IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/usdami/333544.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview

Author

Listed:
  • Ufer, Danielle

Abstract

Since 2002, 14 U.S States have passed and implemented policies addressing practices that can impact farm animal welfare. The most common policies directly ban confinement practices within a State’s pork, egg, and veal industries or prohibit the sale of products from noncompliant operations. Proposals for future changes are also beginning to target beef and dairy industries. As these policies become increasingly common across States, their influence on animal product industries, markets, and international trade opportunities grows. This report describes the current state of these policies, the extent of their implementation and geographic coverage, and the legal environment and challenges these policies have faced. State policies directly cover a relatively small share of operations and production, but retail sales restrictions can reach beyond State borders to affect U.S. animal product industries more broadly and create market implications for U.S. imports and exports.

Suggested Citation

  • Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:usdami:333544
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.333544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333544/files/eib-245.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.333544?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smithson, Katie & Corbin, Max & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2014. "Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    4. Daniel A Sumner, 2018. "Comment on “The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 670-673.
    5. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    6. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    8. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    10. Franklin Bailey Norwood & Glynn Tonsor & Jayson L Lusk, 2019. "I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 96-132, March.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Consumer preferences for cage‐free eggs and impacts of retailer pledges," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, April.
    12. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    13. Appleby, Michael C. & Chinn, Kathy & Douglas, Lawrence & Firkins, Lawrence D. & Fraser, David & Golab, Gail C. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Houpt, Katherine A. & Irwin, Christa & McGlone, John J. & Rhodes, R., 2005. "Housing of Pregnant Sows--A Comprehensive Review," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12655, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    2. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    6. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2022. "The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1293-1326, August.
    7. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    9. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    10. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Schaefer, K. Aleks, 2022. "Resolving the reality gap in farm regulation voting models," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    12. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2018. "Substitutability between organic and conventional poultry products and organic price premiums," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 20(1), pages 75-92.
    13. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    14. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    15. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    16. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    17. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    18. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    20. Christopher M. Drohan & F. Bailey Norwood, 2020. "From Tunnel‐Vision to Panoramic Fog—An Essay on How Philosophy Can Help us Better Understand Consumers' Pursuit of Ethical Food," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 421-433, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Farm Management; Industrial Organization; Livestock Production/Industries; Production Economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:usdami:333544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.usda.gov .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.