Animal Cruelty Laws: Exempt Farms?

Animal cruelty laws don't apply to farms because there are no federal laws that set humane care standards for animals in factory farms. While all 50 states have cruelty statutes, most exempt common farming practices, no matter how abusive. This means that the vast majority of the 9 billion land animals raised for human consumption in the US are subjected to abuses that would be illegal if inflicted on pets. These include painful physical mutilations without anaesthesia, intensive confinement in crates, cages or pens so small the animals can barely move, and overcrowding in filthy, barren sheds.

There are no federal laws that protect animals while they’re on the farm

There are no federal laws that protect animals while they are on the farm. The Animal Welfare Act, which sets minimum standards for animals used in zoos or research or sold as pets, specifically exempts animals raised for food. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the 28-Hour Law (which covers animals in transit) are weakly enforced and exempt poultry, which make up 98% of US land animals raised for food.

The vast majority of the more than 9 billion land animals raised for human consumption in the United States are subjected to a number of abuses—many of which would be illegal if forced on dogs or cats. Most farm animals are intensively confined in crates, cages or pens so small they can barely move or are overcrowded in filthy, barren sheds. Painful physical mutilations are commonly inflicted on farm animals without any anaesthesia and most are selectively bred for unnaturally high rates of production, which dramatically decreases their well-being.

While all 50 states have cruelty statutes, most explicitly exempt common farming practices, no matter how abusive. The meat industry largely defines what is and isn't animal cruelty. However, a recent court ruling in Pennsylvania could offer a new legal route for activists. The decision could lead to advocates challenging other common farming practices in the courts.

Most states exempt what are considered customary farming practices from animal cruelty laws

In the US, there are no federal laws that protect animals while they are on the farm. While all 50 states have cruelty statutes, most exempt what are considered "customary farming practices", no matter how abusive. Twenty-eight states have enacted laws that create a legal realm whereby certain acts, no matter how cruel, are outside the reach of anti-cruelty statutes as long as they are deemed "accepted", "common", "customary", or "normal" farming practices. This gives the farming community the power to define cruelty to animals in their care.

The Animal Welfare Act, which sets minimum standards for animals used in zoos or research or sold as pets, specifically exempts animals raised for food. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the 28-Hour Law (which covers animals in transport) are weakly enforced, and both exempt poultry, which make up 98% of US land animals raised for food.

In most states, animals are intensively confined in spaces so small they cannot turn around, extend their wings, or lie down comfortably, as in gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages. Other common, cruel practices include:

• Removing animals' testicles, tails, horns, beaks, or toes without anesthesia
• Starving hens to artificially restart their egg-laying cycles
• Grinding male chicks alive and killing piglets by slamming their heads on the ground
• Taking calves away from their mothers moments after birth, causing distress for both
• Severely confining calves raised for veal so they cannot turn around or stretch their limbs

The meat industry largely defines what's animal cruelty and what isn't

In the United States, there are no federal laws that protect animals while they are on the farm. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the 28-Hour Law (which covers the transport of farmed animals) are weakly enforced and both exempt poultry, which make up 98% of US land animals raised for food.

While every state has an anti-cruelty statute, most exempt what are considered "customary farming practices" or "normal farming operations". This means that certain acts, no matter how cruel, are outside the reach of anti-cruelty statutes as long as they are deemed "accepted", "common", "customary", or "normal" farming practices. This has given the farming community the power to define cruelty to animals in their care.

As a result, only more extreme acts of cruelty are potentially prosecutable under the law. However, these are typically only uncovered if an animal advocacy group sends an investigator onto one of America's tens of thousands of factory farms, which leaves most abuse undocumented and unaddressed.

The meat industry's power to define what constitutes animal cruelty is illustrated by the fact that only more extreme acts of cruelty, such as beating, stomping on, and kicking cows, are potentially prosecutable under the law. In contrast, routine yet inhumane practices, such as removing calves' horns without pain mitigation like anesthesia or anti-inflammatory drugs, are considered legal.

The ability of the meat industry to define what constitutes animal cruelty has long stymied animal lawyers and advocates who have amassed thousands of hours of footage of animal abuse through undercover investigations. However, a recent court ruling in Pennsylvania could offer a new legal route for activists. The ruling found that the district attorney of Franklin County, Pennsylvania was required to prosecute a dairy farm for animal cruelty, including common practices like dehorning calves without pain mitigation. This decision creates a precedent that could lead to advocates challenging other common farming practices in the courts.

Undercover investigations that document cruelty to farmed animals rarely result in prosecution

Undercover investigations have, however, been instrumental in exposing animal cruelty and influencing public opinion, corporate policy, and legislation. For example, the organisation Mercy For Animals sends investigators undercover into factory farms, slaughterhouses, and hatcheries, where they uncover horrific cruelty to animals. Their investigations have resulted in corporate reform, criminal prosecution of animal abusers, and legislative initiatives to protect farmed animals. Animal Equality, another organisation conducting undercover investigations, has helped shut down animal exploitation facilities and achieve historic sentences for workers convicted of animal cruelty.

Despite these successes, the impact of undercover investigations is limited by the fact that much of the abuse uncovered is completely legal. Furthermore, factory farming lobbyists have pressured state legislators to pass "ag-gag" laws aimed at intimidating and punishing those who expose animal cruelty and other issues in the meat, egg, and dairy industries. These laws include banning photos or videos of a factory farm taken without the owner's permission and making it a crime for an undercover investigator to get work at a factory farm.

Overall, while undercover investigations have played a crucial role in exposing and addressing animal cruelty in the farming industry, their effectiveness is hampered by a lack of legal protections for farmed animals and the passage of ag-gag laws that seek to silence whistleblowers.

Political and cultural factors pose major barriers to seeking justice for animal abuse documented by investigators

Factory farms are usually located in rural areas, where they are deeply woven into the fabric of the region's politics, economy, and culture. This means that sheriffs and district attorneys are often reluctant to take action, even when presented with evidence of animal cruelty. When they do pursue charges, it is usually against low-level employees who are disproportionately immigrants and are labelled as "bad apple" workers. Owners and management, who are typically white, often escape scot-free, claiming shock at the abuse and pledging to fire those responsible.

This dynamic is causing some in the animal protection movement to critically examine the carceral approach to investigative work. By getting laws passed, animal advocates have been able to ban or restrict some customary farming practices in 14 states. However, the legislative route is slow and difficult. Farmed animal welfare bills must first make it through the statehouse's agriculture committee, which is often chaired by industry-friendly lawmakers.

In addition, the animal welfare movement is hampered by a lack of urgency, a lack of strategic advocacy, and a lack of long-term, sustained campaigns. The movement also suffers from divisive attitudes, with welfare and rights advocates refusing to unite against a common enemy.

The animal welfare movement is strongly connected to social change, politics, culture, and economics. Religion can also impact attitudes, either hampering or advancing the cause. For example, the ethics of animal welfare have evolved in recent decades, with leading philosophers and religious figures actively debating various viewpoints. As a result, governments throughout Europe and beyond feel growing pressure from their concerned electorates regarding animal welfare issues.

The animal welfare movement is in dire need of a strong and forceful movement for social change. It needs to become increasingly professional and strategic, using modern management methods appropriate to its complex environment. The movement needs to change its focus to tackling problems at their source, rather than sweeping up the tragic end results.

Frequently asked questions