TRENTON, New Jersey, July 31, 2008 (ENS) - Factory farming practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, setting a legal precedent for further actions to end the worst abuses on factory farms throughout the United States.
In a unanimous decision, the court struck down the New Jersey Department of Agriculture's regulations exempting all routine husbandry practices as "humane," and ordered the agency to readdress many of the state-mandated standards for the treatment of farm animals.
Many states have an exemption to their cruelty code for "routine" or "commonly accepted" practices which leaves animals confined in factory farms unprotected from abuse.
In 1996, the New Jersey Legislature directed the NJDA to develop appropriate "standards for the humane raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock."
Eight years later, on June 7, 2004, the agency finalized regulations that specifically authorized many cruel farming practices and gave blanket protection to all common agriculture practices.
A coalition of humane organizations, farmers, veterinarians, environmental and consumer groups, led by Farm Sanctuary filed the lawsuit in 2004, alleging that the NJDA failed to establish standards of treatment of farm animals that are "humane" as required by the Legislature.
Instead, the plaintiffs claimed, the state agency sanctioned numerous inhumane practices, including all routine farming practices, used to raise animals for meat, eggs and milk.
"This is a major victory for farm animals in New Jersey, and will pave the way for better protections of farm animals nationwide," said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary.
"Setting a legal precedent in a unanimous vote that clarifies that commonly used practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used will build on our momentum in challenging the cruel status quo on factory farms," he said.
In addition to striking down the agency's exemption for "routine husbandry practices," the Court further held that tail docking could not be considered humane, and the manner in which mutilations without anesthesia including castration, de-beaking and de-toeing could not be considered humane without some specific requirements to prevent pain and suffering.
The Court made clear that the decision to permit these practices as long as they are done by a "knowledgeable person" and in a way to "minimize pain" could not "pass muster."
Full Story: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-31-093.asp
