“To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime.1”
Today, we as a society differ vastly on so many viewpoints. Our differences even extend to the food we eat. While a majority of the global population eat some form of meat in their diet, there has been an increasing number of people who have foregone meat and opt for a plant-based diet.2 While the viewpoints of those who eat meat and those who do not may vary, we should all be able to fundamentally agree that the mistreatment and suffering of sentient beings is wrong. Yet, unlike companion animals, farmed animals are routinely mistreated and subject to abuse that would never be tolerated with other animals. Sadly, Michigan laws and federal laws have overlooked and exempted farmed animals. As attorneys and advocates, we have the power to recognize and change the shortcomings of our current laws.
It is the purpose of this article to discuss the plight of farmed animals with the hope that we, as individuals from all different walks of life, with different dietary preferences and varying viewpoints, will care enough to alleviate their suffering.
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND FARMED ANIMALS — WHO ARE WE TRYING TO PROTECT?
Animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel pain, fear, joy, and sorrow. Yet, animals, especially farmed animals, lack legal standing in all 50 U.S. states and are still considered property by our legal system.3 To this day, animals’ status as chattel still plays a role in how our state and federal animal protection laws are written and how these laws are interpreted by the judiciary.
This year, in the United States, more than 9 billion land animals will be raised and slaughtered for food,4 with 20 million animals being raised for food in Michigan alone.5 In the United States, 99% of farmed animals live the entirety of their lives on factory farms, where some of the worst suffering occurs.6 Far removed from the rolling pastures that so many picture when they think of traditional farms, animals on factory farms are subjected to a life indoors, living in extreme confinement where they often have so little space they are unable to turn around or lie down.7 Despite the cruelties that animals on factory farms face every day, we, as a society, have largely ignored their plight — especially in our legal system.
Currently, all 50 U.S. states have animal cruelty laws, and a handful of states, including Michigan, have laws pertaining to the transport and slaughter of farmed animals.8 This is in addition to two key federal laws that regulate farmed animal transportation and slaughter.9 Unfortunately, these laws fall far short when it comes to protecting farmed animals. Exemptions for farmed animals are routine, as are provisions providing for policing by the very entities that have the most to gain by violating the statute’s provisions.
CURRENT ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS — WHY ARE THEY PROBLEMATIC?
Transportation Laws
Annually, a staggering 20 million farmed animals die during transport, often due to heat stress, freezing temperatures, or trauma.10 Neither Michigan law nor federal law provides farmed animals with adequate protections during the transport process, and thus, animals continue to suffer and die.
Michigan’s transportation law specifically covers transporting animals within its borders and states that “No railroad company, in the carrying or transportation of animals, shall permit (the animals) to be confined in cars for a longer period than 36 consecutive hours without unloading the (animals) for rest, water, and feeding, for a period of at least 5 consecutive hours....”11
On its face, this law only applies to animals transported by rail car. While rail car may have been the primary means of transportation in 1931 when this law was passed, today, it is rarely used.12 Trucks and trailers are the most common form of transportation today and are not regulated under this statute.13
Another troubling aspect is the length of animal confinement — 36 hours.14 This far exceeds the United States’ federal transportation law requirement of 28 hours and is three times as long as the 12 hours recommended by many experts.15 Additionally, the statute contains an express provision that states: “when animals shall be carried in cars in which they can and do have proper food, water, space, and opportunity for rest, the foregoing provisions in regard to their being unloaded shall not apply.”16 Therefore, animals may be confined well past the 36-hour mark, increasing their risk of injury and death.17 Not only do long periods of confinement increase the risk to the health of animals, but they also increase the risk to human health.18 Studies have found that long-distance transport where large numbers of animals are confined in cramped quarters increases the risk of the spread of infection, such as E. coli and salmonella, which can be passed on to humans.19
Finally, lack of oversight and punishment for those who violate Michigan’s transportation law remain an issue. The penalty for violating the law is minimal. An owner or custodian of the animals will only be fined between $100 and $500 for each violation of the law.20 Certainly, such minimal fines are not an effective deterrent for large corporations. Indeed, this level of fine makes it more cost effective to violate the law than to adhere to it.
