DOES THE RULE OF ECOLOGICAL LAW DEMAND VEGANISM?: ECOLOGICAL LAW, INTERSPECIES JUSTICE, AND THE GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM

Heather McLeod-Kilmurray*†

INTRODUCTION...... 455 I. DEFINING “ECOLOGICAL LAW” AND THE “GLOBAL (ANIMAL)FOOD SYSTEM”...... 458 II. DOES ECOLOGICAL LAW REQUIRE INTERSPECIES JUSTICE?...... 464 III. DOES INTERSPECIES JUSTICE DEMAND (HUMAN)VEGANISM?...... 465 IV.WOULD ENDING OR REDUCING INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ENHANCEORCHALLENGE INTER- AND INTRAGENERATIONAL HUMAN JUSTICE?THE 10 FEATURESOFECOLOGICAL LAW AND THE INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL FOOD SYSTEM...... 468 CONCLUSION:SOME SOLUTIONS THAT ECOLOGICAL LAW MIGHT POINT TOWARD...... 479

INTRODUCTION

Theconceptofecological lawchallengesmany fundamental assumptions andnorms of ourconventionalunderstandingsoflaw and requiresprofound changes to our usualapproachestosustainability.1 A somewhat less explored issueiswhether ecological lawrequiresorleadsus toward interspecies justice. To tacklethisquestion,Ihave chosen thecase study of our global industrialized food system,focusinginparticular on animal foods.Not onlydoeseatinganimalproducts directly raisethe issue of interspeciesjustice, butitacutely demonstratesthe challenges of achieving humanjustice(bothinter-and intragenerational)and justicefor

*Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,and Co-Director, Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability,University of Ottawa.Her research and teaching focus onFood Law,ToxicTorts, and Environmental Justice. She is co-author of The CanadianLaw of ToxicTorts with Lynda Collins, co-editor of theforthcoming CanadianFood Law and Policy with Nathalie Chalifour and AngelaLee, and aformer part-time member of theOntarioEnvironmental Review Tribunal. †With great thanks to twoofmywonderfulPhD students—AngelaLee and CarlaSbert—as well as my colleagues—Lynda Collins andNathalie Chalifour—fortheirextremely helpful insightson earlierdrafts—so privileged to workwith all of you! Ialso thankthe editorial teamatVermont Law Review fortheirhelpful input. 1.See GeoffreyGarver, The Rule of Ecological Law: TheLegal Complement to Degrowth Economics,5SUSTAINABILITY 316, 325 (2013)(theorizing that “[t]he rule of ecologicallaw must overcomethe limitationsofcontemporaryenvironmental law,”namelyits protectionofconsumption- based lifestyles that are “rooted in strong notions of property rightsand personal freedom”). 456 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 other speciesatthe same time.2 It is thereforeinteresting to askthe question: does ecologicallaw demand veganism?3 While this shortEssay does not attempttoprovide acompleteand final answertothisquestion, it providesanexcellent opportunity foraninitialthought experiment on how ecological lawwouldchange one of themostecologically harmfuland unjustaspectsofour globalfood system.4 In understanding and actualizingecological law, several related conceptsare helpful. Onepurpose of thelaw is to achieve justice. Klaus Bosselmann has proposed aconcept of “ecologicaljustice,”which requires threekinds of justice: intergenerational, intragenerational,and interspecies.5 Ourcurrent globalized,industrialized food system is achallenge to all three.6 To overcomethischallenge, our dominantfood system,and thelaws and policiesthat shape it, must be changed. Although it is truethatwhat we eat is oftenapersonalchoice,thischoice, for many of us,issignificantly shaped andlimitedbythe modernindustrialfood system,which is colonial, exploitative, and creates injusticetopresent and futuregenerations of human and non-human animals.7 This is particularly true in relationto industrialanimalagriculture,especially industrialmeatproduction.8 Argumentsinfavor of theindustrialfood system emphasizethe needto increasefood productiontofeed agrowing globalpopulation,9 especially in

2.See infra Part I(explaining howthe globalfood system’s focusonindustrialanimal agriculture contributes to inter- and intragenerational as well as interspeciesinjustice). 3. This Essay is an introductorythought experiment—rather than acomprehensivereview of how ecologicallaw wouldreform the global,regional,and localfood systems—and is certainly not intended to answerthe question of whether each person’s or group’sfood choicesmeets anyparticular ethic of ecological law. 4.See infra Part IV (analyzing howGarver’s ten features of ecological law wouldreform the global food system). 5. Klaus Bosselmann, Ecological Justiceand Law, in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOR SUSTAINABILITY:AREADER 129, 160 (Benjamin J. Richardson &Stepan Wood eds., 2006). 6.See infra notes 116–21 and accompanying text (explaining howthe developed world’s consumptionofmeatcontributes to food insecurity,thereby causingintergenerational injustice). 7.See infra notes97–101 and accompanying text (outlining theways in whichthe legal systemincentivizesand promotes themodern globalfood system). 8.See Global Meat Productionand ConsumptionContinue to Rise,WORLDWATCH INST., http://www.worldwatch.org/global-meat-production-and-consumption-continue-rise (last visitedApr. 14, 2019) [hereinafter Global Meat Production](discussingthe negativeimpactsthat industrialized meat productionhas on animals, humans,and theclimate). 9. See,e.g., WhoWill Feed Us?The Industrial Food Chain vs thePeasant Food Web,ETC GROUP (Oct. 16, 2017) [hereinafter WhoWill Feed Us?], http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will- feed-us-industrial-food-chain-vs-peasant-food-web (“Weare told thatitis bigagribusiness, with its flashytechno-fixes and financial clout,that will save the worldfrom widespread hunger and malnutrition ....”). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 457 regions wherefinancial wealth is increasing.10 However,thereisverylittle discussion about tacklinghunger by other means, such as addressing human populationgrowth, reducing food waste, enhancing redistributionoffood, andproducingfood with more efficient energy ratios. Therefore, this Essayspecifically asks: (1)Does ecological lawrequire interspecies justice? (2)Doesinterspecies justicedemand (human) veganism?11 (3)Wouldveganism enhance or challenge inter- and intragenerationalhuman justice? Iwill useGeoffreyGarver’sten features of ecological law12 to explore theseissuesand to proposechangestoour food systems, with aparticular focusonindustrialanimalagriculture.13 Iconcludethat ecological law wouldrespect indigenous approaches to food, whichpermitnon-human animalstofulfill theirecological and natural roles.14 Similarly, ecological lawmay permittraditional small-scale animal husbandry, with its system of

10.See Global MeatProduction, supra note8(documentingthat“[w]orldwide meat productionhas tripledover the last four decades,” especially in industrial countriesthat consume“nearly doublethe quantity [of] developing countries”). 11.Another interestingquestiontoconsider is whetherinterspecies justice requires an end to non-human animal unrewarded labor, but thisisbeyondthe scope of this Essay. See Workshop on ‘AnimalLabour: Ethical,Legal and Political Perspectives on Recognizing Animals’ Work,’ ANIMALS PHIL., POL., L. ÐICS (Feb. 21, 2018), http://animalpolitics.queensu.ca/workshop-animal-labour/ (promotingworkshop that “aim[s] ...toexplore thepotentialbenefits and pitfalls of recognizing animals as workers”); CharlotteBlattner On ‘Animals Are(Forced) Workers, Too,’ ANIMALS PHIL., POL., L. ÐICS (Feb.21, 2018), http://animalpolitics.queensu.ca/charlotte-blattner-on-animals-are- forced-workers-too/ (examining “whetheranimals require aright against forcedlabour and explor[ing] how this rightcan be secured”). 12.Garver, supra note 1, at 325–30. 13.See infra Part IV (applying Garver’s ten features of ecological law to the industrialanimal foodsystem). 14.AsAngelaLee has written: Looking to other kinds of belief systemscan helpustoenvision alternative, non- technological ways in whichmeat eatingmight occur ethically,though here, we must be vigilant so as not [to] pick and choosethose elementsofother cultures that are convenient or favourable to our position, whilediscarding those that are not.Wemustalso be carefultoavoid theassumption that“indigenous people cannot maintain traditional values if theiruse of nativeimplements has been supplanted by technology and practicesimported from thedominantwhite culture.” A“primitive” subsistence culture is not theonlyone in whichmeat- eatingcoulddefensivelytake place. Insteadofbeing guided by rigid rulesor absoluteprohibitions, value systemsand worldviewspredicated on different set of principles can teach us to thinkmore relationally about theenvironment we live in andthe food thatitprovides.For example, Aboriginal attitudes towards huntingand meat-eating frequently reflectaprofoundreverencefor animallife within asystem of kinship, and underscorethe ethical responsibilitiesassociated with taking that life away. AngelaLee, The Milkmaid’s Tale: Veganism, Feminism,and DystopianFood Futures,WINDSOR REV. LEGAL &SOC.ISSUES (forthcoming2019) (manuscriptat31–32) (onfile with author) (footnotes omitted)(quotingJ.Douglas Rabb, The VegetarianFox and Indigenous Philosophy:Speciesism, Racism, and Sexism,24ENVTL.ETHICS 275, 286 (2002)). 458 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 mutual dependence between humanand non-human animals.15 However, thesefood systemsalone areunlikelytofeed therapidly growingglobal human population; thus,thesesystemsmay notachieve inter- and intragenerationalequity.16 If ecological lawalsorequiresinterspecies justice, it is difficulttojustify significant human consumptionofanimal productswherehumans canfeed themselves adequately fromplant-based sources—acomplex idea explored in more detail below.17 While adramatic shiftawayfromanimalfood productswill not occur overnight,and may neverbefully achieved, ecologicallaw still demands thedismantlingofthe myriad laws—including environmentallaws—that encourage and perpetuate ourcurrent globalized industrialfood system’srelianceon animalfood products.18 Ashift fromanimal-product consumptionwould also allowustosolve some of themorepressingproblemsofthe industrial- animal-agriculture system.

