Policing Farm Animal Welfare in Federated Nations: The Problem of Dual Federalism in Canada and the USA

This paper outlines problems with (and proposes some solutions for) the creation and enforcement of effective laws protecting farm animals in the United States and Canada. Taking a long view that includes an agro-anthropological analysis of how current farm animal protection laws came to be, the paper highlights how, in the both the U.S. and Canada, agriculture is a unique institution. “Achieving substantial shift in farm animal production methods, means a coordinated societal initiative to disseminate and have adopted a new societal norm.” The authors argue that some kind of continental regulatory oversight, as well as more direct cooperation with policy-makers and NGOs, are possible solutions, but that any changes will cause friction with the prevailing industrial practices centered around efficiency and profits, not animal care.

The United States and Canada are strong trade partners, and two countries that raise millions of animals for food every year. The large-scale industrialized food systems and nature of the political system in each respective country, makes regulation of farming practices, especially in terms of animal care, a monumental undertaking. In a far-reaching study of the “North American meat-production complex,” researchers have taken on the task of not only looking at the anthropological history of the U.S. and Canadian agricultural systems, but also how the current laws function, and how they often fail to address animal welfare in any meaningful sense of the term. The paper seeks to identify the most pertinent obstacles to farm animal welfare across the continent, and offer some possible solutions.

It is noted very early on that there are “a plethora of obstacles to the implementation of regulatory oversight in the livestock industries in North America.” Indeed, the authors enumerate some of the most salient problems: the sheer scale of the “agro-industrial complex;” the fact that it is hard to determine exactly when neglect becomes cruelty; the issue that animal advocacy groups are seen as engaging in a “war on farming” and challenging farmers’ very livelihoods; and the problem that regulators have become subservient to the regulated industry itself. Though all of these problems add up to a mountainous climb towards more effective regulation, the problem they underline most emphatically is that, “animal protection laws in Canada and the USA exclude ‘accepted farm practices’ which are unilaterally decided by the respective industry without the engagement of civil society; so largely there are no laws describing standards to enforce.” Furthermore, they state that “the engagement of civil society is limited and for mytho-historical reasons current farmers are somewhat excluded from criticism despite the criticism of industrialization of farming.”

Despite significant problems outlined in the paper, the authors note that there are positive precedents and examples to draw upon, such as the European Free Trade Associations Surveillance Authority, that has resulted in better systems for animals. They also suggest that government regulatory oversight, as well as tripartite cooperation between industry, government, and NGOs would be fruitful, provided it could be done in a context of true cooperation in good faith. “The fuzzy way forward depends on political will of individual states responding to citizen concerns,” they say, “and starting to extend duty of care to farm animals under their animal protection laws. Once a legal framework is in place the competition for limited enforcement resources can begin.”

Original Abstract In recent European animal welfare statutes, human actions injurious to animals are new “offences” articulated as an injury to societal norms in addition to property damage. A crime is foremost a violation of a community moral standard. Violating a societal norm puts society out of balance and justice is served when that balance is returned. Criminal law normally requires the presence of mens rea, or evil intent, a particular state of mind; however, dereliction of duties towards animals (or children) is usually described as being of varying levels of negligence but, rarely can be so egregious that it constitutes criminal societal injury. In instrumental justice, the “public goods” delivered by criminal law are commonly classified as retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence. Prevention is a small, if present, outcome of criminal justice. Quasi-criminal law intends to establish certain expected (moral) standards of human behavior where by statute, the obligations of one party to another are clearly articulated as strict liability. Although largely moral in nature, this class of laws focuses on achieving compliance, thereby resulting in prevention. For example, protecting the environment from degradation is a benefit to society; punishing non-compliance, as is the application of criminal law, will not prevent the injury. This paper will provide evidence that the integrated meat complex of Canada and the USA is not in a good position to make changes to implement a credible farm animal protection system.