The federal transportation law, known as the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, requires vehicles transporting certain animals across state lines for slaughter to stop every 28 hours to allow animals exercise, food, and water.21 This law originally only covered animals transported by rail; however, after immense pressure from nonprofit organizations, in 2006 the U.S. government conceded that the law also protects animals transported by truck.22 While this is a step in the right direction, the law still has a number of flaws.
Similar to Michigan law, the Twenty-Eight Hour Law does not apply when animals “have food, water, space, and the opportunity for rest,” which leaves animals vulnerable to injury and death and increases the risk of zoonotic diseases that can be transmitted to humans.23 This law additionally does not extend its protections to birds, despite these animals being the most farmed animals in the United States.24
Finally, enforcement is perhaps the most glaring issue with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law. The punishment for violating this law is identical to that of Michigan law.25 From 2006 to 2019, only one single violation was reported to the Department of Justice.26 This blatant lack of enforcement has allowed for flagrant situations of animal suffering to go unchecked, including an instance where 152 pigs died during transport and an incident where animals were transported for over 40 hours without food, water, or rest.27
Slaughter laws
Another area where farmed animals experience immense suffering is during the slaughter process. Both state and federal slaughter laws mandate that certain farmed animals must be slaughtered using a “humane” method. However, state and federal laws do little to ensure that farmed animals are protected prior to slaughter and also lack enforcement mechanisms.
Humane Slaughter of Livestock Act states, “No slaughterer, packer or stockyard operator shall shackle, hoist or otherwise bring livestock into position of slaughter by any method which shall cause injury or pain.”28 According to this law, “any person who violates any provision of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”29
Similar to transportation laws, Michigan’s humane slaughter law does not afford protections to poultry, which leaves these animals vulnerable.30 Even more unsettling is the fact that according to currently available records, since the law passed in 1962, not a single individual or corporation has been charged with violating Michigan’s Humane Slaughter Act.31 This is especially troublesome given that there has been a history of documented incidents in our state where farmed animals were brought to slaughter in an inhumane manner, including one as recent as September of 2023.32 This incident, observed by a USDA employee at a facility in Coldwater, Michigan, involved a facility employee “hitting hogs excessively” prior to slaughter.33 Upon learning this, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA requested that the Branch County Prosecuting Attorney bring charges, but no individual or corporation was ever charged in this case.34 PETA noted that this was not the facility’s first incident; in 2018, the facility was cited twice for violations of the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act when employees “took multiple shots with bolt guns to stun pigs.”35 Again, no charges were ever brought for the two 2018 incidents.36
Clearly, Michigan’s humane slaughter law has afforded few protections for farmed animals, and, unfortunately, the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) does little more to alleviate animal suffering. The HMSA, like Michigan’s slaughter law, requires that animals be stunned unconscious and rendered insensible to pain before slaughter.37 This law applies only to USDA federally inspected facilities, meaning state-inspected and small custom-exempt slaughterhouses are not covered by this law.38 Moreover, the HMSA includes a provision that excludes all poultry from protections under the Act and additionally contains a ritual slaughter exemption which permits killing animals by severing their carotid arteries, in accordance with kosher, halal, and other religious practices—despite the fact that such practices may cause unnecessary suffering to the animals, as they remain fully conscious during the process.39
The lack of enforcement mechanism within the HMSA is perhaps the most glaring issue with this law. The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Services (USDA FSIS) is charged with enforcing the HMSA, and there have been significant lapses in oversight.40 If a USDA inspector observes a violation of the HMSA while at a facility, they are limited to merely halting slaughter operations by withholding future inspections of the facility, as is required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).41 Generally, a facility needs only to submit a written corrective action plan to the USDA to regain their ability to restart slaughter operations, meaning that even in instances where extreme acts of cruelty have been witnessed, the facility will receive little to no punishment.42 The only time criminal charges may be brought for violations of the federal HMSA is for a violation of § 1907 that deals with practices involving nonambulatory livestock, although this provision is rarely if ever prosecuted.43
Welfare Laws
Even though most of a farmed animal’s life takes place pre-slaughter, there are currently no federal animal welfare laws that cover the treatment of farmed animals before slaughter.44 Therefore, it is up to each state to implement anti-cruelty laws to ensure that farmed animals are protected. In Michigan, the animal cruelty statute has two relevant sections that could extend protections to farmed animals: the prohibition of intentional infliction of pain and suffering; and the duty to provide care.45
The prohibition of intentional infliction of pain on an animal is codified in MCL 750.50b and prohibits an individual to:
(a) Knowingly kill, torture, mutilate, maim, or disfigure an animal.