I. DEFINING “ECOLOGICAL LAW” AND THE “GLOBAL (ANIMAL)FOOD SYSTEM”

Garver explains ecologicallaw as follows:

Systems-basedecologicalboundariesthat promotethe flourishing of life systemsprovide thebase of astructure of ecologicallaw (in thelegal sense) that must be respected and enforced to fend offcatastrophe and enhancethe capacity forlife. Theloomingprospect of transgressing criticalecological points of no return requiresthe global community to fashion asystems- based legal and institutional structurethat is built on the

15.See infra notes 166–73 and accompanying text (highlighting how ecological law could encourage local food movements). 16.See TamarHaspel, WhySmall, Local,OrganicFarms Aren’t the Key to Fixing OurFood System,WASH.POST (Sept. 22,2017),https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/why-small-local- organic-farms-arent-the-key-to-fixing-our-food-system/2017/09/21/146f72b2-9e4d-11e7-8ea1- ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.fbd57989db0a (positing thatlocal farmscannot solve issues in the foodsystembecause(i) they do not producethe right crops, (ii) theyare not equipped to grow such crops, (iii) cropland is not situated close enough to populated areas,and (iv) local food is onlyavailable forlimited seasons). But seeWho Will Feed Us?, supra note9(“[A]new report ...showsthat in fact, it is adiversenetwork of small-scale producers, dubbed thePeasant Food Web, that feeds 70% of the world ....”). 17.See infra Part III (discussing whether interspecies justice demandshuman veganism). 18.See infra PartIV(arguing that ecological law requires reducing relianceonindustrial- animal-agriculturesystems). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 459

foundationofecological lawunder an expanded notionofthe rule of law.19

Many others have used differentterms to describe similarapproaches andchallenges.20 More specifically,Garver proposes tenfeatures of ecological law: (1)ecological lawshouldrecognizehumansare partof Earth’s life systems;(2) ecological limits must have primacyoversocial and economic regimes; (3)ecological lawmustpermeateall areas of law; (4)ecological lawshouldfocus on radically reducing material andenergy output;(5) ecological lawmustbeglobalbut distributed (otherwise referred to as theprincipleofsubsidiarityand commonbut differentiated responsibility); (6)ecological lawshouldensureafairsharingofresources among presentand future generations of humans andother life;(7) ecologicallaw must be “binding ...and supranational, with supremacy over sub-global legal regimesasnecessary”;(8) ecological lawrequires “greatly expanded program[s] of research andmonitoring”;(9) ecological lawrequiresprecautioninrelationtocrossingglobalecologicalboundaries; and (10) ecological lawmustbeadaptive.21 AccordingtoGarver,ecologicallaw growsout of twocompeting impossibilities:

Thecallfor theruleofecological lawemerges fromthe tension between opposing narratives of impossibility.Onthe onehand is theseeming impossibility of ending thecurrent intransigent commitmenttoinfinite economic growth,the primacyofshort- term economicinterests and theoverriding beliefintechnological solutions to ecological challenges ....Onthe otherhand arethe systemic impossibilitiesand long-term catastrophicsocio- ecologicalconsequencesifthe economygrows infinitelyand economic andpolitical trade-offscontinue to outweigh non- negotiableecologicallimits.22

Thecurrent globalfood system’s approach to animalfood products is at exactly this juncture of impossibilities, and this is whyecological law could be particularly relevant in tryingtotransform thesystemtoachieve

19.Garver, supra note1,at317–18; see also id. at 319 (“[T]he‘rule of law’ means that global regulatorylimits requiredtomeet ecological limits and ensurefairsharing ofthe earth’s bountymustbe respected.” (quoting PETER G. BROWN &GEOFFREY GARVER,RIGHT RELATIONSHIP:BUILDINGA WHOLE EARTH ECONOMY 135 (2009))). 20. See id. at 318–19 (explaining various conceptsanalogous to Garver’s theory of ecological law). 21. Id. at 325–29. 22.Id. at 330. 460 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 ecological sustainabilityand justice. Butinfact,what is theglobalfood system?Accordingtothe CommitteeonWorld FoodSecurity:

[A]food system encompasses allthe stages ofkeepingusfed: growing, harvesting, packing, processing, transforming, marketing, consumingand disposingoffood. Themostcommon food system is theagro-industrialfood system that is global.Itis dominated by afew multinational corporations through vertical integration. This is averycomplex systemwith along supply chain and it hasalotofprocessed foods. 23

Theglobal food system,particularly sinceWorld WarII, hasbeen increasinglyfocused on and driven by industrialization, corporatization, and monopolization, includinginthe productionand marketingofanimal-based foods.24 In addition, this modelisbeing exported: industrialanimal operations “are becomingincreasingly prevalent in developing regions.”25 Forexample, “[i]nEast and Southeast Asia ...meat productionincreased by 25 milliontons,or31percent, between 2001and 2007 alone,and most of this growth took placeinindustrialsystems.”26 TheFood and Agriculture Organizationofthe UnitedNations (FAO) “estimates that 80 percent of growth inthe livestock sector now comes from industrialproduction systems. Andinmanydevelopingregions, environmental,animalwelfare, public health,and labor standardsare not as well establishedasinNorth Americaand Europe.”27 Industrialanimalagriculture causes significant harmtothe climateand waterand requiresland usechange—not to mentionthe harmstoanimaland human health.28 It also affects access to healthy, sustainable, andecologically andculturally appropriatefoods.29

23.Myriam Welvaert, TheFutureFood System: TheWorld on One Plate?,COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY (Oct. 20, 2016), http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/blog/blog- articles/article/en/c/448182/. 24.Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingNonhuman Animals and TheirConsumers: Industrial Livestock Production, Animal Welfare,and Ecological Justice,32BULL.SCI., TECH.&SOC’Y 71, 73, 77, 80 (2012) [hereinafter McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingAnimals]. 25.Rising NumberofFarm AnimalsPoses Environmental and PublicHealth Risks, WORLDWATCH INST., http://www.worldwatch.org/rising-number-farm-animals-poses-environmental- and-public-health-risks-0 (last visitedApr.14, 2019) [hereinafter WORLDWATCH INST., FarmAnimals]. 26.WORLDWATCH INST., VITAL SIGNS VOLUME 20: THE TRENDS THAT ARE SHAPING OUR FUTURE 56 (2013) [hereinafter VITAL SIGNS]. 27. Id. (foonoteomitted). 28.FOOD &AGRIC.ORG. OF THE UNITED NATIONS,LIVESTOCK’S LONG SHADOW: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUESAND OPTIONS 4, 6, 16 (2006),http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf [hereinafter FOOD &AGRIC.ORG., LIVESTOCK]. 29.BRIGHTER GREEN & THE GLOB.FOREST COAL., INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE,LIVESTOCK FARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE:GLOBAL SOCIAL,CULTURAL,ECOLOGICAL, AND ETHICAL IMPACTS OF AN UNSUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY 4, https://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 461

