A growing body of evidence indicates that concentrated animal feeding operations-generated contaminants are ending up in the waters that we depend on for commerce, recreation, and perhaps most importantly, drinking.
Since we can't count on the meat, egg, and dairy industries to protect animals from the most egregious forms of cruelty, what can we, as consumers, do? Opting out of paying someone to allow animals to die in a barn fire or at the slaughterhouse seems pretty reasonable.
Rep. Steve King's amendment to the Farm Bill is designed not only to block California's animal safety laws, but also to prevent any state from imposing its own animal welfare standards on producers from other states.
Have a blueberry muffin with your latte this morning? Or sneak a chocolate chip cookie during your work break? Living inside all of these products is an ingredient that would cause us to hesitate before the next bite -- if we only knew its source.
Dr. Aysha Akhtar looks at the interlocking animal and human health issues involved in domestic violence, animal-fighting, animal attacks, the wildlife trade, factory farming, climate change, and drug development.
During dinner with our children, we asked them, all enthusiastic carnivores, why they thought it was OK to eat meat. Their varying responses inspired us to frame this discussion in terms of the Passover Haggadah's description of the Four Children.
Around the country, farming states are passing "ag-gag" laws that punish activists who record and share horrific scenes from inside confined feeding operations and slaughterhouses. The reason is clear: when people get a good look at these scenes, they don't like them.
Whether an animal welfare law will be effective often turns on whether it gets adequately funded. Having legislators seek that funding is crucial, especially when there are as many strong competing budget pressures as there are now.