Abstract
Abstract This article examines Anna Joseph’s (2016) suggestion of introducing into United States law a requirement to stun an animal still found to be conscious after 40 seconds following initial cutting during religious slaughter. It is suggested that the proposed law fails to address significant ethical concerns based on scientific evidence. The conflict with human rights legislation, especially religious freedom, is discussed. A new consumers’ rights approach is proposed that highlights the life of the animal and may provide a universally applicable legal framework for meat production. This may avoid the pitfalls of conflicting with human rights, thereby enabling the revision of practices through education, information, and changing consumer behavior.
Accepted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
