the bill, United Egg
Producers and The Humane Society of the United States, ended
their agreement to work on this legislation together. UEP will cease
working to pass national cage standards altogether.
12

See Cynthia Brougher, Cong. Research Serv. R40577, USDA
Authority to Regulate On-farm Activity 1-2 (2009)(explaining that
the AHPA delegates to APHIS the authority to regulate on-farmactivities as a matter of animal health).
13

Compare Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 11-29-101 to 11-29-115 (2011); with
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-203 (2017).
33

New Jersey Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New
Jersey Dep’t of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 402 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2008).
35

Id.

36

Id. at 396.

37

Id. at 371.

38

Id. at 404.

The regulations stated that de-beaking and castration could be
performed “in a sanitary manner by a knowledgeable individual
and in such a way as to minimize [the animals’] pain.” Thecourt concluded that while the husbandry practices could bedone humanely, the language referring to a “sanitary manner,”“knowledgeable individual,” and “minimiz[ing] pain,” were notenough to show the procedures would be done humanely because
they were not clearly defined. Id. at 409-410.
39

14

7 U.S.C. § 8301 (2002).

40

15

7 U.S.C. § 8308 (2008).

41

Elanor Starmer, Supporting Organic Integrity with Clear Livestockand Poultry Standards, U.S. Dep’t Agric. (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/18/supporting-organicintegrity-clear-livestock-and-poultry-standards.
16

Agric. Mktg. Serv., Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, U.S.
Dep’t Agric., https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organiclivestock-and-poultry-practices (last visited June 23, 2017).
17

18
19

Id.
Id.

Center for Environmental Health et al v. Perdue et al, Docket No.
3:18-cv-01763 (N.D. Cal. Mar 21, 2018); Organic Trade Associationv. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. et al, Docket No. 1:17-cv-01875 (D.D.C. Sept13, 2017).
20

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-16.1 (1996).

34

N.J. Admin. Code § 2:8-2.6 (2012).

N.J. Admin. Code § 2:8-4.7( e)-(f)(2012) (incorporating thedefinition of a “knowledgeable person” from the Fed’n of Animal
Sci. Societies, Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals
in Research and Teaching (3rd ed. 2010), and Richard A. Battaglia,
Handbook of Livestock Management (4th ed. 2006).
42

See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 19A (1995).

43

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-2 (1995).

44

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-4 (1979).

45

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 19A-1.1 (1995).

Several of the exemptions found within these statutes are narrowin scope. For example under Virginia’s cruelty code, the exemption
only applies to the dehorning of cattle conducted in a reasonable
and customary manner.
46

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 17 ­­­­­­

See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1009 (2015)(limiting the anti-cruelty
statute to apply only those species included within the definition of“animal” under the code); see also Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-1008 (2015)(excluding livestock from the definition for “animal”).
47

See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 959.131(A)(1) (2016) (excluding livestockfrom the definition of companion animal); Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§ 959.131(B)-(C) (prohibiting intentional harm to companion
animals);see also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §959.99 (2017) (making it afelony to knowingly harm a companion animal).
48

49
50
51

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-50.5-102(1)(b)(2008).

74

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3-710 (2011).

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5511(a)(i), (a)(2.1)(ii) (2015).

75

Id.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-301(6) (2015).

76

Ariz. Admin. Code § R3-2-907 (2009)

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.335(1-11) (2015).

77

Leahy, supra note 50, at 81.
Id. at 82.

55

Id. at 84.

56

Id. at 85.

For example, after a 2014 undercover investigation, where
animals were buried alive, the county officials decided they would
not prosecute under the state cruelty law. See COK Investigation
Update: Burying Birds Alive is Apparently Not a Crime in North
Carolina, Compassion Over Killing (August 5, 2014), http://cok.
net/blog/2014/08/cok-investigation-update-burying-birds-aliveapparently-crime-north-carolina/.
57

Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25980-25984 (2011).

Id.; See Association Des Eleveurs de Carnards et D’oies du Quebec
v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013).
59

Association Des Eleveurs de Carnards et D’oies du Quebec v.
Harris, 79 F.Supp.3d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
60

Ass’n des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Becerra, 870
F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017) (pending petition for cert. to the UnitedStates Supreme Court)
61

See Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Aubertine, 119 A.D.4d 1202 (N.Y. App.
Div. 2014) (holding that the residents and corporations did not havestanding to bring the action against the foie gras producers).
62

Nick Fox, Chicago Overturns Foie Gras Ban, N.Y. Times (May 14,
2008, 3:33 PM), http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/
chicago-overturns-foie-gras-ban/?hp.
63

Alaska Stat. § 03.55.100 (2004).

Status of Animal Care Standards, DEC St. Veterinarian, http://
dec.alaska.gov/eh/vet/AnimalCareWorkshop.html (last visited June23, 2017).
65

66

Or. Rev. Stat. § 600.150(2) (2008).

67

Id.

Oregon Legislative Information System, 2007 Regular Session: SB
69, Or. St. Legis., https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2007R1/Measures/
Overview/SB694 (last visited June 23, 2017); Oregon’s Governor
Signs Gestation Ban into Law, Pork Network (Jan. 18, 2011, 1:13
AM), http://www.porknetwork.com/pork-news/oregons-governorsigns-gestation-sow-crate-ban-into-law-114062169.html.
68

Id.

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1.3-501 (2015).

54

64

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-50.5-102 (2008).

71

73

Cheryl L. Leahy, Large-Scale Farmed Animal Abuse and Neglect:
Law and its Enforcement, 4 J. Animal L. & Ethics 63, 63-132 (2011);
See Investigation of North Carolina Pig Farm Results in Historic
Felony Cruelty Convictions, PETA (April 2000), http://www.peta.
org/about-peta/victories/investigation-north-carolina-pig-farmresults-historic-felony-cruelty-convictions/#ixzz2qaxJNeVv (lastvisited June 23, 2017).

58

Or. Rev. Stat. § 600.150(2)(2008).

70

72

52

53

69

Id.; see also United Egg Producers, Animal Husbandry Guidelines
for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks (2008). UEP has since updated its
Husbandry Guidelines, however the space allotment has notchanged, remaining at 67-86 square inches per bird. See United Egg
Producers, Animal Husbandry Guidelines (2016)
78

Az. Admin. Code § R3-2-907 (2009).

79

Id.

80

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 4020 (2009).

81

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 4016(A) (2008).

82

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.746 (2010).

83

Id.

84

Id.

85

Id.

H.B. 5127, 95th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2009), http://www.
legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/
pdf/2009-HIB-5127.pdf; H.B. 5128, 95th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich.
2009), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/
billintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HIB-5128.pdf.
86House Bill 5127 (2009), Mich. Legislature, http://www.legislature.
mi.gov/(S(qapb5q0jihf3bxwv4rop12t3))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&
objectName=2009-HB-5127 (last visited June 26, 2017).
87

88Cal. Penal Code § 597n (2010).

L.D. 692, 124th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2009), http://www.
mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chappdfs/RESOLVE63.
pdf.
89

See Mercy for Animals, New England Egg Farm Investigation,
YouTube (Mar. 24, 2009), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=1dOauM9LNTc.
9091
Office of the State Veterinarian, Main Dep’t of Agric.,
Conservation & Forestry, State of Maine Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) for Poultry Facilities of More than 10,000 Birds(2010).
92

Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25995-25997.1 (2011).

93

Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990-25994 (2015).

See Cal Health & Safety Code § 25996 (2014) (implementing a sales
ban on eggs sold within the state that fail to comply with the codes
requirements).
94

95

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25996.1 (2016).

96

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, § 1350.

97

Id.

98

Id.

99

Id.

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 18 ­­­­­­

Egg-producers from Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama,
Kentucky, and Iowa challenged the law based on the parens patriae
doctrine, claiming that each state had a “quasi-sovereign interest[] inprotecting its citizens economic health and constitutional rights, aswell as preserving its own rightful status within the federal system.”See Missouri v. Harris, 58 F.Supp.3d 1059, 1064 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
100

Id. at 1065-1066.

101

123

Iowa Code § 135.16A (2018).

Initiative & referendum Inst., State I&R, U.S. Cal., http://www.
iandrinstitute.org/states.cfm (last visited August 17, 2018).
124

Initiative and Referendum History – Animal Protection Issues,
Humane Soc’y U.S., http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/
legislation/ballot_initiatives_chart.pdf (last visited June 26, 2017).
125

The court denied standing because, while the states could assert
a hypothetical injury to their egg producers, the injury could notextend to all the citizens as a whole. Id. at 1072-1075.
102

Missouri v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 653-655 (9th Cir. 2017).

103

See Wash. Rev. Code § 69.25.107 (2012) (requiring “access to areasfor nesting, scratching, and perching”).
122

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to California’s Landmark
Egg Sales Ban, Humane Soc’y U.S. (May 30, 2017), http://www.
humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2017/05/supreme-courtupholds-ca-egg-law-053017.html.
104

Wayne Pacelle, Breaking News: First-Ever Criminal Charges
Brought Against Egg Producer for Violating California Prop 2,
Humane Soc’y U.S.: A Humane Nation (Feb. 7, 2017), http://blog.
humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/02/breaking-news-first-evercriminal-charges-brought-egg-producer-violating-californiaprop-2.html?credit=blog_post_020717_id8769.
105

126

Id.

See Florida’s Historic Ban on Gestation Crates, Animal Rights
Found. Fla., http://arff.org/gestation-crates (last visited June
26, 2017) (explaining that after volunteers gathered over 600,000
signatures from registered voters, the initiative to prohibit the cruelconfinement of sows was put on the 2002 ballot).
127

Animal Cruelty Amendment: Limiting Cruel and Inhumane
Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy, Fla. St. Dep’t http://results.
elections.myflorida.com/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/5/2002&
RACE=A10&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE= (last visited June
26, 2017).
128

129

Fla. Const. art. X, § 21.

Id.

130

Id.; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.082(4)(a) (2017).

107

Or. Rev. Stat. § 632.840 (2011).

131

Fla. Const. art. X, § 21(d).

108

Or. Rev. Stat. § 632.850 (2011).

132

109

Or. Rev. Stat. § 632.840 (2011).

106

See St. of Ariz. Official Canvas: 2006 General Election, 15 (2006),
http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/Canvass2006GE.pdf.

Farm Animal Program, Am. Humane Ass’n, American Welfare
Standards for Layers- Enriched Colony Housing (2012) (revised2015).
110

Or. Rev. Stat. § 632.840 (2011); see also Cage Requirements,
Oregon.gov, http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/
Publications/InternalServices/EggLayingHenCageRequirements.
pdf (last visited June 26, 2017) (detailing the phase-in schedule for
Oregon’s egg-laying hens).
111

This will likely include requirements for nest boxes, perches, andlitter material that allows for dust bathing and scratching.

133

Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric, Hogs andPigs 13 (2007), http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/
HogsPigs//2000s/2007/HogsPigs-12-27-2007.pdf.
135Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2910.08.

136

Id.

137

Id.

112

113

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.25.065 (2012).

114

Id.

115

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.25.107 (2012).

116

4 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §§ 4-1.1-3., 4-1-6.1 (2012).

117

4 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 4-1-6.1.

118

Id.

119

4 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 4-1-1 (2018).

See California Proposition 2, Standard for Confining Farm
Animals (2008), Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/California_
Proposition_2,_Standards_for_Confining_Farm_Animals_(2008)(laying out the elements and impacts of Proposition 2).
138

Id.; see also Jonathan R. Lovvorn & Nancy V. Perry, California
Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law, 15 Animal L.
149, 167 (2009).
139

Tracie Cone, Westland/Hallmark Meat Settlement Reached
After Major Meat Recall, Associated Press (Nov. 16, 2012),
reprinted in The San Diego Tribune (Nov. 16, 2012), http://www.
sandiegouniontribune.com/.
140

For examples of these exemptions, see Or. Rev. Stat. § 600.150(2008) (regulating the restrictive confinement of a pregnant pig);
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 35-50.5-102 (2008) (providing exemptions forthe confinement of calves raised for veal and pregnant sows); Me.
Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, § 4020 (2009) (creating exceptions for the cruelconfinement of calves raised for veal and sows during gestation).

141

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990 (2015).

142

Id.

120

See Nat’l Dairy Farm Program, Nat’l Milk Producers Federation,
Animal Care reference Manual 10 (2016) (phasing out tail docking
by January 1, 2017); see also American Veal Association Resolution,
Am. Veal Ass’n (May 9, 2007), https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/56b1263940261d30708d14b4/t/56be130327d4bdc613a777
7a/1455297284477/GRP_HOUSING_RESOL1-0507.pdf (requiring thetransition from veal crates to group housing conditions by December
31, 2017) [hereinafter Veal Resolution].
121

Ariz. rev. Stat. § 13-2910.07 (2012).

134

California Department of Food and Agriculture Egg Safety Rule
Questions and Answers, Cal. Dep’t Food & Agric., https://www.cdfa.
ca.gov/ahfss/mpes/pdfs/EggSafetyRuleQA.pdf (last visited June 26,2017) (showing that the California Department of Agriculture finds
the 116 square inch requirement to be “harmonious” with §§ 25990-25994 of the California Health and Safety Code); see also About
Cage-Free California, Humane Soc’y U.S., http://cagefreeca.com/(last visited June 26, 2017).
143

144

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25993 (2015).

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 19 ­­­­­­

Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal
Confinement Question 3 (2016), Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.
org/Massachusetts_Minimum_Size_Requirements_for_Farm_
Animal_Containment,_Question_3_(2016) (last visited July 17, 2017)[hereinafter Massachusetts Question 3].
145

146

Id.

147

Id.

Id.

See Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, 118 F.Supp. 1195, 1207-1208(D. Idaho, 2015) (finding that Idaho failed to meet the constitutional
test of strict scrutiny).
165

Shira Schoenberg, Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Upholds Farm
Animal Ballot Question Banning ‘Extreme Confinement, MassLive(July 6, 2016, 1:17 PM), http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.
ssf/2016/07/sjc_upholds_farm_animal_ballot.html.
149

Massachusetts Question 3, supra note 142.

150

Miller, supra note 117.

151

Massachusetts Question 3, supra note 142.

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2018)

166

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Utah2017).
167

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds No. 4:17-cv-362 (S.D. Iowa
Oct. 10, 2017).
168

Marsha Laux, Egg Profile, Agric. Marketing Resource Ctr., http://
www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/livestock/poultry/eggsprofile/ (last visited June 27, 2017).
152

Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Livestock
Slaughter 2012 Summary (2013), http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/
usda/nass/LiveSlauSu//2010s/2013/LiveSlauSu-04-22-2013.pdf(explaining that Iowa produced 6,638.2 million pounds, Kansas
5,274.2 million pounds, and Texas 5,013.9 million pounds).
153

Kelly Madrone, Big Ag Wants to Silence You, Humane Soc’yU.S (Dec. 14, 2016), http://www.humanesociety.org/news/
magazines/2017/01-02/big-ag-right-to-farm.html.
154

See Mark Bittman, Who Protects the Animals?, N.Y. Times:
Opinionator (April 26, 2011), https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.
com/2011/04/26/who-protects-the-animals/.
155

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 47-1827 (2006) (stating that no person shall with
the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility,
take pictures or video recordings); Mont. Code Ann. § 81-30-103(1991) (stating that a person who does not have the consent of theowner, with the intent to damage the enterprise and to commit
criminal defamation, may not enter a facility to take photos orvideo); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-21.1-02 (1991) (stating that no person
shall, without the effective consent of the owner, enter an animal
facility and use or attempt to use a camera or other recording
equipment).
156

Iowa Code § 717A.3A (2012).

Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 (2012); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.013(2012); A court decision is pending alleging the law violates theFirst Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, see Animal Legal Def.
Fund v. Herbert, No. 2:13CV00679, 2013 WL 4017889 (D. Utah 2013).
158

Idaho Code § 18-7042 (2014) (held unconstitutional by Animal
Legal Defense Fund v. Otter).
159

An Act to Protect Property Owners From Damages Resulting
From Individuals Acting in Excess of the Scope of Permissible Accessand Conduct Granted to Them, ch. 99A, § 1, 2015 N.C. Sess. Laws 50(codified as amended N.C. Gen. State. §§ 99A-1 to 99A-2), http://
www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H405v5.pdf.
160

H.B. 405, N.C. Gen. Assemb., 2015 Sess. (N.C. 2015) (ratified),
http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.
aspx?SessionCode=2015&DocNum=5076&SeqNum=0; see also
Ag-Gag Legislation by State, ASPCA.org, https://www.aspca.org/
animal-protection/public-policy/ag-gag-legislation-state (lastvisited June 27, 2017) (detailing the evolution of the North Carolina
ag-gag legislation).
161

Dan Flynn, Arkansas Lawmakers take ‘Civil’ Approach With New
Ag-Gag Laws, Food Safety News (March 24, 2017), http://www.
foodsafetynews.com/2017/03/arkansas-lawmakers-take-civilapproach-with-new-ag-gag-law/#.WVKRdmp0yM8.
163

164

148

157

See H.B. 1665, 91st Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2017) (enacted).

162

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Stein, No. 171669, 2018 WL 2714684 (4th Cir. June 5, 2018).
169

Ga. Code Ann. § 2-1-6 (2009); 2; Okl. Stat. tit. 2 § 2-4c (2009); S.C.
Code Ann. § 47-4-160 (2009); Ala. Code § 2-15-5 (2010).
170

171

Ohio Const. art. XIV, § 1.

172

Id.

Lindsay Vick, Confined to a Process: the Preemptive Strikeof Livestock Care Standards Boards in Farm Animal Welfare
Regulation, 18 Animal L. 151,154 (2011).
173

Ohio Admin. Code 901:12-1-04 (2011) (allowing the use of physicalmethods of euthanasia for farm animals); Ohio Admin Code 4741-113 (2010) (permitting physical alterations of livestock); see also Ohio
Admin. Code 901: 12-3-03(G) (2016) (requiring livestock management
procedures be performed humanely).
174

Ohio Admin Code 901:12-8 (2016); Ohio Admin. Code 901:12-5(2016); Ohio Admin. Code 901:12-6 (2016).
175

176

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, § 792 (2017).

177

Id.

178

Id.

Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council, Transportation
Guidelines for Cattle (2015), http://agriculture.vermont.gov/sites/
ag/files/pdf/animal_health/Cattle%20Transport%20Website%20
Final%20April%202016.pdf; Livestock Care Standards Advisory
Council, Transportation Guidelines for Newborn Calves (2016),
http://agriculture.vermont.gov/sites/ag/files/Calf%20Transport%20
Website%20Material%20Final.pdf.
179

Position Statement, Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council,
Tail Docking Statement (Feb. 8, 2012), http://agriculture.vermont.
gov/sites/ag/files/pdf/animal_health/Position%20Statement%20-%20tail%20docking%20-%20%202012.pdf.
180

181

Id.

See Vt. Gen. Assembly, S. 107 An Act Relating to Docking the Tailof a Horse or Bovine, Vermon.gov, http://legislature.vermont.gov/
bill/status/2012/S.107 (last visited June 27, 2017) (indicating thehistory and current status of the bill).
182

Position Statement, Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council,
Use of Swine Gestation Crates (Jan. 10, 2013), http://agriculture.
vermont.gov/sites/ag/files/pdf/animal_health/LCSAC%20swine%20
gestation%20crate%20position%20statement%20January%202013.
pdf.
183

184

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 257.192 (2010).

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 20 ­­­­­­

185

302 Ky. Admin. Regs. 21:030 (2014).

212

186

Id.

213

187

Id.; 302 Ky. Admin. Regs. 21:020 (2014).

188

Utah Code Ann. § 4-2-7 (2016).

189

20 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-525 (2010).

AVA Confirms “Mission Accomplished” American Veal
Association (Jan 8, 2018) http://www.americanveal.com/avapolicies/2018/1/7/ava-confirms-mission-accomplished-membercompanies-and-farms-complete-transition-to-group-housing
214

W. Va. Code § 19-1C-4 (2013).

191

W. Va. Code §§ 73-1-1 to 73-1-21 (2016).

192

Ind. Code Ann. § 15-17-3-23 (2011).

Livestock Bill Will See Action This Week at Indiana Statehouse,
Beef Magazine, (Feb. 16, 2010), http://beefmagazine.com/
government/0217-livestock-bill-indiana-state.
193

National Milk Producers Federation, NMPF Board Advances
Phase-Out of Tail Docking (2015), http://www.nmpf.org/latestnews/press-releases/oct-2015/nmpf-board-advances-phase-outtail-docking.

See Associated Press, Farm-Animal Treatment Could be on
Michigan’s 2010 Ballot, MLive (July 13, 2009, 12:40 PM), http://www.
mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/farmanimal_treatment_could_
be.html.

United Egg Producers, Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S.
Egg Laying Flocks 10 (2016), http://www.uepcertified.com/pdf/2010uep-animal-welfare-guidelines.pdf.
216

217

194

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.746 (2010).

