Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 469–486 | Cite as

Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United States



Citizen petitions and legislative bills in seven states in the US have established space and movement limitations for selected species of farm animals. These actions show Americans becoming concerned about the humane treatment of confined farm animals, and willing to use governmental intervention to preclude existing confinement practices. The individual state provisions vary, including the coverage of species. All seven states deal with sow-gestation crates, five states address veal calf crates, and two states’ provisions also apply to battery cages used for egg-laying hens. The actions show citizen and legislative opposition to current animal production practices, and suggest a movement to provide better treatment for farm animals. Accompanying the actions are challenges for animal production industries in remaining competitive while meeting social expectations on the ethical treatment of food animals. While the actions are only a small step in addressing welfare issues, they may be the beginning of a significant movement to do more to address human and animal welfare issues.


Animal welfare Battery cages Food animal confinement Gestation crates Humane treatment of animals Space and movement limitations 



I would like to thank the several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The research presented here is based on work supported by the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES), U.S. Department of Agriculture Project No. GEO00526.


  1. Anderson, L. C. (2002). Laws, regulations, and policies affecting the use of laboratory animals. In J. G. Fox, L. C. Anderson, F. M. Loew, & F. W. Quimby (Eds.), Laboratory animal medicine (pp. 19–33). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Animal Health and Welfare Panel. (2005). The welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. The European Food Safety Authority Journal, 197, 1–23 plus annex.
  3. Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 13-802, 13-2910.07, 13-2910.08.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, J. L. (2007). Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 213–218.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, D. (2005). A review of recent publications on animal welfare issues for table egg laying hens. United Egg producers annual meeting, Nov,
  7. Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., et al. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Matthews, L. R., & Coleman, G. J. (1999). Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66, 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broom, D. M. (2006). The evolution of morality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. California Health and Safety Code. (2009). Sections 25990-25994.Google Scholar
  12. Cargill. (2009). Cargill achieves eight critical animal welfare assurance goals. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  13. Centner, T. J. (2006). Governmental oversight of discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Management, 37, 745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Centner, T. J., & Newton, G. L. (2008). Meeting environmental requirements for the land application of manure. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3228–3234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colorado Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 35-50.5-101, 35-50.5-102, 35-50.5-103.Google Scholar
  16. Cowen, T. (2006). Market failure for the treatment of animals. Society, 43, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cronin, G. M., Simpson, G. J., & Hemsworth, P. H. (1995). The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 46, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cupp, R. L., Jr. (2009). Moving beyond animal rights: A legal/contractualist critique. San Diego Law Review, 48, 27–84.Google Scholar
  19. D’Silva, J. (2006). Adverse impact of industrial animal agriculture on the health and welfare of farmed animals. Integrative Zoology, 1, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Danbury, T. C., Weeks, C. A., Chambers, J. P., Waterman-Pearson, A. E., & Kestin, S. C. (2000). Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record, 146, 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawkins, M. S. (2006a). A user’s guide to animal welfare. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dawkins, M. S. (2006b). Through animal eyes: What behaviour tells us. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Passillé, A. M., & Rushen, J. (2005). Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 92, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donham, K. J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J. L., Hodne, C., Thu, K. M., et al. (2007). Community health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncan, I. J. H. (2001). Animal welfare issues in the poultry industry: Is there a lesson to be learned? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Engelsman, S. J. (2005). ‘World leader’—At what price? A look at lagging American animal protection laws. Pace Environmental Law Review, 22, 329–369.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. (2006). The community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006–2010. Brussels, Belgium.
  29. Florida Constitution. (2009). Article X, section 21.Google Scholar
  30. Francione, G. L. (1996). Animal rights and animal welfare. Rutgers Law Review, 48, 397–469.Google Scholar
  31. Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to animal rights: Your child or the dog?. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Francione, G. L. (2006). Equal consideration and the interest of nonhuman animals in continued existence: A response to professor Sunstein. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2006, 231–252.Google Scholar
  33. Francione, G. L. (2007). Reflections on animals, property, and the law and rain without thunder. Law and Comtemporary Problems, 70, 9–57.Google Scholar
  34. Frank, J. (2008). Is there an “animal welfare Kuznets curve”? Ecological Economics, 66, 478–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fraser, D. (2008). Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garner, R. (2006). Animal welfare: A political defense. Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 1, 161–174.Google Scholar
  37. Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Heeger, R., & Brom, F. W. A. (2001). Intrinsic value and direct duties: From animal ethics towards environmental ethics? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hemsworth, P. H. (2003). Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Humane Society of the United States. (2007). Strauss Veal and Marcho farms eliminating confinement by crate. Factory Farming Campaign, Feb 22. Washington, DC.
  41. Jones, D., & McGreevy, J. E. (2007). How much space does an elephant need? The impact of confinement on animal welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 185–187.Google Scholar
  42. Kaufman, M. (2007). Largest pork processor to phase out crates: Va.-based Smithfield to end practice of keeping pregnant pigs in small cages. Washington Post (January 26, sec. A06).Google Scholar
  43. Korte, S. M., Olivier, B., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2007). A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 422–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lassen, J., Gjerris, M., & Sandøe, P. (2006a). After Dolly–Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology, 65, 992–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006b). Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lexmon, Å. (2007). Animal welfare legislation in Sweden. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.
  47. Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2008). A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 233, 1121–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lusk, J. L., Nilsson, T., & Foster, K. (2007). Public preferences and private choices: Effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental & Resource Economics, 36, 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. (2009). Title 7, section 4020; title 17, section 1039.Google Scholar
  51. Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade. Law and Contemporary Problems, 70, 325–358.Google Scholar
  52. Maxwell, J. W., Lyon, T. P., & Hackett, S. C. (2000). Self-regulation and social welfare: The political economy of corporate environmentalism. Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 583–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McDonald’s Corporation. (2008). McDonald’s 2008 corporate responsibility report. Oak Brook, Illinois.
  54. Mellor, D. J., Patterson-Kane, E., & Staffors, K. J. (2008). The sciences of animal welfare. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Mench, J. A. (2008). Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Michigan Comparative Laws Annotated. (2009). Section 287.746.Google Scholar
  57. Morris, M. C. (2006). The ethics and politics of the caged layer hen debate in New Zealand. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Natural Resources Defense Council versus Reilly, modified in Natural Resources Defense Council versus Whitman. (1992). Federal district court of the District of Columbia, case number 89-2980.Google Scholar
  59. Nicol, C. (2007). Space, time, and unassuming animals. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2, 188–192.Google Scholar
  60. Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M., & Metz, J. H. M. (2005). Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science, 94, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Norwood, F. B. (2009). Lessons abound on animal welfare issue. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC, Nov 26.
  62. Norwood, B., Lusk, J., & Prickett, R. (2007). Survey looks into what consumers think about various farm animal welfare issues. Feedstuffs (42), Oct 8.
  63. Oregon Revised Statutes. (2009). Sections 153.018, 600.150.Google Scholar
  64. Oregon Senate Bill No. 694. (2007). 74th Oregon legislative assembly.Google Scholar
  65. Perz, J. (2007). Adulterating animal rights: Joan Dunayer’s “advancing animal rights” refuted. Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, 2, 123–171.Google Scholar
  66. Petit, J., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2003). Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polet, Y. (2005). Abolition of battery cages to cost €354 million to EU-25 egg producers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.
  68. Porcher, J. (2006). Well-being and suffering in livestock farming: Living conditions at work for people and animals. Sociologie du travail, 48, e56–e70 (English translation).Google Scholar
  69. Promar International. (2008). Economic impact on California of the treatment of farm animals act. Virginia: Alexandria.Google Scholar
  70. Raussi, S. (2003). Human–cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 80, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rhodes, R. T., Appleby, M. C., Chinn, K., Douglas, L., Firkins, L. D., Houpt, K. A., et al. (2005). A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 227, 1580–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schiffman, S. S., Studwell, C. E., Landerman, L. R., Berman, K., & Sundy, J. S. (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schmit, J. (2008). California vote could change U.S. agribusiness. USA Today 4b (November 6, sec. Money).Google Scholar
  75. Schröder, M. J. A., & McEachern, M. G. (2004). Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 168–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter versus Department of Environmental Quality. (2008). Northwestern reporter 2d, 747, 321–336.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2007). Smithfield Foods makes landmark decision regarding animal management. Smithfield, Virginia.
  79. Smithfield Foods, Inc. (2008). Corporate social responsibility report 2007/08. Smithfield, Virginia.
  80. State of Oklahoma versus Tyson Foods, Inc. Complaint. (2005). Attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, filed in Federal District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, case no. 4:05-cv-329.Google Scholar
  81. Strauss Veal. (2009). Free raised veal frequently asked questions. Franklin, Wisconsin.
  82. Sumner, D. A., Rosen-Molina, J. T., Matthews, W. A., Mench, J. A., & Richter, K. R. (2008). Economic effects of proposed restrictions on egg-laying hen housing in California. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, July, 1–6.Google Scholar
  83. Thu, K. (2002). Public health concerns for neighbors of large-scale swine production operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety & Health, 8, 175–184.Google Scholar
  84. Tonsor, G. T., Wolf, C., & Olynk, N. (2009). Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy, 34, 492–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Treaty of Amsterdam. (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. Luxembourg: Official publications of the European Communities.
  86. Turner, J. (2000). The welfare of Europe’s sows in close confinement stalls. Compassion in World Farming Trust. Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
  87. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2007). Tyson to use new label for raised without antibiotics chicken. Springdale, Arkansas.
  88. Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.-V., Janczak, A. M., Visser, E. K., et al. (2006). Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 101, 185–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. versus Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Federal reporter 3rd, 399, 486–524.Google Scholar
  90. Weber, R., Keil, N. M., & Horat, R. (2009). Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science, 124, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Webster, A. J. F. (2001). Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal, 161, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams, N. M. (2008). Affected ignorance and animal suffering: Why our failure to debate factory farming puts us at moral risk. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Winter, M., Fry, C., & Carruthers, S. P. (1998). European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy, 23, 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zahn, J. A., Hatfield, J. L., Laird, D. A., Hart, T. T., Do, Y. S., & DiSpirito, A. A. (2001). Functional classification of swine manure management systems based on effluent and gas emission characteristics. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 635–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations