Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United States

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Citizen petitions and legislative bills in seven states in the US have established space and movement limitations for selected species of farm animals. These actions show Americans becoming concerned about the humane treatment of confined farm animals, and willing to use governmental intervention to preclude existing confinement practices. The individual state provisions vary, including the coverage of species. All seven states deal with sow-gestation crates, five states address veal calf crates, and two states’ provisions also apply to battery cages used for egg-laying hens. The actions show citizen and legislative opposition to current animal production practices, and suggest a movement to provide better treatment for farm animals. Accompanying the actions are challenges for animal production industries in remaining competitive while meeting social expectations on the ethical treatment of food animals. While the actions are only a small step in addressing welfare issues, they may be the beginning of a significant movement to do more to address human and animal welfare issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This includes those who feel humans should not eat meat (Regan 2004; Singer 1993).

  2. One author opined that in terms of animal welfare, North America lagged behind Europe by about 8-10 years (Duncan 2001).

  3. Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon.

  4. A debate exists whether living in a manner consistent with their species is feasible given differences among current farm animals and their ancestors (Haynes 2008).

  5. Major support for the amendment also came from the Fund for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, and the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida.

  6. Farrowing crates also confine sows but operate to protect little piglets from accidentally being crushed by the sow. Mortality of piglets is generally lower when farrowing crates are used (Weber et al. 2009; Cronin et al. 1995).

  7. After giving birth to their piglets, sows are no longer pregnant so can be confined in farrowing crates.

  8. These exceptions are not applicable in Florida (Florida Constitution 2009). The Colorado statute allows for the confinement of sows for 12 days prior to the expected date of farrowing (Colorado Revised Statutes 2009).

References

  • Anderson, L. C. (2002). Laws, regulations, and policies affecting the use of laboratory animals. In J. G. Fox, L. C. Anderson, F. M. Loew, & F. W. Quimby (Eds.), Laboratory animal medicine (pp. 19–33). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Animal Health and Welfare Panel. (2005). The welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. The European Food Safety Authority Journal, 197, 1–23 plus annex. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/lh_opinion1.pdf?ssbinary=true.

  • Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 13-802, 13-2910.07, 13-2910.08.

  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. L. (2007). Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (2005). A review of recent publications on animal welfare issues for table egg laying hens. United Egg producers annual meeting, Nov, http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/WelfareIssueslayingHens.pdf.

  • Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., et al. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Matthews, L. R., & Coleman, G. J. (1999). Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (2006). The evolution of morality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Health and Safety Code. (2009). Sections 25990-25994.

  • Cargill. (2009). Cargill achieves eight critical animal welfare assurance goals. Minneapolis, Minnesota. http://www.cargill.com/news-center/news-releases/2009/NA3011043.jsp.

  • Centner, T. J. (2006). Governmental oversight of discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Management, 37, 745–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centner, T. J., & Newton, G. L. (2008). Meeting environmental requirements for the land application of manure. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3228–3234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 35-50.5-101, 35-50.5-102, 35-50.5-103.

  • Cowen, T. (2006). Market failure for the treatment of animals. Society, 43, 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, G. M., Simpson, G. J., & Hemsworth, P. H. (1995). The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 46, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cupp, R. L., Jr. (2009). Moving beyond animal rights: A legal/contractualist critique. San Diego Law Review, 48, 27–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Silva, J. (2006). Adverse impact of industrial animal agriculture on the health and welfare of farmed animals. Integrative Zoology, 1, 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danbury, T. C., Weeks, C. A., Chambers, J. P., Waterman-Pearson, A. E., & Kestin, S. C. (2000). Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record, 146, 307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (2006a). A user’s guide to animal welfare. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (2006b). Through animal eyes: What behaviour tells us. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Passillé, A. M., & Rushen, J. (2005). Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 92, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donham, K. J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., et al. (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 317–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2001). Animal welfare issues in the poultry industry: Is there a lesson to be learned? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelsman, S. J. (2005). ‘World leader’—At what price? A look at lagging American animal protection laws. Pace Environmental Law Review, 22, 329–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). The community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006–2010. Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm.

  • Florida Constitution. (2009). Article X, section 21.

  • Francione, G. L. (1996). Animal rights and animal welfare. Rutgers Law Review, 48, 397–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to animal rights: Your child or the dog?. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L. (2006). Equal consideration and the interest of nonhuman animals in continued existence: A response to professor Sunstein. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2006, 231–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L. (2007). Reflections on animals, property, and the law and rain without thunder. Law and Comtemporary Problems, 70, 9–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. (2008). Is there an “animal welfare Kuznets curve”? Ecological Economics, 66, 478–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. (2006). Animal welfare: A political defense. Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 1, 161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeger, R., & Brom, F. W. A. (2001). Intrinsic value and direct duties: From animal ethics towards environmental ethics? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsworth, P. H. (2003). Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humane Society of the United States. (2007). Strauss Veal and Marcho farms eliminating confinement by crate. Factory Farming Campaign, Feb 22. Washington, DC. http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/strauss_and_marcho_veal_crates.html.

  • Jones, D., & McGreevy, J. E. (2007). How much space does an elephant need? The impact of confinement on animal welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 185–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, M. (2007). Largest pork processor to phase out crates: Va.-based Smithfield to end practice of keeping pregnant pigs in small cages. Washington Post (January 26, sec. A06).

  • Korte, S. M., Olivier, B., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2007). A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 422–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Gjerris, M., & Sandøe, P. (2006a). After Dolly–Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology, 65, 992–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006b). Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lexmon, Å. (2007). Animal welfare legislation in Sweden. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200702/146280080.pdf.

  • Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2008). A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 233, 1121–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., Nilsson, T., & Foster, K. (2007). Public preferences and private choices: Effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental & Resource Economics, 36, 499–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. (2009). Title 7, section 4020; title 17, section 1039.

  • Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade. Law and Contemporary Problems, 70, 325–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. W., Lyon, T. P., & Hackett, S. C. (2000). Self-regulation and social welfare: The political economy of corporate environmentalism. Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 583–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald’s Corporation. (2008). McDonald’s 2008 corporate responsibility report. Oak Brook, Illinois. http://www.crmcdonalds.com/publish/csr/home/report/sustainable_supply_chain/product_survey/antibiotics_and_animal_cloning.html.

  • Mellor, D. J., Patterson-Kane, E., & Staffors, K. J. (2008). The sciences of animal welfare. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mench, J. A. (2008). Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 298–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Comparative Laws Annotated. (2009). Section 287.746.

  • Morris, M. C. (2006). The ethics and politics of the caged layer hen debate in New Zealand. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Defense Council versus Reilly, modified in Natural Resources Defense Council versus Whitman. (1992). Federal district court of the District of Columbia, case number 89-2980.

  • Nicol, C. (2007). Space, time, and unassuming animals. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 188–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M., & Metz, J. H. M. (2005). Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science, 94, 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, F. B. (2009). Lessons abound on animal welfare issue. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, Nov 26. http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.focusfocus&year=2007&file=fo1126.html.

  • Norwood, B., Lusk, J., & Prickett, R. (2007). Survey looks into what consumers think about various farm animal welfare issues. Feedstuffs (42), Oct 8. http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=24B0C3FDC332453FB2466A1A15A23FD6.

  • Oregon Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 153.018, 600.150.

  • Oregon Senate Bill No. 694. (2007). 74th Oregon legislative assembly.

  • Perz, J. (2007). Adulterating animal rights: Joan Dunayer’s “advancing animal rights” refuted. Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 2, 123–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, J., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2003). Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polet, Y. (2005). Abolition of battery cages to cost €354 million to EU-25 egg producers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200504/146119304.pdf.

  • Porcher, J. (2006). Well-being and suffering in livestock farming: Living conditions at work for people and animals. Sociologie du travail, 48, e56–e70 (English translation).

  • Promar International. (2008). Economic impact on California of the treatment of farm animals act. Virginia: Alexandria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raussi, S. (2003). Human–cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 80, 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. T., Appleby, M. C., Chinn, K., Douglas, L., Firkins, L. D., Houpt, K. A., et al. (2005). A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 227, 1580–1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman, S. S., Studwell, C. E., Landerman, L. R., Berman, K., & Sundy, J. S. (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 567–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmit, J. (2008). California vote could change U.S. agribusiness. USA Today 4b (November 6, sec. Money).

  • Schröder, M. J. A., & McEachern, M. G. (2004). Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 168–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter versus Department of Environmental Quality. (2008). Northwestern reporter 2d, 747, 321–336.

  • Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2007). Smithfield Foods makes landmark decision regarding animal management. Smithfield, Virginia. http://investors.smithfieldfoods.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=295899.

  • Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2008). Corporate social responsibility report 2007/08. Smithfield, Virginia. http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/PDF/smi_csr_08.pdf.

  • State of Oklahoma versus Tyson Foods, Inc. Complaint. (2005). Attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, filed in Federal District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, case no. 4:05-cv-329.

  • Strauss Veal. (2009). Free raised veal frequently asked questions. Franklin, Wisconsin. http://www.straussveal.com/veal_faq.shtml.

  • Sumner, D. A., Rosen-Molina, J. T., Matthews, W. A., Mench, J. A., & Richter, K. R. (2008). Economic effects of proposed restrictions on egg-laying hen housing in California. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, July, 1–6.

  • Thu, K. (2002). Public health concerns for neighbors of large-scale swine production operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety & Health, 8, 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., Wolf, C., & Olynk, N. (2009). Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy, 34, 492–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treaty of Amsterdam. (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. Luxembourg: Official publications of the European Communities. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf.

  • Turner, J. (2000). The welfare of Europe’s sows in close confinement stalls. Compassion in World Farming Trust. Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/resources/publications/pig_farming/default.aspx.

  • Tyson Foods, Inc. (2007). Tyson to use new label for raised without antibiotics chicken. Springdale, Arkansas. http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=133435.

  • Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.-V., Janczak, A. M., Visser, E. K., et al. (2006). Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 101, 185–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. versus Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Federal reporter 3rd, 399, 486–524.

  • Weber, R., Keil, N. M., & Horat, R. (2009). Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science, 124, 216–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. J. F. (2001). Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal, 161, 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N. M. (2008). Affected ignorance and animal suffering: Why our failure to debate factory farming puts us at moral risk. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M., Fry, C., & Carruthers, S. P. (1998). European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy, 23, 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahn, J. A., Hatfield, J. L., Laird, D. A., Hart, T. T., Do, Y. S., & DiSpirito, A. A. (2001). Functional classification of swine manure management systems based on effluent and gas emission characteristics. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The research presented here is based on work supported by the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES), U.S. Department of Agriculture Project No. GEO00526.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Georgia, 313 Conner Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Terence J. Centner

Authors
  1. Terence J. Centner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terence J. Centner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Centner, T.J. Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United States. J Agric Environ Ethics 23, 469–486 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9225-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9225-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation