Comparative Report to Curb the Expansion of Industrial Animal Agriculture
The analysis of how courts are addressing industrial animal agriculture in four countries is the first of its kind from the Farmed Animal Protection Project of the Center of Animal Law Studies (CALS).
The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) at Lewis & Clark Law School has released a new report, titled “A Comparative Analysis of Litigation Strategies in Brazil, India, Mexico and Zimbabwe.” This first-of-its-kind project is the work of CALS’ Farmed Animal Protection Project and examines how courts are addressing the rapid industrialization of animal agriculture in four populous low- and middle-income countries (PLMICs), namely: Brazil, India, Mexico and Zimbabwe.
Industrial animal agriculture is scaling rapidly across PLMICs, with profound animal welfare, environmental, public health, and community impacts. By documenting successful and not-so-successful litigation strategies in the countries studied, the report provides advocates with comparative research to press for enforceable standards, stronger oversight, and both short-term welfare improvements and long-term reforms in industrial animal agriculture.
Led by CALS Visiting Assistant Professor, Hira Jaleel and developed by Farmed Animal Protection Project students during the 2024–2025 academic year, the report features country chapters authored by students and peer-reviewed by external experts. The full report provides an overview of industry conditions, governing law (animal, environmental, food safety/consumer protection), seminal case law, and recommendations for litigation strategies in the four countries. A companion Project Overview report summarizes cross-jurisdictional trends and recommendations for advocates and policymakers.
The report seeks to answer the following research question: How have legal strategies in PLMICs succeeded or failed in halting or slowing industrial animal agriculture, what legal or socio-cultural factors influence outcomes, and which strategies can be replicated across jurisdictions?
Some key findings from the report include:
- Environmental and public health arguments are more effective in court than purely animal rights based ones: Arguments tied to environmental protection and public health, for example pollution control or disease risk, tend to be more successful than claims premised solely on establishing independent animal rights or welfare obligations.
- Seeking court-monitored enforcement of existing laws appears to be a successful strategy: Petitioners frequently use procedural tools such as public interest or amparo litigation to compel administrative agencies to enforce existing laws, with courts issuing orders focused on monitoring, rulemaking, and oversight.
- Progress is incremental and fragile. Even favorable rulings can face legislative pushback, appeals, or weak follow-through, underscoring the need for sustained advocacy after litigation victories.
- Cultural concerns need to be counterbalanced with animal protection: Where animal welfare conflicts with cultural or religious claims, courts apply balancing tests. The outcomes of these cases often preserve tradition while narrowing harmful conduct. This trend reflects judicial caution about overriding entrenched animal use practices motivated by culture or religion.
- Standing barriers in the four PMLICs are lower than in the U.S. Courts in the profiled PLMICs generally accept standing for animal protection organizations and public interest petitioners, enabling courts to frequently reach the merits of an industrial animal agriculture related case.
“This report is the culmination of tireless work by our students in the Farmed Animal Protection Project. Through this project, we aim to put litigation strategies from all four countries in conversation with each other, so we can examine overarching trends. We envision this research being useful for advocates and lawyers working on farmed animal protection issues across the studied regions and in the United States.” said CALS Visiting Professor, Hira Jaleel.
Access the full report and the companion Project Overview.
About the Farmed Animal Protection Project
Industrial animal agriculture, including aquaculture, is extremely detrimental for the well-being of animals, human health, and the environment. The Farmed Animal Protection Project at Lewis & Clark Law School provides an exciting non-clinic experiential opportunity for students to advance their knowledge and skills. At the end of the academic year, projects produced through the Project are shared with the public to increase awareness and to aid other farmed animal advocacy efforts within the animal protection movement.
More Stories
Lewis & Clark College Ushers in PNW Climate Week with a Major Conference, and a Question
As Portland’s first-ever PNW Climate Week began, more than 100 youth leaders, advocates, and community members gathered at Lewis & Clark to imagine a thriving, sustainable future—and explore the actions needed to make it a reality. Through hands-on workshops and cross-generational conversations, the event highlighted Lewis & Clark’s leadership in climate education, policy, and innovation.
Watch the recording of the keynote provided by Graham Zimmerman at Protect Our Winters here.
Libby Davis Looks Back
After a tenure of 32 years in leadership roles at Lewis & Clark Law, Associate Dean of Student Affairs Libby Davis is stepping down. She reflected on memorable moments and the lasting impact of the law school, as she looks to her new chapter leading the externship program and practica part time.
Environmental Law Leader Janice Weis Steps Down After 32 Years
Environmental Law Associate Dean Janice Weis announced her retirement after an impactful tenure leading the academic program for 32 years. She shared a few reflections with us.
Professor and Dean Sandy Patrick Receives 2026 Leo Levinson Award
The Leo Levinson award for teaching excellence is selected annually by the graduating class. This year, the class named Professor Sandy Patrick.