Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade

Law and Contemporary Problems

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 325-358

  Matheny, Gaverick ^a   Leahy, Cheryl ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b Compassion Over Killing ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548386955     PISSN: 00239186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (286)

1. David J. Wolfson & Mariann Sullivan, Foxes in the Hen House: Animals, Agribusiness, and the Law: A Modern American Fable, in ANIMAL RIGHTS: CURRENT DEBATES AND NEW DIRECTIONS 205,206 (Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum eds., 2004).
2. Id. at 206-07.
3. Id.
4. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., LIVESTOCK TRACK RECORDS SEPT. 2004 (2004), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ livestock/pls-bb/lvst0904.txt.
5. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER 2003 SUMMARY (2004); available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ livestock/pls-bban/Isan0304.txt
6. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., POULTRY SLAUGHTER 2003 ANNUAL SUMMARY (2004), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ poultry/ppy-bban/pslaan04.txt.
7. DAVID HARVEY, U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., AQUACULTURE OUTLOOK 2006 (2006), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ current/LDP-AQS/LDP-AQS-10-05-2006.pdf.
8. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., TURKEYS RAISED 2004 (2004), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/pth-bbt/ tuky0104.txt.
9. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., CHICKEN AND EGGS 2003 SUMMARY (2004), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ poultry/pec-bbl/lyegan04.txt.
10. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., U.S. HOG BREEDING HERD STRUCTURE 3 (2002), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ livestock/hog-herd/spehog02.pdf.
11. The term "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) term, created for purposes of water-pollution regulation. EPA defines CAFO as a. New and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the numbers of animals specified [e.g. 30,000 to 100,000 laying hens or broilers depending on the manure handling systems, 55,000 turkeys, 700 mature dairy 4 cattle].... b. New and existing operations which discharge pollutants into navigable waters either through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device, or directly into waters of the United States, and which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period .... Provided, however, that no animal feeding operation is a concentrated animal feeding operation as defined above if such animal feeding operation discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, WATER ENFORCEMENT BRANCH, CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (2006), available at htt://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/cafo/cafodef.htm. Although CAFO has a specific legal definition unrelated to animal welfare, it is a term used by those interested in animal welfare to indicate a facility in which at least a certain number of animals are confined. Animal advocates consider CAFOs "factory farms." Therefore, when referring to a specific entity or a group of specific entities or sites that intensively confine animals, animal advocates often use "CAFO" as a term synonymous with "factory farm." See, e.g., The Grace Factory Farm Project, Guide to Confronting a CAFO (2006), http://www.factoryfarm.org/guide/ (listing ways to combat the start of a CAFO). Although not identical, the two terms will be used interchangeably in this article.
12. See Gary Francione, Animals - Properly or Persons?, in ANIMAL RIGHTS: CURRENT DEBATES AND NEW DIRECTIONS, supra note 1, at 108,209 (noting the definition of "factory farming" ).
13. Bernard E. Rollin, An Ethicist's Commentary on Animal Rights Versus Welfare, 43 CAN. VETERINARY J. 913, 913 (2002).
14. Donald Broom, Does Present Legislation Help Animal Welfare?, in SUSTAINABLE ANIMAL PRODUCTION § 2.7 (2000), available at http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5alegisl.htm.
15. Id.
16. Marc Kaufman, In Pig Farming, Growing Concern Raising Sows in Crates Is Questioned, WASH. POST, June 18,2001, at A1.
17. G. Tom Tabler & A.M. Mendenhall, Broiler Nutrition, Feed Intake and Grower Economics, 5 AVIAN ADVICE 8, 9 (Winter 2003).
18. Id.
19. BERNARD ROLLIN, FARM ANIMAL WELFARE 119 (1995).
20. Joy Mench, The Welfare of Poultry in Modern Production Systems, 4 POULTRY SCI. REV. 107, 112 (1992).
21. Press Release, Nat'l Institute for Animal Agric., Vet Schools to Re-shape, Curricula to Meet 21st Century Challenges (Apr. 11, 2005), available at http://animalagriculture.org/headline/2005NR/ NR_2005Osburn.htm.
22. Personal correspondence with Bill Roenigk, Vice President of National Chicken Council (Feb. 23, 2004) (on file with author); Allan Rahn, An Economic Perspective on the United Egg Producers' Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks 1 (Nov. 26, 2002), available at http://www.msu.edu/user/rahn/Publications/MWPF02Paper.pdf (revised paper originally presented to the Midwest Poultry Federation Convention on Mar. 21, 2002).
23. See, e.g., Rollin supra note 19;
24. THE WELL-BEING OF FARM ANIMALS: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS (G. John Benson & Bernard Rollin eds., 2004);
25. MEASURING AND AUDITING BROILER WELFARE (Claire Weeks & Andrew Butterworth eds., 2004);
26. WELFARE OF THE LAYING HEN (G.C. Perry ed., 2004);
27. SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON ANIMAL HEALTH AND ANIMAL WELFARE, THE WELFARE OF CHICKENS KEPT FOR MEAT PRODUCTION (BROILERS) (2000), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf;
28. SCIENTIFIC VETERINARY COMM., THE WELFARE OF INTENSIVELY KEPT PIGS (1997), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/ fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdf [hereinafter SVC 1997];
29. SCIENTIFIC VETERINARY COMM., THE WELFARE OF LAYING HENS (1996), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/ out33_en.pdf [hereinafter SVC 1996];
30. SCIENTIFIC VETERINARY COMM., REPORT ON THE WELFARE OF CALVES (1995), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ oldcomm4/out35_en.pdf [hereinafter SVC 1995].
31. AM. MEAT INST., FACT SHEET: OVERVIEW OF U.S. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 1 (2004), available at http://meatami.com/content/presscenter/factsheets_Infokits/ FactSheetMeatProductionandConsumption.pdf.
32. Gerald Havenstein et al., Growth, Livability, and Feed Conversion of 1957 Versus 2001 Broilers When Fed Representative 1957 and 2001 Broiler Diets, 82 POULTRY SCI. 1500, 1506-07, (2003).
