{"id":767384,"date":"2022-03-10T08:37:09","date_gmt":"2022-03-10T13:37:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767384"},"modified":"2022-03-10T09:14:35","modified_gmt":"2022-03-10T14:14:35","slug":"down-on-the-farm-most-animal-cruelty-is-legal-on-u-s-farms-a-judge-is-questioning-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767384","title":{"rendered":"‘DOWN’ ON THE FARM: Animal cruelty is legal on farms; a U.S. judge is questioning that"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Many undercover investigations that document cruelty to farmed animals don\u2019t result in prosecution and are so pervasive throughout the industry, they go unexamined, even though they account for much more animal suffering.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

KENNY TORRELLA:<\/strong> In 2018, Erin Wing worked for two months at a 1,000-cow dairy farm in Chambersburg, a small Pennsylvania town about three hours west of Philadelphia, where she was one of 10 employees who milked and fed the cows. But something set her apart from the other workers: Wing wore a hidden camera, living a double life as an undercover investigator for Animal Outlook, an animal advocacy nonprofit.<\/em><\/p>\n

During her stint, Wing captured a variety of horrors on film. Some were inhumane but legal and not uncommon in the dairy industry, like removing calves\u2019 horns \u2014which is done to prevent the horns from injuring workers \u2014 without pain mitigation like anesthesia or anti-inflammatory drugs.<\/em><\/p>\n

But she also documented acts of cruelty that seemed wholly gratuitous, like employees beating, stomping on, and kicking cows, and many others I\u2019ll omit for the sake of readers\u2019 peace of mind. \u201cAll told, we documented over 300 incidents that we believed violated Pennsylvania\u2019s laws,\u201d Will Lowrey, an attorney with Animal Outlook, told me.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Pennsylvania State Police opened an investigation, and over a year later it announced that the district attorney of Franklin County in Pennsylvania, where Chambersburg is located, would not press charges against the farm as a corporation, the owner, and 14 current and former employees…<\/em><\/p>\n

The DA\u2019s decision wasn\u2019t surprising. Many undercover investigations that document cruelty to farmed animals don\u2019t result in prosecution… and are so pervasive throughout the industry, they go unexamined, even though they account for much more animal suffering…<\/em><\/p>\n

And with 9 billion animals churning through the meat, dairy, and egg industries each year and just a handful of undercover investigators documenting how they\u2019re treated, consumers and policymakers are left in the dark. This system persists because farmed animals are largely invisible in the law.<\/em><\/p>\n

But due to a quirk in Pennsylvania\u2019s legal code \u2014 the ability of private citizens to challenge government officials\u2019 decision not to prosecute \u2014 Animal Outlook was able to circumvent that invisibility and set a new precedent for animal law. But before that, it helps to understand the legal system under which animals are farmed…<\/em><\/p>\n

At the federal level, there are no laws that protect animals while they\u2019re 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… Every state has an anti-cruelty statute on the books, and a few exempt farmed animals altogether, while most exempt what are considered \u201ccustomary farming practices\u201d \u2014 or as Pennsylvania law puts it, \u201cnormal farming operations.\u201d It doesn\u2019t matter how inhumane those practices may appear as long as they are commonly used, year after year…<\/em><\/p>\n

Advocates have found some success through putting the vote directly to the people via ballot measures, but those are costly, and fewer than half of US states allow such direct measures. This challenging legal landscape, and the political and cultural factors that block the gaps that could overcome it, have long stymied animal lawyers and advocates who\u2019ve amassed thousands of hours of footage of animal abuse through their undercover investigations. But due to the above-mentioned quirk in Pennsylvania law \u2014 the ability to petition a court to overturn the district attorney\u2019s denial of prosecution \u2014 Animal Outlook shifted what practices can be deemed \u201cnormal\u201d in the first place.<\/em><\/p>\n

The organization\u2019s initial petition was denied, so it appealed to Pennsylvania\u2019s Superior Court. Last month, in a precedent-setting decision, the court\u2019s three-judge panel ruled that the lower court was required to order the Franklin County district attorney to prosecute Martin Farms for animal cruelty, including over common practices like dehorning without pain mitigation.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe most obvious evidence overlooked by the trial court was that concerning the dehorning of calves…\u201d the decision reads. Citing Dr. Holly Cheever, a veterinarian who reviewed the investigative footage, the decision went on to state that \u201cthe technique used by Martin Farms as shown in the video caused the calves to be \u2018in agonizing pain, shown by their violent thrashing and bellowing.\u2019\u201dThe judge characterized the district attorney\u2019s position on exempting dehorning without pain mitigation as \u201cabsurd,\u201d creating a crack in the meat industry\u2019s ironclad legal armor…<\/em><\/p>\n

The case would still be influential if it had merely centered on the more malicious acts of animal cruelty, but what makes it more important is that the court also questioned whether dehorning calves without pain mitigation should be considered \u201cnormal\u201d in the first place (and if not, it could then be prosecutable). The court also deemed Martin Farms\u2019 dehorning not normal because employees roughly handled the calves and performed dehorning at an age when the practice is more painful.<\/em><\/p>\n

Since Pennsylvania\u2019s anti-cruelty statute exempts \u201cnormal agricultural operations,\u201d this decision could lead to advocates challenging other common farming practices in the courts… even though the precedent is limited to Pennsylvania, it\u2019s important in two other ways. First, Pennsylvania is a major agricultural state, ranking fourth in egg production, seventh in dairy, 10th in turkey, and 14th in chicken. All told, over 235 million animals are raised for food in the state each year. Those who advocate for them now have another tool in their legal toolbox.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sullivan says it also sets a cultural precedent, which can\u2019t be discounted \u2014 and it gives animal lawyers across the country a decision to reference when challenging other states\u2019 exemptions… But whatever the outcome, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision illustrates what can happen when standard yet horrific farming practices are put under a microscope: The institutions that govern how America farms and eats might be forced to evolve. SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEOS:<\/strong><\/p>\n