Nebraska law allows meatpackers to own hogs

Posted February 16, 2016

Per nationalhogfarmer.com, Nebraska meatpackers can now own hogs.

Under LB176, passed February 5, a person who owns, leases or holds a legal interest in a swine production operation can enter into a contract to produce swine for a packer. The producer, or contract grower, will own the land and facilities used to raise the livestock while the packer owns the swine.

State Senator Ken Schilz said Nebraska was the only state that prohibited packers from directly or indirectly owning hogs. Because packers in other states are not subject to that restriction, packers who process Nebraska hogs could move to neighboring states.

In an editorial in the Schuyler Sun, Senator Jerry Johnson observed, “Supporters of LB176 argued that passage of this measure would give the Nebraska farmer another tool to compete in today's economy. It was said that young farmers would be helped by this bill as providing a source of income in an otherwise volatile industry with less risk. It was also said Nebraska farmers contract now with big corporations like Smithfield or Tyson, but ship their animals out of state for processing. Under this bill, processing will take place in the state. Jobs will be created and economic advantages will result.”

Opponents of the bill argued it would negatively impact family farms. Senator Al Davis of Hyannis told Fortune magazine that contract farming has become more prevalent in livestock states where packer bans have been overturned and that the contract model can be dangerous for farmers. Davis contends that many farmers who sign such contracts take on huge loans to pay for the infrastructure required to meet packers’ demands for large herds, leaving them unable to negotiate higher prices.

A copy of the approved bill may be viewed here. 

California bill enacts strictest antibiotic law

Posted October 13, 2015

California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday signed a bill that sets the strictest government standards in the United States for the use of antibiotics in livestock production, according to a Reuters article available here. Ag Web also published an article available here, U.S. News & World Report here and Bloomberg here.

California is known for its leadership on public health and environmental issues. This move accompanies the growing concern that the overuse of these drugs is contributing to rising numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria known as "superbugs."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2 million people in this country are infected with drug resistant bacteria each year and that 23,000 die as a direct result.

Meat producers will only be allowed to administer the drugs with the approval of a veterinarian when animals are sick, or to prevent infections if there's an "elevated risk." They cannot use the drugs "in a regular pattern." The policy is more restrictive than the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) national guidelines, which don't restrict use for disease prevention, according to Ag Web.

Small cattle ranchers in rural areas may have a harder time getting medicine approved by a veterinarian, said Justin Oldfield, vice president of government relations at the California Cattlemen’s Association. He also rejected the notion that the bill would force producers to drastically change their practices and suggested advocates exaggerated how the use of drugs, according to Bloomberg. 

"We’re not routinely feeding animals [antibiotics] all the time for disease prevention," he said. "We care about antibiotic resistance, just like everybody else does."

The antibiotics are different from the growth hormones used by many food producers that have drawn criticism and that some grocery stores and food chains have phased out. Companies including McDonald's, Chipotle and Panera also have begun promoting their chicken as raised without antibiotics, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The California Veterinary Medical Association expressed concern that veterinarians might not be able to prescribe the drugs preventively to treat diseases for which there is no test available to determine which animals are carriers.

The law, which takes effect in 2018, also eliminates the availability of livestock antibiotics for over-the-counter sales.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

New Law Could Protect Weather-Exposed Pets

Posted May 29, 2015

Illinois lawmakers have proposed legislation that would make exposing outside pets to extreme hot or cold weather punishable with jail time and fines, according to a My Web Times article available here. Chicago Tribune also published an article available here and ABC WSIL here.

The Illinois House approved the measure 104-11 on Tuesday. The state Senate passed it last month. Now it only requires approval from Gov. Bruce Rauner to become law.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor to expose dogs and cats to extreme temperatures, and offenders could face up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,500.

Sponsoring Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, said the bill was inspired by recent cases of dogs freezing to death in subzero temperatures last winter, according to Chicago Tribune.

Opponents said the bill goes too far in regulating what people do with their animals and could affect farmers in particular.

"I grew up on a farm. I'm a farm boy," said Rep. Randy Frese, R-Paloma. "We take the best care of our animals. … I think we've got enough laws in the state anyway. We probably have enough good laws to enforce treating animals correctly."

Supporters say the bill will help save pet lives, but protesters say the proposal needs to better define what constitutes extreme weather. Still, Thomas hopes it will better educate pet owners, according to ABC WSIL.

"During the winter pets definitely can suffer from frost bite," explained Dr. Hannah Thomas of the Marion Veterinary Clinic. "I have not personally lost any patients to extreme temperatures, but I have had some very close calls. I have had some intensive management afterwards, especially with the heat stroke." 

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Lab Chimpanzees are Treated as "Slaves"

Posted May 28, 2015

A lawyer seeking to free two chimpanzees from a state university told a judge Wednesday that their confinement for research purposes is akin to slavery, the involuntary detention of people with mental illnesses and imprisonment, according to Midland Daily News. Daily Mail also published an article available here and Daily News here.

Steven Wise, an attorney with the Nonhuman Rights Project, told Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe in a nearly two-hour hearing that Hercules and Leo are "autonomous and self-determining beings" who should be granted a writ of habeas corpus and be moved from Stony Brook University on Long Island to a sanctuary in Florida.

"They're essentially in solitary confinement," Wise told the judge before a crowd of about 100 people packed into the Manhattan courthouse's ceremonial courtroom. "This is what we do to the worst human criminal."

Christopher Coulston, an assistant state attorney general representing the university, countered that chimpanzees are a different species from human beings, according to Daily News.

“The Great Writ(of habeus corpus)should be for human beings," he said.

He also accused Wise of “venue shopping” because they've lost similar bids in three other counties.

The judge reserved decision.

The 8-year-old chimps, who did not attend the hearing, are used for locomotion studies at Stony Brook, according to Daily Mail.

Coulston argued that the case was meritless on procedural grounds because the venue was improper and because granting the chimps personhood would create a slippery slope regarding the rights of other animals.

Two other cases are pending in state court.

Jaffe didn't make a ruling but thanked both sides for an 'extremely interesting and well argued' proceeding.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

NY Judge Grants Chimpanzee Hearing

Posted April 22, 2014

A New York judge ruled this week to grant lawyers representing two chimpanzees a hearing to challenge the animals’ confinement, according to Time. AAAS Science also published an article here, The New York Times here, and The Wall Street Journal here.

The judge’s ruling is a response to a complaint filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of two chimpanzees held at Stony Brook University. The university will be required to demonstrate to a court that it has reason to detain the chimpanzees.

Justice Jaffe’s decision was largely administrative and gave little indication of her stance on the merits of the case. Animal rights supporters initially hailed it as a major breakthrough, citing the fact that Justice Jaffe’s order had included the words “writ of habeas corpus,” a legal means to address the unlawful detention of prisoners, according to The New York Times.

Justice Jaffe amended the rule striking the language about a writ and emphasizing that it was simply a formal way of directing the university to her courtroom to present its case.

“All this does is allow the parties to argue their case in court,” said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the New York State court system.

The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeas corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention. The judicial action could force the university, which is believed to be holding the chimps, to release the primates, and could set a future precedent with other research animals, according to AAAS Science.

“This is a big step forward to getting what we are ultimately seeking: the right to bodily liberty for chimpanzees and other cognitively complex animals,” says Natalie Prosin, the executive director of the animal rights organization, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NHRP), that filed the case. “We got our foot in the door. And no matter what happens, that door can never be completely shut again.”

Stony Brook University said it “does not comment on the specifics of litigation, and awaits the court’s full consideration on this matter.” The school is represented by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office, which declined to comment, according to The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. courts have been reluctant to consider recognizing non-humans as “legal persons” entitled to rights afforded by writ of habeas corpus. New York appellate courts have repeatedly rejected petitions filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project, including a lawsuit involving the same animals that was filed in a different judicial district.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

McDonald's to Stop Sale of Chicken Treated with Human Antibiotics

Posted March 6, 2015

McDonald's plans to require chicken suppliers to stop using antibiotics in human medicine within the next two years, according to an ABC News article available here. The New York Times also published an article available here, USA Today here, and Reuters here.

The company says their suppliers will still be able to use an ionophores antibiotic that keeps chickens healthy, but it isn't used in humans. Later this year, McDonald's also plans to stop selling milk from cows treated with a particular artificial growth hormone.

The decision by one of the largest buyers of chicken in the United States is likely to have a significant impact on other restaurants that serve chicken, according to The New York Times.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been expressing their concerns about antibiotic use in animal husbandry as more bacteria and pathogens have shown resistance to such drugs. In 2013, approximately two million Americans fell sick because of antibiotic-resistant infections and at least 23,000 die from those infections.

McDonald's has been under increasing pressure from customers and activists to improve the quality of its food. Chipotle and Panera already serve chicken raised without antibiotics, according to USA Today.

“Our customers want food that they feel great about eating all the way from the farm to the restaurant,” said Mike Andres, U.S. president of McDonald's, in a statement. “These moves take a step toward better delivering on those expectations.”

Tyson, the largest U.S. meat processor, said they supported McDonald's decision, and that their chicken operations have reduced the use of antibiotics that are effective in humans by more than 84 percent since 2011. The company expects to continue reductions, according to Reuters.

Two senators have also reintroduced legislation to prevent the use of antibiotics that are deemed high risk of abuse, according to an Ag Food and Law post available here.

For more information on antibiotic use in agriculture, an article from the Congressional Research Service is available here.

Senators Reintroduce Antibiotic Prevention Legislation

Posted March 4, 2015

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) reintroduced the Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA), according to a Food Safety News article available here. The Wall Street Journal also published an article here, Feedstuffs here, and Meating Place here.

The bill was previously introduced in June 2013, and it would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw its approval of medically important antibiotics used for disease prevention or control that are at a high abuse risk.

The legislation also stipulates criteria for determining when an antibiotic is considered safe and effective, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“This lays out a plan for FDA to go forward and standards for determining judicious use of antibiotics in food-producing animals,” says Gail Hansen, a public health veterinarian and senior officer for the antibiotic resistance project at the Pew Charitable Trusts. “The FDA has talked about growth promotion, but that’s only part of how drugs are used for food animals. This is the next big part.”

Sponsors said that the bill addresses a gap in the previous guidelines to eliminate the antibiotics use to make animals gain weight, according to Feedstuffs.

The FDA estimated that 107 antibiotics are used for therapeutic purposes, including disease prevention or control, do not have a defined duration of therapy or are labeled for continuous use. An analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that 83 antibiotics used for disease prevention or control have an overlapping dose with a production use.

“These antibiotics are at high risk of being inappropriately administered, which could pose a risk to human health,” said Feinstein.

The American Public Health Association, the Infectious Disease Society of America, Trust for America’s Health, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the Pew Charitable Trusts endorsed the bill, according to Meating Place.

For more information, the prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act is available here.

For more information on antibiotic use in agriculture, an article from the Congressional Research Service is available here.

California Changing Cage Law, Could Set Precedent

Posted November 11, 2014

Six states are in federal court fighting a California ban on eggs sold from hens kept in cramped cages, according to an Omaha article available here. Food Safety News also published an article available here and Modern Farmer here.

On October 24, the governor of Iowa and the attorneys general of Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky filed a notice to appeal a U.S. district court’s dismissal of their case arguing that the law forces farmers in other states to make costly operation changes and violates the U.S. Constitution.

“We don’t want a trade war in America, but we think that California is dead wrong on this,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.

Most U.S. egg producers use battery cages, which California phased out in 2008 based on concerns about how limited of space hens would have to stand up and turn around, according to Food Safety News.

Battery cages are complex systems for feeding and watering, waste disposal, and egg collecting. They also help prevent disease and turn out cleaner eggs according to egg producers.

Battery cages give each hen 67 square inches of space, which is less than a standard sheet of paper. Many California egg producers are switching to cages that will give each bird 116 square inches of space. A farmer stated the change would force prices to rise by 10 to 15 cents a dozen, according to Modern Farmer.

“What farmers and ranchers need to recognize is that consumers are demanding higher animal welfare,” said Joe Maxwell, farmer, former lieutenant governor of Missouri, and vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

Missouri farmers, who export one-third of their eggs to California, must now decide whether to invest more than $120 million to meet the law’s January 1 deadline or to stop selling to California, according to Omaha.

Three additional states – Michigan, Oregon, and Washington – have now passed mandatory laws requiring more space for hens. Ohio has banned the construction of new battery cages, and a proposal for a national standard was dropped from the 2014 farm bill.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.  For more information on farm animal confinement statutes, including those mentioned in this article, click here.

Lawsuit Testing Chimpanzee's Right as Legal Person

Posted October 10, 2014

On Wednesday, a state appellate court heard cases about whether a chimpanzee can be considered a “legal person” and sue for freedom, according to a New York Times article by Jesse McKinley available here. MSN News also published an article available here, NPR here, and TIME here.

The case concerns Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, with no job or criminal record whose forced to live in a small cage.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group in Florida, lost its initial bid to have a lower-court judge rule whether the chimp was unlawfully imprisoned.

“He can understand the past, he can anticipate the future and he suffers as much in solitary confinement as a human being,” said Steven Wise, president of Nonhuman Rights Project.

Wise plans to take their case to the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, if they are shut down again, according to MSN News.

"Personhood is the legal word, but it's not synonymous with human," said Wise.

The Nonhuman Rights Project details scientific studies in a 65-page brief to argue that chimpanzees are “autonomous, self-aware, highly intelligent beings that fit the profile courts have previously used in recognizing ‘legal persons.’"

Earlier this year, a preliminary injunction prevented Tommy from being moved outside the state, according to NPR.

The Nonhuman Rights Project has stated that the case will not end with Tommy, according to TIME.

“Our goal is, very simply, to breach the legal wall that separates all humans from all nonhuman animals.”

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

FBI to Track Animal Cruelty Cases

Posted September 24, 2014

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will start tracking animal cruelty cases, according to a USA Today article by Susan Wyatt available here. Newswire also published an article available here and Huffington Post here.

Local agencies will also track cruelty cases and report them to the FBI.

"No longer will extremely violent cases be included in the "other offense" category simply because the victims were animals. Just as the FBI tracks hate crimes and other important categories, we will now have critical data on animal cruelty,"  said Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Prior to this expansion, there was no process for capturing animal cruelty data on a statewide or national level, according to the Huffington Post.

The new information will be included in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report creating an incentive for law enforcement agencies to more closely monitor these incidents.

Examples of animal cruelty, include “instances of duty to provide care, e.g., shelter, food, water, care if sick or injured; transporting or confining an animal in a manner likely to cause injury or death; causing an animal to fight with another; and inflicting excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering, e.g., uses objects to beat or injure an animal," according to Newswire.

The definition does not include proper maintenance of animals for show or sport or use of animals for food, lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

FSIS Amending Poultry Products Inspection Regulations

Posted August 29, 2014

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended the poultry products inspection regulations to establish a new inspection system for young chicken and all turkey slaughter establishments.

Young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments that do not choose to operate under the new poultry inspection system may continue to operate under their current inspection system.

The rule is in effect October 20, 2014.

The Federal Register is available here.

APHIS Amended Regulations under AWA

Posted August 28, 2014

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has amended regulations to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 added a new section to the AWA to restrict the importation of certain live dogs. This rule prohibits the importation of dogs, with limited exceptions, from any part of the world into the continental United States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment, unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of age.

The rule is in effect November 17, 2014.

The Federal Register is available here.

Wild Horse Lawsuit Gains Additional Plaintiffs

Posted July 28, 2014

Two additional parties joined a federal lawsuit concerning wild horse policy, which demands the government gather and remove excess horses, according to an Ag Weekly article by Dylan Woolf Harris available here.

In an amended complaint filed Monday, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and Crawford Cattle were listed as plaintiffs, joining Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) and the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, which were the first companies to file suit in December.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the Bureau of Land Management is not following the law by allowing wild horse populations to exceed past the agency-identified carrying capacities, which results in damage to the land, wildlife, and horses.

“First and foremost, Defendants’ failures to properly follow the law have gravely harmed, and will continue to gravely injure the very animals that the (Wild Horse and Burro) Act was established to protect,” said the complaint.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has stated that it was lacking funds and adequate holding space. Government attorneys have asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit for legal reasons, which plaintiffs have until with an August 15 to respond.

The Elko County Commission pledged up to $10,000 to help fund the legal action, which could equal up to $90,000 or more according to NACO president Jeff Fontaine.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Animal Rights Group Suing Insurers For Feld Settlement Cost

Posted July 9, 2014

On May 15, animal welfare groups agreed to pay $15.7 million to the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, which marked the end of a 14-year-old battle. Now the animal welfare groups are suing their insurers who advised the groups four years ago they would not cover the attorney fees, according to a Washington Examiner article by Richard Pollock available here.

The fees were accumulated during Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entertainment lawsuit that was filed in 2000. Feld Entertainment owns Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, known to millions of Americans as “The Greatest Show on Earth.”

Four animal rights groups and several individuals, including Tom Rider, who once worked for Ringling Bros, accused Feld of abusing elephants.

Misconduct in the case surfaced that questioned the credibility of the animal rights groups.

"The entire lawsuit was based on either misleading or outright false statements of fact," said John Simpson, a law partner at the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski and the lead attorney for Feld Entertainment.

After the settlement was announced, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and the Fund for Animals “defiantly claimed” their insurance would be responsible for the fees.

“We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to the HSUS and the Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from the HSUS will go to Feld,” according to a HSUS statement.

The insurance companies include the National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Travelers and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co, according to the Washington Examiner.

HSUS is urging Feld to use the money to protect threatened and endangered elephants.

“But with the funds Feld is receiving, we urge the company to combat the killing of tens of thousands of elephants for their ivory. An additional $15 million can save countless elephants, by putting more armed guards on the ground or by working to reduce demand in ivory-consuming countries.”

For more information on Animal Welfare and the Endangered Species Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here. 

Ohio Law Gives Livestock Owners Recourse Against Dog Attacks

Posted May 30, 2014

For most people, dogs are part of the family, however, for farm families, dogs go beyond the family duties and help protect the farm assets – the livestock. Serious problems can arise from loose dogs resulting in monetary and even emotional loss when an animal is injured or killed. Livestock owners have a course of action they may follow if their livestock is being threatened or attacked by someone else’s dog under Ohio Revised Code Section 955.28.

For more information on this issue, please visit the Ohio State University Agricultural Law & Taxation Blog here.  The OSU Agricultural Law & Taxation blog is an excellent resource for current issues involve agricultural and tax law in Ohio.  

Animal Welfare Groups to Pay Ringling Bros. $16 Million in Elephant Lawsuit

Posted May 15, 2014

Ending a 14-year long battle over the welfare of circus elephants, the Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare groups have agreed to pay Feld Entertainment $15.75 million, according to an article by the Bradenton Herald available here.  The Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal also reported on the story here and here.

This settlement follows previous settlements of $9.3 million from the American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 2012. 

“We hope this settlement payment and various court decisions that found against these animal rights activists and their attorneys, will deter individuals and organizations from bringing frivolous litigation like this in the future,” said Kenneth Feld, chairman and chief executive officer of Feld Entertainment.

In 2000, the Humane Society and co-defendants including a former employee Tom Rider, filed a lawsuit against Feld, parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus over the care of 43 Asian elephants.  The groups argued that the company violated the Endangered Species Act by improperly removing the Asian elephants from their habitat and abusing them.

In 2001, the case was dismissed, but an appellate court reinstated the case in 2003, provided that Rider could prove he was injured by the company’s care of the elephants.

The settlement also includes a case “Feld filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" (RICO).   During the “original suit, Feld found that the animal rights groups and their lawyers paid Rider $190,000 to be a paid plaintiff, which triggered the RICO suit, and found that Rider lied under oath.”

Feld has recovered more than $25 million in legal fees incurred defending the Endangered Species Act claims.

For more information on Animal Welfare and the Endangered Species Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here. 

JBS and Temple Grandin Sign Animal Welfare Agreement

Posted May 9, 2014

Yesterday, JBS and Temple Grandin signed a technical cooperation agreement at the Beef Sumit Brasil event in Riberao Preto, according to an article by Meatingplace available here.

According to the agreement, Grandin will “seek to evaluate and improve the company’s animal welfare and handling practices in Brazil.”  This agreement is in addition to the agreement already established in the United States.

The “new collaboration will validate animal welfare practices in Brazil-based JBS plants and feedlots.”  The agreement also aims to improve plant operations and support JBS in working with producers to bring good animal welfare practices to the farm level.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.