Volume 28

Bailey Frank, Not For Human Consumption: How to Alleviate the Cruelty Plaguing the Pet Food Industry in the United States

Almost 37 billion dollars of pet food was sold in 2019, a sum that increased to approximately 42 billion dollars in 2020. In fact, forty-two of the fifty states have pet food facilities producing more than 3 million tons of animal-based pet food ingredients. Yet, in the last decade, multiple pet food brands have been found to contain trace amounts of euthanasia ‘death drugs’ and are made from 3D or 4D animals - those that are dead, dying, diseased, or disabled. While this can often cause sickness or death in companion animals, an equally urgent issue is the welfare of the animals being slaughtered to produce these poorly regulated and often dangerous pet food products.

Despite the slaughtering of farmed animals occurring at these facilities, oversight is limited to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), rather than the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In fact, animals slaughtered for human consumption receive far more protection under the USDA’s authority than animals slaughtered for nonhuman consumption under the authority of the FDA. This means that a multibillion-dollar pet food industry is slaughtering animals in the United States, yet it is exempt from most animal welfare regulations.

The pet food industry exemplifies the ironic reality that the animals humans purport to love most, our dogs and cats, are likely fed at the expense of some of the worst animal cruelty. Advocates and consumers concerned about animal welfare should not be satisfied with the mere food safety standards of the FDA; rather, the statutes enforced by the USDA for the humane treatment and welfare of animals slaughtered for food should be applicable regardless of whether the animals are slaughtered for human or nonhuman consumption. This Article argues the USDA should expand their oversight to include facilities slaughtering animals for nonhuman consumption, and that future legislation should serve to protect animals intended for both human and nonhuman consumption. Part II of this Article reviews the regulatory and legislative background of the pet food industry in the United States. Part III analyzes the animal welfare issues within the current landscape. Finally, Part IV offers specific solutions and opportunities for future research and improvements in the pet food industry.

Sara Mićković, Fur-Ever Homes After Divorce: The Future of Pet Custody

More than ever, Americans are considering their companion animals to be members of their families. However, the majority of states plainly consider companion animals to be personal property under the law in custody disputes. Therefore, when a pet custody dispute emerges in these states’ courts, separated couples proceed to divide companion animals the same way they would other material belongings. At the same time, married couples in the United States are divorcing at increasing rates making these types of pet custody disputes an increasing issue in family courts around the country. Despite most states adopting this approach where companion animals are considered personal property, a small number of states have emerged in the very recent past that take a different approach. In these states, legislation has been expressly passed to either permit or require state courts to consider the well-being of the companion animal when there is a pet custody dispute. This Article provides an overview of the change in public perception towards increasing recognition of companion animal rights while critically examining the current majority view of courts considering companion animals to be personal property during pet custody disputes. This Article further explores all current state legislation from Alaska, Illinois, and California that either permits or requires courts to consider the well-being of companion animals. This Article then advocates for legislation requiring the well-being of companion animals to be considered when pet custody disputes arise.

Zoë Sigle, Piglet Castration and Pain Relief Drugs: Revamping “Safety” Drug Approval Requirements to Address “Efficacy” Requirements for NSAIDs

This Article investigates the U.S. pork industry’s routine practice of piglet castration without pain relief and why no nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) have received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in piglets to relieve pain associated with surgical castration. Some countries have approved and even require the use of NSAIDs for surgical castration in piglets. However, the U.S. veterinary pharmaceutical community claims to lack validated scientific methodology to quantify pain in piglets, leading to a lack of substantial evidence to demonstrate NSAID effectiveness and thereby barring FDA-approval of NSAIDs for pain relief in piglets during surgical castration. In order to address the pain quantification methodology challenge that has prevented FDA-approval NSAIDs for piglets during surgical castration despite approvals of NSAIDs in other countries, this Article proposes a path forward that draws on (1) market-based voluntary commitments to end surgical castration without pain relief and (2) new legislation that introduces pain measurements into the safety evaluation of all new food-producing animal drugs and requires data collection and publication on painful procedure methods in food-producing animals.

Michael Swistara, What Comes After Defund?: Lessons from Police and Prison Abolition for the Animal Movement

As the mass incarceration crisis skyrocketed, the animal protection movement adopted many of the mechanisms of the carceral state. Improving the status of animals was equated with pushing for lengthier sentences for those who caused harm to animals, placing more people into cages for longer periods of time. This disproportionally harmed Black, Indigenous, and People of the Global Majority (BIPGM) communities who are the most heavily policed, surveilled, and imprisoned. Allying with the carceral state has also harmed animals-advocates are labeled terrorists, potential allies are dissuaded from action, and companion animals are killed by officers of the state. This approach is both cruel and ineffective. It does nothing to address the root causes of harm to animals and betrays the core liberationist values of the movement. Many in the mainstream animal protection movement have begun to agree with and incorporate criticisms of an overly carceral approach but remain unsure of where to go next. This Article proposes an alternative paradigm, drawing lessons from the prison abolition movement, that adopts a harm prevention approach to animal protection. Through divesting from carceral solutions and investing in new ways to prevent harm and respond to those who cause harm, the animal protection movement can effectively ally with other social justice organizations and be true to its core values in creating a world that is better for all living beings.

M. B. Rodriguez Ferrere, The (Symbolic) Legislative Recognition of Animal Sentience

This Article will draw conclusions from the legislative recognition of animal sentience in animal welfare legislation of Oregon, New Zealand and Quebec. A range of jurisdictions have, in recent times, amended their animal welfare legislation to recognize that animals are “sentient.” While seemingly a progressive and welcome advance, there are a range of reasons to doubt the actual impact of such amendments. The limited impact of the amendments within animal welfare case law in these jurisdictions appear to confirm these doubts. This Article questions whether such symbolic amendments are benign or have a damaging effect on the attempt to reform and advance animals’ interests within the law.