(b) Commit a reckless act knowing or having reason to know that the act will cause an animal to be killed, tortured, mutilated, maimed, or disfigured.
(c) Knowingly administer poison to an animal, or knowingly expose an animal to any poisonous substance, with the intent that the substance be taken or swallowed by the animal.
Additionally, Michigan’s duty to provide care statute, MCL 750.50, states that:
(2) An owner, possessor... or person having the charge or custody of an animal shall not do any of the following:
(a) Fail to provide an animal with adequate care.
(b) Cruelly drive, work, or beat an animal, or cause an animal to be cruelly driven, worked, or beaten.
While these laws may seem like they would shield farmed animals from suffering, both these laws contain exemptions that limit the statutes’ application to farmed animals that read: “This section does not prohibit the lawful killing of livestock or a customary animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock.”46
Customary practice exemptions raise significant barriers to the enforcement of criminal laws. To mount a case, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the way a defendant mistreated or neglected an animal victim was not a customary practice — without any statutory guidance as to what a customary practice is. This raises barriers in enforcement, as law enforcement has no way of knowing what practices qualify as customary because the law does not provide guidance or else creates inconsistencies in investigations as well as putting prosecutors in the position of having the burden of disproving a defense theory that has no clear boundaries.
Ultimately, these exemptions in Michigan’s cruelty laws — and in those of many other states — leave farmed animals vulnerable and create ambiguity and uncertainty that hinders law enforcement and prosecutors from enforcing these laws.
CONCLUSION: WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PROTECT FARMED ANIMALS?
Both federal and state laws do little to ensure that farmed animals are protected from suffering. So, what can we, as attorneys and advocates, do to help alleviate this suffering?
First, oversight remains one of the biggest issues at both the federal and state levels. As discussed above, both federal and state slaughter and transportation laws are rarely enforced, allowing cruelty to go unchecked. Demanding greater oversight and stricter punishments for violations of animal protection laws is one avenue for increasing the protections for farmed animals. The U.S. government has shown that it is willing to listen to public concerns and extend the reach of its animal protection laws, as it did with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law.
Further, statutory exemptions for customary farming practices create significant barriers in enforcing criminal laws due to a lack of statutory guidance. We must make lawmakers aware that these exemptions are impeding the purpose of the law, which is to provide protections to animals — farmed animals included.
Public pressure is vital in ensuring that cruelty is made known and that officials take action, including commencing criminal proceedings against those that violate the law. PETA attempted this in Coldwater, and such attempts must continue. Admittedly, this is difficult, as cruelty often goes unseen behind the doors of factory farms and is often discovered only after the USDA publishes a violation report, or else an undercover investigation is conducted at a facility and made public. However, when these violations come to light, it is important that the public supports enforcement action.
Ultimately, today’s animal protection laws largely leave farmed animals vulnerable to suffering. However, we have the capacity to create change and create a kinder, more humane future for all beings. Collectively, our voices can ensure that farmed animals are not forgotten.