2019 CAFLP Annual Conference Panel Recap: “Lifting the Veil on Animal Agriculture: Legal Strategies for Farmed Animals”

The panel “Lifting the Veil on Animal Agriculture: Legal Strategies for Farmed Animals” featured three speakers who shed light on current obstacles and possibilities offered by the Canadian and American legal frameworks for the rights of farmed animals.

The November 8th panel began with the taxonomy of “ag-gag” laws in various American states from Justin Marceau, of the College of Law at the University of Denver. Marceau explained that ag-gag laws target activists who attempt to expose practices within the animal agriculture industry, and can be divided into four main types. First, criminal laws in various states target the use of “deception” to gain entry to an animal agriculture facility, which can include failing to disclose membership in an animal rights organization. Second, criminal laws ban audio or visual recording in facilities. Third, in some states, statutes have been passed to make it a crime to fail to report evidence of animal abuse within 24 hours. Fourth, laws have been passed to increase both civil and criminal penalties in relation to trespassing on farms. Marceau also explained that defamation laws have been changed in some states to increase penalties for “food libel,” and that these laws are particularly difficult to challenge because of American legal parameters determining who can and cannot have standing for the purposes of a lawsuit.

Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice discussed the severe lack of legal framework in Canada to regulate the lives of over 819 million land animals slaughtered yearly. She explained that the Canadian government has taken a very hands-off approach to animal welfare, and consistently deflects responsibility by pointing to industry-created, non-binding codes. The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) is a body dominated by animal industry representatives, including farmers and transporters of animals. Labchuk emphasized that these codes have no legal effect, and are severely constrained by overarching language such as “achiev[ing] a workable balance between the welfare needs of animals and the capabilities of farmers.”. In one example, Labchuk pointed to the NFACC’s Layer Hen Code, which pledges to phase out battery cages by 2036 and contrasted it with binding legislation based in California in 2018 to eliminate battery cages a mere four years later. Labchuk also expressed concern that ag-gag laws of the variety discussed by Marceau might soon be implemented in various Canadian provinces. In particular, she pointed to promises made by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney to increase fines for trespassing on farms and create offences for using “deception” to gain entry to farms.

Angela Fernandez of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto made a case for granting “quasi-personhood” to farmed animals, and particularly, to farmed Atlantic salmon. Fernandez argued that granting of legal quasi-personhood to animals could help to create legal responsibility for industry actors to ensure their welfare. She conceived of quasi-personhood as a kind of hybrid between personhood and property, and noted that emerging research on the sentience of fish in particular may serve to rally public support for according them a status of quasi-personhood. She explained that implementing standards of welfare for aquatic animals may become increasingly important as trends show Canadians shifting away from beef and pork toward pescatarian diets.

Questions from the audience were focused on how animal welfare can better be supported in the future. While Labchuk expressed tentative support for the Ontario government’s Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, she also argued that animal rights advocates need to gain more political power and sway public opinion before the law will respond adequately to their demands.