*one friendly note. you write that “industry standards don’t define the law.” from my understanding, they actually do… “Farming” practices deemed “necessary” are exempted from every state’s animal cruelty statutes, and “necessary” has in turn been partly defined as whatever are considered “Customary Fa…
*one friendly note. you write that “industry standards don’t define the law.” from my understanding, they actually do… “Farming” practices deemed “necessary” are exempted from every state’s animal cruelty statutes, and “necessary” has in turn been partly defined as whatever are considered “Customary Farming Practices,” i.e., practices that are common across the industry. Thus, industry standards do quite literally define US law. David Wolfson and Mariann Sullivan’s article, “Foxes in the Hen House,” is the best read i’ve seen on the topic.
As a sidetone, this US standard has been cited abroad to justify the same exemptions (e.g., “One tendency, dominant in the USA and Canada, exempts established agricultural practices from the applicability of animal protection laws.” HCJ 9232/01 Noah v. Att’y Gen. [2003] IsrSC 215, 231.)
hey Wayne. great article, as always.
*one friendly note. you write that “industry standards don’t define the law.” from my understanding, they actually do… “Farming” practices deemed “necessary” are exempted from every state’s animal cruelty statutes, and “necessary” has in turn been partly defined as whatever are considered “Customary Farming Practices,” i.e., practices that are common across the industry. Thus, industry standards do quite literally define US law. David Wolfson and Mariann Sullivan’s article, “Foxes in the Hen House,” is the best read i’ve seen on the topic.
As a sidetone, this US standard has been cited abroad to justify the same exemptions (e.g., “One tendency, dominant in the USA and Canada, exempts established agricultural practices from the applicability of animal protection laws.” HCJ 9232/01 Noah v. Att’y Gen. [2003] IsrSC 215, 231.)
thanks for writing these,
-n