33. Peter Ferket, Tom Weights Up Seven Percent, WATT POULTRY USA, July 2004, at 32, 34.
34. SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON ANIMAL HEALTH AND ANIMAL WELFARE, supra note 23, at 80;
35. I.J.H. Duncan, Welfare Problems of Poultry, in THE WELL-BEING Of FARM ANIMALS, supra note 23;
36. J. Mench, Lameness, in MEASURING AND AUDITING BROILER WELFARE 3 (Claire Weeks & Andrew, Butterworth eds., 2004).
37. HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN THE BROILER CHICKENS-INDUSTRY 1 (2005), http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/ welfare_broiler.pdf.
38. JOHN WEBSTER, ANIMAL WELFARE: A COOL EYE TOWARDS EDEN 156 (1994 ).
39. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC. NAT'L AGRIC. STATISTICS SERV., CHICKENS AND EGGS 3 (2005), http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ poultry/pec-bb/2005/ckeg0105.pdf;
40. Rahn, supra note 22.
41. Duncan, supra note 27.
42. HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., AN HSUS REPORT: WELFARE ISSUES WITH SELECTIVE BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION IN EGG-LAYING HENS 1 (2006), available at http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/ welfiss_breeding_egg.pdf.
43. A. Bruce Webster, Welfare Implications of Avian Osteoporosis, 83 POULTRY SCI. 184, 188 (2004).
44. SVC 1996, supra note 23, at 109.
45. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., LIVESTOCK TRACK RECORDS 10 (2004), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ livestock/pls-bb/lvst0904.txt;
46. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., U.S. HOG BREEDING HERD STRUCTURE 3 (2002), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/ livestock/hog-herd/spehog02.pdf.
47. John McGlone, The Crate, in PROCEEDINGS: SYMPOSIUM ON SWINE HOUSING AND WELLBEING 35, 35 (June 5, 2), available at http://www.ces.purdue.edu/pork/sowhousing/swine_02.pdf;
48. J.L. Barnett et al., A Review of the Welfare Issues for Sows and Piglets in Relation to Housing, 52 AUSTL. J. AGRIC. RES. 1, 1 (2001).
49. SVC 1997, supra note 23, at 115-25 (noting the increased labor and equipment costs associated with changing current pig housing).
50. Id. at 145.
51. Id.
52. SVC 1995, supra note 23, at 28-29.
53. Id. at 81, 84.
54. Id. at 97-98.
55. Food and Agric. Org. of the U.N., The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004, Part I, in WORLD REV. OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE (2004), available at http://www.fao.org/ documents/show_cdr.asp.?url_file=/DOCREP/007/y5600e/y5600e04.htm.
56. Id. at tbl.1.
57. See generally Tore Håstein et al., Science-Based Assessment of Welfare: Aquatic Animals, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 529 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/ publicat/RT/2402/PDF/hastein529-547.pdf (noting the problems with aquatic farming);
58. Tore Håstein, Animal Welfare Issues Relating to Aquaculture, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON ANIMAL WELFARE: AN OIE INITIATWE (World Organization for Animal Health, Paxis, Fr.), Feb. 23-25, 2004, at 219, 220-21, avaible at http://www.oie.int/eng/ Welfare.2004/proceedings.pdf (explaining the different stresses placed on fish);
59. Philip Lymbery, Compassion in World Farming Trust, in TOO DEEP: THE WELFARE OF INTENSIVELY FARMED FISH (2002). available at http://www.ciwf.org/publications/reports/in_too_deep_2001.pdf;
60. DAVID L. HEIKES, UNIV. ARK AT PINE BLUFF AQUACULTURE FISHERIES CTR., CATFISH YIELD VERIFICATION TRIALS: FINAL RESULTS (1997), available at http://www.uaex.edu/aquaculture/verification/ catfish_verification/1993_1996/final_report.htm.
61. See, e.g., Compassion Over Killing, TryVeg.com, Video Room, http://www.tryveg.com/cfi/video/ (providing a selection of videofootage from investigations of various types of factory farms) (last visited Mar. 15, 2007).
62. See, e.g., AM. MEAT INST., LAYING OUT THE FACTS 3 (2004), available at http://www.meatami.com/Content/PressCenter/ AnimalCarePresentations/Head.pdf (indicating that about half of the consumer population has low knowledge of animal care practices - an additional twenty-eight percent have "medium" knowledge - and about half consider animal care "important" when choosing products to consume).
63. ZOGBY INT'L, NATIONWIDE VIEWS ON THE TREATMENT OF FARM ANIMALS 6, 9 (Oct. 22, 2003), available at http://animalwelfareadvocacy.org/ externals/AWT%20final%20%20poll%20report%2010-22.pdf.
64. Compassion Over Killing, Zogby Poll on American Attitudes Toward the Egg Industry, http://www.isecruelty.com/poll.php (last visited Feb. 19, 2007).
65. Joy Mench & Janice Swanson, Animal Welfare: Consumer Viewpoints, in U. CAL. POULTRY SYMP. & EGG PROCESSING WORKSHOPS 1, 3 (2000), available at http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/ swanson.pdf.
66. ZOGBY INT'L, supra note 48, at 6.
67. EUR. COMM'N. ATTITUDES OF CONSUMERS TOWARDS THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/ welfare/euro_barometer25_VolA_en.xls.
68. Id.
69. See id. (presenting statistics showing both complacency and ignorance among Europeans regarding animal-welfare issues).
70. There are over fifty federal laws in place that protect animals in some capacity, the most common of which protect species from environmental degradation or the health and safety aspects of animal products. See Cass R. Sunstein, A Tribute to Kenneth L. Karst: Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights), 47 UCLA L. REV. 1333, 1334 (2000). However, the HMSA and the Twenty-Eight Hour law are the only two that directly affect farm production.
71. 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-07 (2000).
72. 49 U.S.C. § 80502 (2000).
73. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2156 (2000);
74. see Sunstein, supra note 55, at 1334 ("[T]he most prominent [animal protection law] is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which contains a wide range of safeguards against cruelty and mistreatment, and which creates an incipient bill of rights for animals. If vigorously enforced, the AWA, alongside other enactments at the state and federal levels, would prevent a wide range of abusive practices.").
75. 9 C.F.R. § 1.1 (2006).
76. See Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 206 (noting that ninety-eight percent of all animals are raised for food).
77. 7 U.S.C. § 1902(a)(2000).
78. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., KEY FACTS: HUMANE SLAUGHTER (2001), available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fac_Sheets/ Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp ("The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the Agency within USDA responsible for ensuring compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.").
79. HMSA applies only to "livestock." 7 U.S.C. § 1902(a) (2000). It specifically does not apply to poultry. Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter, 70 Fed. Reg. 56,624, 56,624-25 (Sept. 28, 2005) ("The HMSA of 1978 (7 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) requires that humane methods be used for handling and slaughtering livestock but does not include comparable provisions concerning the handling and slaughter of poultry... [T]here is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry.").
80. See Press Release, Humane Soc'y of the U.S., Still A Jungle Out There: The HSUS takes USDA to Court to Ensure a Humane End for Birds (Nov. 21, 2005), available at http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ ournews/still_a_jungle_out_there.html (explaining the current legal challenges).
81. 49 U.S.C. § 80502 (2000).
82. 60 Fed. Reg. 48,362, 48,365 (Sept. 19, 1995) ("The Twenty-Eight Hour Law does not apply to transport by truck."). See generally 9 C.F.R. §§ 89.1-89.5 (2006) (implementing the Twenty-Eight Hour Law through USDA regulations);
83. Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 208 (noting the impact of the law).
84. See Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 208 (noting these conditions);
85. see also COMPASSION OVER KILLING, COK INVESTIGATION EXPOSES FARMED ANIMAL SUFFERING DURING INTERSTATE TRANSPORT (July 2005), available at http://www.cok.net/feat/usti.php (publishing the results of an investigation of numerous occasions of animals being transported for more than twenty-eight hours.).
86. The Humane Society of the U.S., Farm Sanctuary, Compassion Over Killing, and Animals' Angels filed a petition for rulemaking with the USDA on October 4, 2005, requesting application of the law to truck transport to prevent animal suffering. The petition is avaliable at HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., PETITION BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (2005), available at http://www.hsus.org/ web-files/PDF/farm/28hr-petition-Mon-Oct-3.pdf.
87. Letter from W. Ron DeHaven, USDA Administrator, APHIS, to Peter Brandt, Humane Soc'y, of the U.S. (Sept. 22, 2006) (on file with author).
88. Philip Brasher, USDA Says Rule on Livestock Applies to Trucks, DES MOINES REG., Sept. 29. 2006 at 1D, available at http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/ BUSINESS01/609290384/1029/BUSINESS;
89. see also Clay v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 231 N.Y.S. 424, 428 (App. Div. 1928) ("[T]he [Twenty-Eight Hour Law] does not apply. Its provisions are confined to the transportation of animals in these words: 'cattle, sheep, swine, or other animals.' It does not apply to poultry; birds are not animals.");
90. 9 C.F.R. § 89.1(a) (setting out feeding and recommendations by species under the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, with no mention of poultry).
91. See S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 497, 654 (1980) (referring to Twenty-Eight Hour violations in 196) and 1961).
92. Letter from DrHaven, supra note 69.
93. 49 U.S.C. § 80502(d) (2000).
94. See Baltimore & Ohio Sw. R.R. Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 94, 104-06 (1911) (noting that the violation is calculated by shipment).
95. Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 212-16.
96. Approximately thirty states have "customary," "common," or "normal" farming-practices exemptions in their state anti-cruelty oodes, about twenty-five of which exempt all of these practices, and two states - South Carolina, S.C. CODE ANN. § 47-1-40(c) (2005),
97. and Louisiana, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:102.1(D) (2006) - exempt birds of any kind from coverage in their cruelty statutes, regardless of the type of treatment they receive.
98. See also David J. Wolfson, McLibel, 5 ANIMAL L. 21, 38-39 (1999) (explaining state statutes).
99. Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 209;
100. Wolfson, supra note 75, at 38-39.
101. See, e.g., People v. Youngblood, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776,777-79 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (upholding conviction of defendant for felony animal cruel to for keeping ninety-two cats in a seven-and-a-half-foot by eleven-foot trailer because it was determined to be cruel to provide such inadequate space for each cat). Compare Youngblood with the widespread practice of confining laying hens in battery cages. In Youngblood, each cat was given approximately 129 square inches.
102. Id. Caged laying hens, which produce the ninety-eight percent of eggs consumed in this country, are given an average of fifty-nine square inches of spac each.
103. COMPASSION OVER KILLING, A COK REPORT, ANIMAL SUPFERING IN THE EGG INDUSTRY 1 (2006), available at http://www.cok.net/images/ pdf/COKLayerReport.pdf. Because this practice s common - in fact nearly ubiquitous in the egg industry - it would be exempted under these laws.
104. See Elisea v. State, 777 N.E. 2d 46, 47-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (upholding a conviction of defendant for cropping a dog's ears with no anesthesia). Compare. Elisea with the standard practice of ear notching, tail docking, castration, and tooth cutting in piglets; all without anesthesia. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Pigs on Factory Farms, http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_pigs_farms.asp (last visited Nov. 11, 2006). Again, as a common practice, this would be exempt under these statutes.
105. The fiftieth state is North Carolina, which has a civil equivalent, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 19A-1-19A-4 (2006), to its criminal cruelty law, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-360 (2006).
106. The civil enforcement statute provides standing to any person or organization. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 19A-2.
107. However, it has never been applied in the farming context, likely due at least in part to available exemptions. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 19A-1.1 ("Lawful activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research or training or for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, or aquatic species .... Lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption."). It is unclear what "lawful," "purpose," and "primary purpose" mean, and, therefore, it is unclear exactly how broad the exemption is, which may be partly responsible for its lack of use thus far to protect farm animals.
108. These include private parties bringing filings or complaints before courts or attorneys general or acting as private prosecutors. See, e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS § 767.3 (2006) (allowing judges to hear material evidence fro private persons);
109. Ky. RCr. R. 6.04 (2006) (allowing private citizens to bring complaints to the atto ey general);
110. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9331 (2006) (allowing private prosecutors). Most promisingly, registered humane officers are allowed limited police powers and the ability to file charges in some states.
111. See Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 212-16 (explaining state-level exemptions for customary farming practices).
112. See, e.g., Humane Soc'y of the U.S., Moark Must Pay $100,000 and Overhaul Its Spent Hen Procedures to Settle Animal Cruelty Charges (Oct. 25, 2005), http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ ournews/Moark_settles_case.html (discussing criminal cruelty charges filed by HSUS in collaboration with the local prosecutor against a regional manager at an egg-factory company, MOARK, and two subcontractors for dumping live hens in a dumpster);
113. Gretchen Parker, Prosecutors Halt Complaint, Dismiss Perdue Animal Cruelty Charge, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Feb. 3, 2005, available at http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2901591 (noting that criminal charges were filed against a Perdue factory farm as a result of an animal-rights group's investigation and collaboration with the local state's attorney and sheriff, but they were later dismissed);
114. PETA, Belcross Farms Invostigation, http://www.goveg.com/belcross.asp (last visited Sept. 26, 2006) (discussing an investigation of Belcross Farm);
115. PETA, Seaboard Farms Investigation, http://www.goveg.com/seaboard.asp (last visited Feb. 23, 2007) (discussing the Seaboard Farms investigation);
116. Compassion Over Killing, New, COK Investigation Leads to Criminal Charges of Animal Cruelty, http://www.cok.net/feat/paefi.php (last visited Nov. 17, 2005) (noting thirty-five counts of criminal cruelty that were filed each against owner of the egg-factory-farm company, Esbenshade Farms, and against the manager of the egg-factory-farm facility through coordination with a Humane Officer; the case is likely to be ruled on in mid-April, 2007);
117. PETA, Pig Abusers Charged with Felony Cruelty to Animals at Seaboard Farms, Inc., Summer 2001, http://www.peta.org/about/ victoryItem.asp?VictoryID=87 (discussing the successful investigation of pig factory farms and finding extreme cruelty, causing the court to bring felony animal-cruelty indictments against two separate sets of pig-factory-farm employees for two separate incidents on two separate farms - Belcross farms in 1999 and Seaboard farms in 2001; these mark the first and second time felony cruelty charges were brought against factory-farm employees);
118. PETA, Wisconsin Farmer is Charged with 75 Misdemeanors for Neglect, Summer 2003, http://www.peta.orglabout/victoryItem.asp? VictoryID=107 (discussing how PETA worked with a local district attorney to bring criminal misdemeanor charges arising from the starvation of one hundred sheep, lambs, and cows).
119. See, e.g., Compassion Over Killing, "Animal Care Certified" Eggs (2005), http://www.cok.net/camp/acc/ (reporting that Compassion Over Killing filed a petition prompting the Better Business Bureau (BBB) to rule that the United Egg Producers' (UEP) use of the "Animal Care Certified" logo was misleading; after a BBB ruling favorable to COK and support from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), UEP discontinued the label);
120. Egg Industry to Drop Logo, ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE EXAMINER, Sept. 21, 2006, available at http://www.examiner.com/a-302139~Egg_Industry_to_Drop_logo.html (describing the recent settlement agreement in which the egg industry was required to pay $100,000 for costs and attorneys' fees and in which it agreed to permanently remove the "Animal Care Certified" label);
121. PETA, PETA's Lawsuit Forces KFC to Stop Lying About Conditions for Chickens, Fall 2003, http://www.peta.org/about/ VictoryItem.asp?VictoryID=110 (discussing how PETA entered into a settlement with KFC resulting in KFC removing certain misleading animal welfare claims from its website).
122. See generally Carter J. Dillard, False Advertising, Animals, and Ethical Consumption, 10 ANIMAL L. 24 (2004) (discussing arguments against denying moral rights to animals);
123. Donna Mo, Comment, Unhappy Cows and Unfair Competition: Using Unfair Competition Laws to Fight Farm Animal Abuse, 52 UCLA L. REV. 1313 (2005) (discussing using unfair competition laws to fight animal abuse).
124. See generally Los Angeles Humane Soc'y, Bureau of Humane Law Enforcement (BHLE), Cases, http://www.bhl.org/cases.html (last visited Nov. 18, 2006) (explaining recent cases of humane officers in California; BHLE certifies and trains humane, officers in California as part of its animal-advocacy agenda. Note, however, that the BBLE recently lost its certification, and is currently no longer in operation).
125. E.g., Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 943 F. Supp. 44,54-55 (D.D.C. 1996) (finding that zoo visitors have standing based on their "aesthetic benefit from seeing the animals treated humanely" and corresponding "aesthetic injury" from witnessing their mistreatment), aff'd en banc, 154 F.3d 426 (D.C.Cir.1998), rev'd on other grounds, 204 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Although Glickman was filed under the Animal Welfare Act, it is a significant advance in the standing doctrine and may have applicability elsewhere.
126. A recent dec sion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted standing to individual poultry consumers as part of a suit brought by HSUS and the East Bay Animal Advocates challenging the lack of regulation of poitltry slaughter. Press Release, Humane Soc'y of the U.S., Judge Clears Way for HSUS Lawsuit Challenging Inhumane Poultry Slaughter (Sept. 8, 2006), available at http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/judge_clears_hsus_hms_suit.html.
127. Jerry W. Jackson, Floridas Pig Amendment Puts Pressure on Farmers, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Nov. 9,2002, at C1, available at http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2002/floridas_pig.htm.
128. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 25980-87 (2006);
129. see also Tamiko Thomas, California Decides to Permanently Pull Foie Gtas off the Menu, Oct. &, 2004, available at http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/california_bans_foie_gras.html.
130. Fran Spielman, Phooeyl Mayor Scoffs at Council Ban on Foie Gras: Alderman Defends Vote on 'Inhumane' Delicacy, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, Apr. 26, 2006, at 3.
131. See generally Farm Sanctuary, Pending Legislation, http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/legislation.htm (last visited June 19, 2006) (listing pending legislation in various states).
132. See generally Jessica Braunschweig-Norris, Note, U.S. Egg Industry - Not All it's Cracked Up to Be for the Welfare of the Laying Hen: A Comparative Look at the United States and European Union Welfare Laws, 10 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 511 (2005) (explaining thegeneral differences in animal-welfare laws in the U.S. and E.U.).
133. Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, Oct. 3, 1976, Europ. T.S. 87.
134. Id. atart. III.
135. Council Directive 91/629,1991 O.J. (L 34) 1, 34 (EC), available at http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1991/en_1991L0629_do_001.pdf. Existing units had to conform by 2003.
136. Id. at art. III.
137. Council Directive 92/2, 1997 O.J. (L 25) 24, 24-25 (EC), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/ sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc= 31997L0002&model=guichett.
138. "Barren" batteries of cages are those without such "furnishing" as perches, scratching devices, nest boxes, and a litter area for dustbathing. SVC1996, supra note 23, at 103-04.
139. Council Directive 1999/74, 1999 O.J. (L203) 1, 5 (EC), available at http://europa.eu/eurlex/en/consleg/pdf/1999/ en_1999L0074_do_001.pdf.
140. PETER STEVENSON, COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING, EUROPEAN UNION LAW ON THE WELFARE OF FARM ANIMALS 12 (2004), available at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/EU_Law_2004.pdf.
141. Commission Directive 2001/93, 2001 O.J.(L 316), 36, 36-38 (EU), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_316/ l_31620011201en00360038.pdf.
142. Id.
143. Vincenzo Caporale et al., Global Perspectives on Animal Welfare: Europe, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 567, 570-72 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2402/PDF/ caporale567-577.pdf.
144. CLARE DRUCE & PHILIP LYMBERY, OUTLAWED IN EUROPE (2002), http://www.ari-online.org/pages/europe_7_vealcrating.html (last visited Dec. 28,2006).
145. JOEK ROEX & MARA MIELE, FARM ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS 118-20 (2005).
146. Id.
147. Id. at 120-21.
148. Id.
149. HEINZPETER STUDER, UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, HOW SWITZERLAND GOT RID OF BATTERY CAGES 25 (2001), available at http://www.upc-online.org/battery_hens/SwissHens.pdf (explain the various ways of preventing cages such as requiring government inspection and regulation of any new poultry house).
150. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE LAYING DOWN MINIMUM RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHICKENS KEPT FOR MEAT PRODUCTION (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/proposal_EN.pdf.
151. D: Density ano housing limHts; PS: humane poultry slaughter (except in religious sVaughSer); GC: Gestation crates, ST: sow tethers, VC: veal crates, VT: BFal tethers; BC: battery cages; FC: furnished cages; BT: beak trimming; C: Castration without anesthesia.
152. DRUCE & LYMBERY, supra note 101.
153. Michael Appleby, The EU Ban on Battery Cages. History and Prospects, in STATE OF THE ANIMALS II 159 (Deborah J. Salem & Andrew N. Rowan eds., 2003).
154. See ROEX & MIELE supra note 102, at 117 (noting the various protections in the E.U. and that none such eidst in the U.S.).
155. PETER STEVENSON, COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING, EUROPEAN UNION LAW ON THE WELFARE OF FARN ANIMALS (2004), available at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/EU_Law_2004.pdf.
156. David Blandford et al., Potential Implications of Animal Welfare Concerns and Public Policies, in GLOBAL GOOD TRADE AND CONSUMER DEMAND FOR QUALITY (2002).
157. Personal correspondence, Martin Balluch (Apr. 14, 2006) (on file with author).
158. SWISS FEDERAL COUNCIL, ANIMAL WELFARE ORDINANCE (2001), available at http://www.bvet.admin.ch/tierschutz/ index.html?lang=en&download=02926_en.pdf.
159. The Five Freedoms are: Freedom from hunger and thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor; Freedom from discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area; Freedom from pain, injury or disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment; Freedom to express normal behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind; and Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering. OFFICE INTERNATIOINAL DES EPIZOOTIES (OIE), ANIMAL HEALTH CODE 2006 § 3.7.1.1, available at http://oie.int/eng/Normes/mcode/en_chapitre_3.7.1.htm.
160. See, e.g., OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DES EPIZOOTIES (OIE), ANIMAL HEALTH CODE 2006 § 3.7.1.1, available at http://oie.int/eng/Normes/mcode/en_chapitre.3.7.1.htm (listing the five freedoms as part of the Animal Health Code).
161. ANDREW ROWAN ET AL., TUFTS, C. FOR ANIMALS & PUB. POL'Y, FARM ANIMAL WELFARE: THE FOCUS OF ANIMAL PROTECTION IN THE USA IN THE 21ST CENTURY 7-9 (1999).
162. See also a Part of Creation, ECONOMIST, Aug. 19, 1995, at 19 (detailing farm-animal activism in Britain).
163. ROWAN ET AL., supra note 118, at 6.
164. David Wilkim et al., Animal Welfare: The Role of Non-Governmental Organisations, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 625, 632 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2402/PDF/ wilkins625-638.pdf.
165. Caporale et al., supra note 100, at 574.
166. See generally James Moynagh, EU Regulation and Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare, 3 AGBIOGFORUM 107 (2000) (explaining the regulations of the SCAHAW).
167. Appleby, supra note 110, at 171.
168. See, e.g., M.S. Dawkins & S. Hardie, Space Needs of Laying Hens, 30 BRIT. POULTRY SCI. 413 (1989) (studying space needs of hens).
169. See generally Per Jensen, Observations on the Maternal Behaviour of Free-Ranging Domestic Pigs, 16. APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAV. SCI. 131 (1986) (noting the behavior of pigs in different environmental situations).
170. See generally SUE GORDON, EFFECT OF BREED SUITABILITY, SYSTEM DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ON WELFARE AND PERFORMANCE OF TRADITIONAL AND ORGANIC TABLE BIRDS (2002) (explaining oiganic animal production);
171. SUE GORDON & DAVID CHARLES, NICHE AND ORGANIC CHICKEN PRODUCTS: THEIR TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES (2002) (explaining other methods of animal production).
172. Duncan, supra note 27.
173. Mench, supra note 27, at 3.
174. ANNE FANATICO & HOLLY BORN, LABEL ROUGE: PASTURE-BASED POULTRY PRODUCTION IN FRANCE 2 (2002), available at http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/labelrouge.pdf (explaining one type of slow-growth breed in France).
175. Id. at 9.
176. Appleby, supra note 110, at 163-65.
177. SVC 1996, supra note 23, at 99-104.
178. Id. at 103-04.
179. SVC 1997, supra note 23, at 140.
180. JACKY TURNER, COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING TRUST, THE WELFARE OF EUROPE'S SOWS IN CLOSE CONFINEMENT STALLS 33 (2000), available at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/ the_welfare_of_europes_sows_in_close_confinement_stalls_2000.pdf.
181. SVC 1995, supra note 23, at 97-98.
182. See J.A. Mench & J.C. Swanson, Developing Science-Based Animal Welfare Guidelines, U.C. Davis 2000 Poultry Symposium and Egg Processing Workshop 3 tbl.1 (2000), http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/ mench.pdf (indicating that wing stretching requires 144 square inches of space).
183. As discussed supra, the average space a battery hen is allowed in the U.S. is approximately half that. Dr. Mench was a member of the UEP's Scientific Advisory Committee on Animal Welfare. SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL WELFARE, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UEP ANIMAL WELFARE GUIDELINES 3 (2000).
184. Wilkins et al., supra note 121, at 631.
185. Personal correspondence with Bill Roenigk, Vice President of National Chicken Council (Feb. 23, 2004);
186. Personal correspondence with Larry Cizzek, National Pork Board (Feb. 19 2004);
187. Personal correspondence with the Research Department, National Cattlemen's Beef Association (Feb. 19, 2004);
188. Rahn, supra note 22.
189. See supra note 89 (listing how the author calculated the aforementioned percentages).
190. MICHELLE JENDRAL, ALTA. EGG PRODUCERS & ALTA. FARM ANIMAL CARE ASS'N, ALTERNATIVE LAYER HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN EUROPE (2005), available at http://www.afac.ab.ca/reports/reporthenhousing.pdf;
191. ROEX & MIELE, supra note 102, at 131-34.
192. See generally AGRA CEAS CONSULTING, EUR. COMM'N, STUDY ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS TO KEEP LAYING HENS (2004), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/ animal/welfare/farm/socio_economic_study_en.pdf (explaining E.U. egg production methods);
193. Landmark as Free Range Overtakes Cage, FARMING U.K., Oct. 26, 2005, available at http://www.farminguk.com/bsp/10130/ ews.asp?DBID=103-281-013-094&iPage=1&id=3679 (noting that free-range eggs have gained market share as compared to cage-egg farming).
194. ROEX & MIELE, supra note 102, at 127-30.
195. FANATICO & BORN, supra note 129, at 2.
196. Free Range Retail Price Hits All-Time Low, FARMING U.K., Apr. 20, 2006, available at http://www.farminguk.com/bsp/10130/ ews.asp?DBID=103-281-013-096&iPage=1&id=4159.
197. See infra Table 3 (listing various increases in cost for different farm practices).
198. See U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., FOOD MARKETING AND PRICE SPREADS: FARM-TO-RETAIL PRICE SPREADS FOR INDIVIDUAL FOOD ITEMS (2002), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/ spreads/table1.htm (comparing retail prices of food to the "farm value").
199. See id. (noting that in 2000 farm value represented only $0.51 out of $1.07 of retail price of chicken).
200. WEBSTER, supra note 29, at 156.
201. See KUO HUANG & BIIN-HWAN LIN, U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., ESTIMATION OF FOOD DEMAND AND NUTRIENT ELASTICITIES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA 24 (2000), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/tb1887/tb1887.pdf (listing the demand elasticities for various foods by income group).
202. See generally HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 1 (2006), http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/ (listing various reports of the conomic effects of alternative production systems).
203. Calculated by adding fifty percent to per capita meat (excluding fish), egg, and dairy expenditures in NOEL BLISARD, U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., FOOD SPENDING IN AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS: 1997-98 17 (2001), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb972/sb972.pdf (noting food spending trends);
204. HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., supra note 150 (listing various reports that show per capita food spending and economic consequences of animal-welfare improvements).
205. LUDWIG THEUVSEN ET AL., INSTITUTE FOR AGRIC. ECON., LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY BETWEEN ETHICS AND ECONOMICS: FINDING A FEASABLE WAY OUT BY TARGET COSTING? (2005), available at http://www.eaae2005.dk/ CONTRIBUTED_PAPERS/S21_292_theuvsen≙al.pdf;
206. EUROGROUP FOR ANIMAL WELFARE, INTO THE FOLD: CREATING INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVED ANIMAL WELFARE UNDER THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (2005), available at http://www.eurogroupanimalwelfare.org/pdf/ intothefold.pdf;
207. C. Andreasan et al., Swedish Animal Welfare Regulations and Their Impact on Food Animal Production, 227 J. AM. VETERINARY MED. ASS'N 37, 37-40 (2005);
208. HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., supra note 150.
209. Zogby Int'l, Poll Shows That Fast-Food Consumers Care About Chickens' Welfare (June 2, 2004), http://www.zogby.com/search/ ReadClips.dbm?ID=8379.
210. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken sells 2.5 million meals per year. YUM! Restaurants International, http://www.premier-recruit.com/kfc.doc 2 (last visited Dec. 28, 2006).
211. KFC's U.S. sales in 2005 were 5.2 billion. YUM! BRAND'S 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 26 (2006), available at http://www.yum.com/investors/ annualreport/05annualreport/pdf/yum_ar05.pdf. A cost increase of fifty million represents an extra two cents per year globally that can be covered by raising prices one percent.
212. Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (2004) (statement of Jonathan Blum, Senior Vice President, YUM! Brands), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1196&wit_id=3463 ("[I]t is our estimate that these changes, if implemented, would cost our company over $50 million.").
213. AM. MEAT INST., LAYING OUT THE FACTS 9 (2004), available at http://www.meatami.com/Content/PressCenter/ AnimalCarePresentations/Head.pdf.
