 |
| V. Victoria Shroff |
Farmed animals are a tremendously important group to analyze in animal law due to the sheer number of animals affected by factory farming. Annually, Canada slaughters over 800 million farmed animals, predominantly chickens, pigs, cows and sheep.
Vector designer
Today’s showcase paper was written by animal law student Jack Milliken and is titled “Exploring the Unequal Treatment of Farmed Animals Under B.C.’s PCA Act.” I asked Jack a series of questions about his research on farmed animals, and he responded as follows:
V.V.S.: Why did you choose this particular animal law topic?
J.M.: The reason I decided to research this topic is that it highlights a source of inequality in animal welfare protections in British Columbia that has significant consequences for a particular class of animals. I felt I had an opportunity to build on existing scholarship by contributing a detailed analysis of this inequality while also advocating for legislative improvements aimed at improving the welfare of farmed animals in the province.
V.V.S.: What gap in existing animal law scholarship does your paper address? Why is this gap significant for courts, policymakers or advocates?
J.M.: My research addresses a lack of animal law scholarship regarding the unequal treatment of farmed animals under legislation in British Columbia. The province’s current animal protection legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), outlines a standard of care prohibiting the distress of animals that technically applies to both traditional pet animals and farmed animals. However, Section 24.02 (c) of the PCA Act provides that no conviction should be found if distress results from an activity that aligns with “reasonable and generally accepted practices of animal management.”
What constitutes such a practice is largely reliant on standards set out by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), which is a private Canadian non-profit organization that develops and publishes industry-specific Codes of Practice for the care and management of farmed animals. In effect, this framework means that farmed animals are subject to different standards than other animals that are also encompassed under the PCA Act.
These different standards contribute to real consequences and suffering for farmed animals. In R. v. Van Dongen, bedding areas for cows were found “heavily soiled,” and a veterinarian testified that this would likely have a negative impact on the cows’ health (R. v. Van Dongen, 2004 BCPC 479 at paras. 9-13). Despite this, the conditions were found to be “not unacceptable” in the context of farming, and the accused was found not liable under the PCA Act (Van Dongen at paras. 39-44). This contrasts with decisions involving dogs and cats, where unsanitary conditions have routinely led to convictions (R. v. Haughton, [2012] B.C.J. No. 2862; R. v. Minions, [2022] B.C.J. No. 556; R. v. Zhou, [2022] B.C.J. No. 398).
Further, NFACC Codes permit a variety of practices that have been shown to cause significant distress for farmed animals. In the dairy industry, calves are permitted to be removed from their mothers shortly after birth and then isolated in individual housing. Separating cows from each other in this manner is widely agreed to cause significant distress. In this way, allowing farmed animals to be subject to different standards has significant consequences that contribute to real suffering for this class of animals.
Further, NFACC Codes permit a variety of practices that have been shown to cause significant distress for farmed animals. In the dairy industry, calves are permitted to be removed from their mothers shortly after birth and then isolated in individual housing. Separating cows from each other in this manner is widely agreed to cause significant distress. In this way, allowing farmed animals to be subject to different standards has significant consequences that contribute to real suffering for this class of animals.
V.V.S.: How does your analysis move beyond descriptive discussion to offer a normative or doctrinal contribution to animal law?
J.M.: My research identifies two unique shortcomings of the NFACC Codes of Practice, which the PCA Act relies upon. The first being that the NFACC is largely led by industry, creating a focus on economic interests to the detriment of farmed animal welfare.
The second major flaw in the NFACC Codes is a gap between required and recommended practices. Recommendations are not generally enforceable, and my research found that there is often a large disparity between recommended and required practices, with recommended practices outlining much higher standards of care. The recommendations may provide the appearance that the NFACC is addressing important farmed animal welfare issues, but without enforceability, they in reality highlight the disparities and lack of protection afforded by corresponding requirements.
The second major flaw in the NFACC Codes is a gap between required and recommended practices. Recommendations are not generally enforceable, and my research found that there is often a large disparity between recommended and required practices, with recommended practices outlining much higher standards of care. The recommendations may provide the appearance that the NFACC is addressing important farmed animal welfare issues, but without enforceability, they in reality highlight the disparities and lack of protection afforded by corresponding requirements.
V.V.S.: If your paper were to influence future litigation or legislation, what practical change do you envision it could potentially produce?
J.M.: My research paper argues for legislative changes to improve the welfare of farmed animals that could be used to create a meaningful and practical change. Specifically, my research identifies animal welfare legislation from the European Union and the United Kingdom and argues for their adoption in British Columbia.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty declares that animals are sentient and mandates members to “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” when implementing policy in areas involving animals. As a result, the EU has banned several farming practices with the goal of improving farmed animal welfare, including narrow crates for veal calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens and gestation crates used in pig farming. Further, the adoption of standards known as the Five Freedoms in EU member states and the U.K. provides an additional avenue for strengthening B.C.’s farmed animal welfare.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty declares that animals are sentient and mandates members to “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” when implementing policy in areas involving animals. As a result, the EU has banned several farming practices with the goal of improving farmed animal welfare, including narrow crates for veal calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens and gestation crates used in pig farming. Further, the adoption of standards known as the Five Freedoms in EU member states and the U.K. provides an additional avenue for strengthening B.C.’s farmed animal welfare.
Conclusion
Jack Milliken’s animal law student paper offers the reader a thoughtful examination of how farmed animals are regulated (or not) under animal welfare laws and contributes insights into how legal systems might evolve over time for the betterment of millions of animals.
As Jack noted in the conclusion of his research paper, it’s important to remain optimistic that legal frameworks can change: “While provincial protections for farmed animals may currently be severely lacking, as this paper has highlighted, it is especially important to maintain optimism despite these issues and invest energy into advocating for the continued improvement of farmed animal welfare.”
V. Victoria Shroff, K.C., is one of Canada’s first and longest-serving animal law practitioners and the longest-serving in B.C. Shroff practises animal law in Vancouver at Shroff and Associates. She is also an adjunct professor of animal law at UBC’s Allard School of Law and faculty, Capilano University. Shroff is an associate fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. Recognized locally and internationally as an animal law expert, she is frequently interviewed by the media. The second edition of her book, Canadian Animal Law, was published in 2025 and is available at LexisNexis Canada. www.shroffanimallaw.com | LinkedIn.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.