The factors are (1) the health and husbandry of the livestock andpoultry, (2) generally accepted farm management practices, (3)generally accepted veterinary standards and practices, and (4) the
economic impact the standards may have on livestock and poultry
farmers, the affected livestock and poultry sector, and consumers.
Ind. Code Ann. § 15-17-3-23.
196

197

345 Ind. Admin. Code 14-2-3 (2011).

See 345 Ind. Admin. Code 14-2-5 (2011) (stating “A person
handling, restraining, or transporting livestock or poultry must use
methods and equipment that can reasonably be expected to prevent
an injury that would endanger the life or health of animals of thatspecies, breed, sex, and age, raised using the applicable production
method”).
198

4 R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-26-5 (2013); the board is differentiated fromother livestock boards because it holds a seat for “a representativefrom a national nonprofit animal welfare entity.”
199

The R.I. Livestock Welfare & Care Standards Advisory Council,
Livestock Welfare and Care Standards 13 (2014), http://www.
dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/agricult/pdf/livestock_welfare_standards_2014.pdf.
200

201

Id. at 14.

202

Id. at 13.

203

Id. at 16.

204

La. Rev. Stat. § 3:2095.1 (2010).

205

Id.

206

Id.

207

La. Admin. Code tit. 7, § 2103 (2017).

208

Id. at § 2111.

Industry News, Safeway Announces Progress in Eliminating
Controversial Pig Cages from Supply Chain, Directs Suppliers toProvide Plans for Meeting Demand, Food & Beverage Magazine,
https://www.fb101.com/2013/12/safeway-announces-progress-ineliminating-controversial-pig-cages-from-supply-chain-directssuppliers-to-provide-plans-for-meeting-demand/ (last visited June
27,2017).
218

How Demand for Cage-Free Eggs is Pushing Farmers to Look for
the Sunny-Side, Mic (July 21, 2016), https://mic.com/articles/149333/
how-demand-for-cage-free-eggs-is-pushing-farmers-to-look-forthe-sunny-side#.oepkZduDg
219

Letter from Shane Miller & Dean Danilson, Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., to Pork Suppliers (Jan. 8, 2014), http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah
UKEwjwntzju-DRAhXnr1QKHa9RAPwQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2
F%2Fwww.tysonfoods.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FCorporate%2FMedi
a%2FPosition%2520Statements%2FPork%2520Supplier%2520Lett
er%25201-8-14.ashx&usg=AFQjCNGA92Nq8T_TqDx-ypEKTv6LPvXH2
g&sig2=5kuXc3znkegADKeS4gY92w.
220

2 Major Food Suppliers Adopt Widespread Animal Welfare
Policies for Broiler Chickens, Organic Authority, http://www.
organicauthority.com/2-major-food-suppliers-adopt-widespreadanimal-welfare-policies-for-broiler-chickens/ (last visited August17, 2018).
221

Id. Tyson contract farmers only account for approximately 5
percent of the company’s hog supply in North America.
222

OIE’s Achievement in Animal Welfare, World Org. for Animal
Health, http://www.oie.int/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-keythemes/ (last visited June 27, 2017).
Canadian Cattlemen’s Assoc. & Nat’l Farm Animal Care Council,
Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle (2013),
http://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/beef_code_of_practice.pdf.
224

Nat’l Farm Animal Care Council, Code of Practice for the Careand Handling of Pullets and Laying Hens (2017), http://www.nfacc.
ca/pdfs/codes/pullets_and_laying_hens_code_of_practice.pdf.
225

Nat’l Farm Animal Care Council, Code of Practice for the Careand Handling of Pigs 11(2014), http://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/
pig_code_of_practice.pdf.
226

National Chicken Council, National Chicken Council
Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist for Broilers
9 (2014), http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/NCC-Guidelines-Broilers-August2015.pdf.
La. Admin. Code tit. 7, § 2111 (2017).

Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms Eliminating Confinement by
Crate, Humane Soc’y U.S. (Feb. 22, 2007), http://www.humanesociety.
org/assets/pdfs/farm/strauss_veal_marcho_farms.pdf.
211

Id. at 10-11.

223

209

210

Nat’l Dairy Farm Program, supra note 119.

215

190

195

Veal Resolution, supra note 119.

227

Id.

228

Id.

229

Id. at 18-19.

230

Id. at 33.

231

Id. at 34.

October 2018

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS ON FARMS ❊ PAGE 21 ­­­­­­