214. Id.
215. HUMANE SOC'Y OF THE U.S., supra note 150.
216. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, Contingent Valuation of the Perceived Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Explanatory Survey, 47 J. AGRIC. ECON. 222, 231 (1996).
217. This share is less than one percent in the United States as previously noted.
218. David Blandford et al., Potential Implications of Animal Welfare Concerns and Public Policies in Industrialized Countries for International Trade, in GLOBAL TRADE AND CONSUMER DEMAND FOR QUALITY 6, 6, 16 (Kristoff et al. eds., 2000).
219. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY: WORLD MARKETS AND TRADE 1 (2003), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/fas/livestock-poultry-ma/lp1003.pdf.
220. EUR. COMM'N , WTO, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PROPOSAL: ANIMAL WELFARE AND TRADE IN AGRICULTURE 1 (2000), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ngw19_e.doc.
221. BRIT. PIG EXECUTIVE, AN ANALYSIS OF IMPORTED PORK AND PORK-PRODUCTS INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM 2 (2006), available at http://www.npa-uk.net/ds_portal/library/Bpex%20imports%20report%202005. pdf#search=%22u.k.%20animal%20welfare%20pork%20imports%22.
222. Quality Mark Support, MEAT NEWS, Jan. 19 2005, available at http://www.meatnews.com/ index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=8882.
223. Id.
224. Shoppers Want Better Welfare, POULTRY WORLD, Mar. 2006, at 3, 3.
225. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) art. III § 4, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
226. See Raj Bhala & David A. Gantz, WTO Case Review, 22 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 99, 126 (2005) (explaining how case law has evolved into "directly competitive or substitutable products").
227. See, e.g., Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1342 n.37 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (discussing the impact of changing definitions of "like products" under the WTO; "[b]efore determining whether a domestic industry is faced with material injury or a threat of material injury, the ITC must first determine the scope of the 'domestic industry' by defining the 'like product' under investigation. Having defined the domestic like product, it becomes possible to determine the scope of the domestic industry injured by foreign imports.");
228. PS Chez Sidney L.L.C. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1337 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) ("A 'domestic like product' is defined as 'a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.'")
229. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10) (2000));
230. NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1329 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) ("'Foreign like product' means, in descending order of preference: (1) 'identical' merchandise; (2) 'like' merchandise that is of approximately equal commercial value, component material, and use, and is produced by the same person and in the same country; or (3) 'like' merchandise that is of the 'same general class or kind' and use, and is produced by the same person and in the same country.") (internal citations omitted);
231. Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, 297 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1354-55 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003) ("The foreign like product is restricted, under any of its definitions in 19 U.S.C.S. § 1677(16), to identical or similar merchandise that is produced in the same country as the subject merchandise.").
232. See Leesteffy Jenkins & Robert Stumberg, Animal Protection in a World Dominated by the World Trade Organization, in THE STATE OF THE ANIMALS: 2001, at 149, 156-59 (2001) (explaining the various arguments for carving out these distinctions).
233. GATT, supra note 167, at art. XX.
234. According to the USDA, GATT recognizes the OIE as "the authority on animal health issue[sc]." U.S. Dep't Agric., International Services: Global Perspectives on American Agriculture, http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/coagra/intl.htm.
235. OIE's official animal health publication, the "International Animal Health Code" defines its purpose in terms of preventing sanitary and human health risks. OIE, INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH CODE (2006), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/en_code.htm ("The aim of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code... is to assure the sanitary safety of international trade in terrestrial animals and their products. This is achieved through the detailing of health measures to be used by the veterinary authorities of importing and exporting countries to avoid the transfer of agents pathogenic for animals or humans, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers.").
236. See Jenkins & Stumberg, supra note 170, at 156-59 (noting different justifications under article XX);
237. Alan Swinbank, Ethics, Trade and the WTO 10-13 (Apr. 14-17, 2000) (unpublished paper presented to the Agric. Econ. Society, Annual Conference at the Univ. of Manchester), available at http://www.apd.rdg.ac.uk/AgEcon/staff/staffpapers/AESEthics00.pdf (explaining the uncertainty of a WTO ruling on animal-welfare restrictions).
238. EUR. COMM'N, supra note 162, at 3;
239. see Anna Hobbs et al., Ethics, Domestic Food Policy and Trade Law: Assessing the EU Animal Welfare Proposal to the WTO, 27 FOOD POL'Y 437 (2002) (explaining the E.U.'s arguments and summarizing why the WTO will not implement the E.U.'s proposal).
240. OIE, INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH COED, § 3.7 (2006), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_sommaire.htm.
241. David Bayvel et al., Animal Welfare: Global Issues, Trends, and Challenges, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 475 (2005).
242. Shell eggs are eggs with intact shells as opposed to liquid eggs, which have been removed from shells.
243. Commission Regulation 91/1274, 1991 OJ. (L 121) 1, 11 (introducing detailed rules for implementing marketing standards for eggs) (EC) amended by Commission. Regulation 2001/1651, art. 18, J.O. (L 220) 1, 5.
244. WALES DEP'T ENV'T, FOOD, & RURAL AFFAIRS, EXPLANATORY LEAFLET ON LABELLING REQUIREMENTS 6 (2005), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/livestock_prods/eggs/ emr13.pdf.
245. Business Group Shells Egg-Industry Ads, MSNBC, May 11, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4951194/.
246. Lorraine Mitchell, Impact of Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare on Global Trade, in CHANGING STRUCTURE OF GLOBAL FOOD CONSUMPTION AND TRADE 80, 83-85, 88 (Anita Regmi ed., 2001), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs011/wrs011k.pdf.
247. MICHELLE JENDRAL, ALTA. EGG PRODUCERS & ALTA. FARM ANIMAL CARE ASS'N, ALTERNATIVE LAYER HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN EUROPE (2005), available at http://www.afac.ab.ca/reports/reporthenhousing.pdf;
248. ROEX & MIELE, supra note 102, at 131-34.
249. See generally AGRA CEAS CONSULTING, EUROPEAN COMM'N, STUDY ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS TO KEEP LAYING HENS (2004), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/ animal/welfare/farm/socio_economic_study_en.pdf (explaining E.U. egg-production methods).
250. See generally PETER STEVENSON, THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION RULES: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THEIR ADVERSE IMPACT ON ANIMAL WELFARE (2002). http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/ world_trade_ltga_analysis2002.pdf (detailing the legal issues raised by WTO rules);
251. DEREK EATON ET AL., AGRIC. ECON. RESEARCH INST., PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION UNDER THE WTO (2005), http://wwwei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/2005/6_xxx/6_05_11.pdf (analyzing and labeling and tariffs under WTO rules for animal welfare).
252. See EUR. COMM'N, THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, 2000 REVIEW 22 (2001), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/review00/full_en.pdf ("The impact on trade by the so-called blue and green box measures has proved, as anticipated, to be less distorting than market price support on the one hand, and payments based on output or on variable input use on the other hand.").
253. Imported battery eggs must be labeled as such. FAWC Report on Farm Welfare: Effectiveness of Labelling, http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/ 3/feed-nutrition-and-water/1686/ fawc-report-on-farm-welfare-effectiveness-of-labelling (last visited Dec. 28, 2006).
254. HEINZPETER STUDER, UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, HOW SWITZERLAND GOT RID OF BATTERY CAGES 27 (2001), http://www.upc-online.org/battery_hens/ SwissHens.pdf.
255. Id. at 31.
256. See infra text at note 204.
257. EURO. COMM'N, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: ON ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION ON FARMED ANIMALS IN THIRD COUNTRIES AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EU 12 (2002), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/ international/2002-0626_en.pdf.
258. See generally Blandford et al., supra note 160 (explaining the improvements to animal, welfare in New Zealand).
259. Hobbs et al., supra note 174, at 446.
260. See David Bowles et al., Animal Welfare and Developing Countries. Opportunities for Trade in High-Welfare Products from Developing Countries, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE, 783, 785 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2402/PDF/ bowles783-790.pdf (explaining the potential for developing countries to use animal-welfare issues to their advantage).
261. Id. at 785-86.
262. CORNELIS DE HAAN ET AL., FAO, LIVESTOCK & THE ENVIRONMENT: FINDING A BALANCE 53 (1997), available at http://www.fao.org/ docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm.
263. Such institutions include the World Bank, regional-development banks, bilateral aid agencies and the United Nations development programs.
264. Andrew Speedy, Global Production and Consumption of Animal Source Foods, 133 J. NUTRITION 4048S, 4049S (2003).
265. U.S. DEP'T AGRIC., supra note 161.
266. CHRISTOPHER DELGADO ET AL., LIVESTOCK TO 2020. THE NEXT FOOD REVOLUTION ¶ 9 (1999), available at http://www.ifpri.org/20204)riefs/number61.htm.
267. See, eg., DANIELLE NIERENBERG, HAPPIER MEALS: RETHINKING THE GLOBAL, MEAT INDUSTRY 63 (Lisa Mastney ed., 2005) (explaining how the WTO previously operated), available at http://www.plantsforhunger.org/PDF/WorldWatch%20Happier%20Meals.pdf.
268. CORNELIS DE HAAN, WORLD BANK, LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL POVERTY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND GLOBAL FOOD SECURIT 65 (2001), available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/ WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/12/11/006094946_01112104010387/Rendered/ PDF/multi0page.pdf.
269. Neil Trent et al., The State of Meat Production in Developing Countries, in STATE OF THE ANIMALS II 175, 175 (Deborah J. Salem & Andrew N. Rowan eds., 2003).
270. Personal correspondence with David Fraser, University of British Columbia (Mar. 17, 2005) (on file with author).
271. INT'L FIN. CORP., CREATING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY THROUGH IMPROVED ANIMAL WELFARE 3-4 (2006), available at http://www.ifc.org/ ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_AnimalWelfare_QuickNotet/SFILE/ Animal+Welfare+QN.pdf.
272. David Bayvel, The Use of Animals in Agriculture and Science: Historical Context, International Considerations and Future Direction, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 791, 794 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2402/PDF/ harris647-653.pdf (quoting COLIN SPEDDING., ANIMAL WELFARE (2000)).
273. Tim Harris, Animal Transport and Welfare: A Global Challenge, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 647, 651 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2402/PDF/harris647-653.pdf.
274. HEINZPETER STUDER, supra note 186, at 34.
275. AGRA CEAS CONSULTING, supra note 141, at 88.
276. Personal correspondence with Martin Balluch, President, Verein Gegen Tierfabriken (Association Against Animal Factories), Austria (Apr. 14, 2006) (on file with author).
277. HEATHER PICKETT, THE WAY FORWARD FOR EUROPE'S EGG INDUSTRY: KEEPING THE BAN ON BATTERY CAGES IN 2012, at 18 (2006), available at httpy://ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/Battery_Cages.2006.pdf.
278. Wilkins et al., supra note 121, at 631.
279. Burger King Wants Humane Treatment of Animals, UNITED PRESS INT'L, June 29, 2001.
280. Wolfson & Sullivan, supra note 1, at 225-26.
281. Personal correspondence with The Humane Soc'y of the U.S. (Mar. 28, 2006) (on file with author).
282. ROWAN ET AL., supra note 118, at 69.
283. Alex Thiermann & Sarah Babcock, Animal Welfare and International Trade, 24 REVUE SCI. ET TECHNIQUE 747, 751-53 (2005), available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2402/PDF/ thiermann747-755.pdf.
284. WILLIAM RUSSEL & REX BURCH, THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMANE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE (1959).
285. Francione believes the Conversion of people to vegan diests is an abolitionists success, because veganism reduces the number of animals exploited. Welfare improvements also reduce the number of animals exploited. They do this by increasing the price of animal products, which drives down consumption and production. In contrast, Francione argues that welfare improvements would cause a net increase in animal consumption and production, by assuaging consumers' guilt. If this were correct, most producers would, out of self-interest, happily adopt welfare improvements and reject CAFO CAFOs, Francione's argument is not well-supported.
286. The decrease can be seen by running various queries based on country and type of agriculture in the FAOSTAT database. FAOSTAT queries, Consumption: Eggs, Switzerland and Sweden, htt//faostat.fao-org/site/346/ default.aspx (last visited Dec. 28, 2006).