If thecurrent global food system causessomany health and justice problemstothe environment, economy, humans,and animals,why have we structureditthisway to date? While theevolutionofthe current system is a long—though surprisinglyrecent—story, some of thekey argumentsfor maintaining, and even expanding, this systeminclude:(1) thelack of adequatefood formillions of people;30 (2)the increasingwealth of the human population, whichhas ledtorisingdemand foranimalfood products;31 and (3)the risksthat climatechange poses to food production.32 What wouldecological lawhave to sayabout each of thesearguments? First, it wouldquestionmorespecifically why thereisalack of adequatefood forthe currentgenerationand whythe dominant food system’s prescriptionfor fixingthisproblem is so heavilyfocused on increasingthe food supply.33 It is widely documented that theworld currently produces sufficient food to feed everyhuman on Earth, and the problem is one of distribution.34 In addition, food wasteisanenormous problem,and some have estimated that roughly33% of producedfood is wasted.35 Second,ecological lawwouldemphasizetacklingthe human populationgrowthproblem itself, rather than acceptingitand placing the extra burdenonthe ecosystem and other lives within it.36 Third,ifhunger persisted despitereducedwaste,fairer distribution, and humanpopulation control, ecological lawwouldask whetherincreasinggrowththrough

MM_Brighter-Green-and-the-Global-Forest-Coalition_WSF_Industrial_Livestock-FINAL.pdf (last visited Apr. 14, 2019). 30.See FOOD &AGRIC.ORG. OF THE UNITED NATIONS,THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE WORLD 2(2018) (“Theabsolutenumber of undernourished peopleinthe worldis now estimatedtohave increased from around 804 million in 2016 to almost 821 million in 2017.”). 31.WORLDWATCH INST., FarmAnimals, supra note25. 32.See ReneeCho, How ClimateChange Will Alter OurFood,COLUM.U.: EARTH INST.(July 25, 2018),https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/07/25/climate-change-food-agriculture/(describing how climatechange will likelyresultindecreased yields in allfood productionbecause ofincreased temperatures and extremeweather fluctuations). 33.See Garver, supra note1,at326–27(explaining that ecological lawcalls for botha“fair sharingofresources among present and future generations” as wellasa“radical re-focusing of the economyonreduc[ing]” consumptionand energy). 34.Eric Holt-Giménez et al., We Already Grow Enough Foodfor 10 BillionPeople ...and StillCan’tEnd Hunger,36J.SUSTAINABLE AGRIC.595, 595 (2012). 35. Key FactsonFood Loss and Waste YouShould Know!, FOOD &AGRIC.ORG.UNITED NATIONS,http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/ (lastvisitedApr.14, 2019) [hereinafter Facts on Food Loss]. 36.Garver, supra note1(“The primary concernofthe human community must be the preservation andenhancement of [the community of alllivingspecies].” (quotingTHOMAS BERRY, GREAT WORK:OUR WAY INTO THE FUTURE 58 (1999))). 462 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 animal food products is themostefficient or fair system—bothinterms of justice to humansand theecosystem.37 Second, somehave arguedthat industrialanimalagriculture is themost efficientway to satisfy thedemandsofthe growingglobalhuman populationand its increasingwealth.38 However,ecological lawmight ask whethermoreanimalproductsare aneed or awant.39 ecological lawwould askabout theecological realities of thepeoplesinquestion to answer this. For example, thehuman needtoeat meat is verydifferent in thefar North or in extremedrought conditions than in Western urban contexts.40 In addition, while eatinganimalproductsisapersonal choice,41 thesechoices areveryoften shaped and limitedbythe industrialfood system,the laws and subsidiesthatsupportit,42 and theeconomic realitiesand practical

37.See id. at 327 (“[T]herule of ecologicallaw must ensure fair sharing of resources among present and future generations ....”). 38.See, e.g.,Ron Smith, Population Growth Demands Improved FarmEfficiency, SOUTHWEST FARMPRESS (Apr. 22, 2010), https://www.farmprogress.com/management/population- growth-demands-improved-farm-efficiency (arguing that to feed9billionpeopleby2050, farmers and ranchers “must find ways to make significant improvement in farm productivity and efficiency”). 39.See Garver, supra note1,at326–27 (advocating foraculturalshifttoaneconomythat produces onlythingsthatare needed). 40.See MarceloGleiser, Is aNo-Meat World Really Better?,NAT’L PUB.RADIO (June 28, 2017),https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/06/28/532880755/is-a-no-meat-world-really-better (“[I]t is clearthat less meat is good morally andenvironmentally,but no meat maynot be as good as some maythink. Somepoor regions inthe world need all themeat they can get.”); seealso Tiff-AnnieKenny et al., Dietary Sources of Energy and Nutrients in the Contemporary Diet of InuitAdults: Results from the 2007–08InuitHealth Survey,21PUB.HEALTH NUTRITION 1319, 1319–20 (2018) (chroniclingthat “[i]n thelatter halfofthe 20thcentury,”the Inuitdecreased theirconsumptionof“country foods,” whichare those “harvested from northern ecosystems, through culturalpractices, traditionsand detailed environmental knowledge” while increasingtheirconsumptionoffoods “purchased in stores”); Ursula King &ChristopherFurgal, Is HuntingStill Healthy? Understanding the Interrelationships Between IndigenousParticipationinLand-BasedPractices and Human-Environmental Health,11INT’L J. ENVTL.RES.&PUB.HEALTH 5751, 5772 (2014) (arguing foratransdisciplinaryapproachto“better understand” thecomplexity between huntingand “[l]and-human health interrelationships”). 41.Ofcourse,thisassumes that theperson in questionhas theability to exercise choicein relation to food—clearly millions of peopledonot exercise free choice in relationtofood foravariety of reasons, including income,accessibility,and other barriers. See, e.g.,Rebecca Seguinetal., Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to HealthyEatingand ActiveLivinginRural Communities,J. NUTRITION &METABOLISM,2014, at 5–6, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276670/ pdf/JNME2014-146502.pdf (“Thecost of freshfood wasidentifiedasabarrier to eating healthy, especially among low-incomemembers of thecommunity.”). 42.See, e.g.,Adam Spiers, The Public Health Dilemma of Excessive Meat Consumption, NETWORKFOR PUB.HEALTH L.:PUB.HEALTH L. BLOG (May 9, 2013, 12:14 PM), https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/05/09/179/the_public_health_dilemma_of_exce ssive_meat_consumption(“Between 1995 and 2009, thefederal government spent approximately $250 billion to subsidize the agriculturalindustry —approximately 63 percent of theseexpenditures supported themeat anddairy industries.”). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 463 availabilityofoptions forvariously situated people.43 Therefore, ecological lawwouldquestionthisargument as an appropriate solution to global hunger. Third,ifthe goal is to tacklehunger,expanding food systemsthat exacerbate ecological harms will onlyworsenthe problem. For example, animalfood products areamong thegreatestcause of reduced food availability—both currently and in thefuture—due to theirserious role in exacerbatingclimatechange, whichalso challengesfood productionitself.44 Forexample:

Theproductionofanimalproductsgenerates themajority of food-relatedGHG emissions (72–78% of totalagricultural emissions), whichisdue to lowfeed-conversion efficiencies, enteric fermentationinruminants, andmanure-relatedemissions; thefeed-relatedimpactsofanimalproductsalsocontributeto bluewateruse (around 10%) and pressures on cropland, as well as nitrogenand phosphorus application(20–25% each).45

Apartfromits effectsonclimate, theindustrialfood system is colonial, exploitative,and creates injusticetothe current andfuturegenerations of human andnon-human animals.The feed conversion ratio creates inter- and intragenerationalinequalities.46 Fearsoffuturefood scarcity driveland grabbing andother injustices.47 Theindustrialfood system also createspath

43.See Gleiser, supra note40(explaining that in many places,raising animals is easierorthe onlyoption availablegiven thestate of theland). 44.FOOD &AGRIC.ORG., LIVESTOCK, supra note 28, at 4–6. 45.Marco Springmann et al., Options forKeeping theFood SystemWithin Environmental Limits,562 NATURE 519, 520 (2018) (footnote omitted); see also WalterWillett et al., Foodinthe Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on HealthyDietsfromSustainableFood Systems,393 LANCET COMMISSIONS 447, 449 (2019) (“Food production is thelargestcause of global environmental change.”).For further details on how industrial meat productionimpactsclimatechange and causes other environmental harm, see Robert Goodland&Jeff Anhang, Livestockand Climate Change:What if theKey ActorsinClimateChange are...Cows, Pigs andChickens?,WORLDWATCH INST., Nov.–Dec. 2009, at 10–11, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 (explainingthat livestock contributes between 18 and 51% of annual worldwide greenhousegas emissions);FOOD &AGRIC.ORG., LIVESTOCK, supra note 28, at iii(outliningthe “verysubstantialcontributionofanimalagriculture to climatechange and airpollution, to land, soiland waterdegradationand to thereductionofbiodiversity”); see also Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, Vegetarianism andFood Governance:Sustainabilityand Ecological Justice, in GLOBALISATION AND ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY IN SCIENCEAND INTERNATIONAL LAW 57, 58-59 (Laura Westra et al. eds., 2011) [hereinafterMcLeod-Kilmurray, Vegetarianism](reportingthat intensive livestock productionisone of the greatestemitters of greenhousegases). 46.See infra notes 115–22 and accompanying text (explaining that because industrial agriculturalhas ahighfeed-conversion ratio it can onlyfeedasmallpercentage of planet). 47.KihwanSeo &Natalia Rodriguez, Land Grab, Food Security and Climate Change:A ViciousCircle in the Global South, in HUMANAND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 165, 167 (Netra Chhetri ed., 2012), https://www.intechopen.com/chapter/pdf-download/40834. 464 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 dependence, making us forget that theremay be other, bettersystems and approaches available48 and causing us to look to economic and technologicalfixes.49 Forexample, some have suggestedthat genetic engineeringcouldreduce methane emissions frommeat production.50 Yet therisks of genetically modified foods have not beenfully testedor understood and couldcreatesystemicecologicalharms,which in turn could harmhumans as well as theanimals,bothfarmedand wild,and plants they rely on.51 Thesetechnologicalapproachesalsohave atendencytocause even furthercorporatizationand concentrationofpower in thefood system.52 Given thechallenges of thecurrent global industrial-animal- agriculturalsystem, how couldecological law, and its commitment to interspecies justice, help?

II.DOES ECOLOGICAL LAW REQUIRE INTERSPECIES JUSTICE?

Many ecological lawscholarsmake reference to some aspectsof interspecies justice. Forexample,asstated above,Bosselmann explicitly argues that ecological justicerequires intergenerational,intragenerational and interspecies justice.53 TheEarth Charter, which“is an ethical

48. See,e.g.,MICHAEL POLLAN,THE OMNIVORE’S DILEMMA 130–33 (2006) (contrastinga “conventional 500-acrecorn-and-bean operationinChurdan, Iowa”witha550-acresustainable, organic farm in Swoope,Virginia). 49.See, e.g.,Shenggen Fan, Innovations in Food Systems: TheKey to Humanand Planetary Health,INT’L FOOD POL’Y RES.INST.: IFPRI BLOG (Mar. 27, 2018), http://www.ifpri.org/blog/innovations-food-systems-key-human-and-planetary-health(promoting“new and potentially transformativetechnologies” in theglobal food system, such as “lab-grownmeat” and gene-editedseeds). But see AngelaLee, An Ecofeminist Perspective on NewFood Technologies,5CAN. FOOD STUD.63, 69 (2018) (“Giventhe social, political, economic, andethical contextsthat food occupies,technicalevaluationsofnew food technologies areconspicuouslyincomplete, and require a more nuanced considerationoftheirsystemicimplications.”). 50. See,e.g.,Geoff Geddes, Burps and Bovine: Dairy GenomicsProject Cuts FeedCosts, Emissions,GENOME ALTA.: GENOMICS BLOG (Feb. 2, 2016), http://genomealberta.ca/genomics/burps- and-bovines-dairy-genomics-project-cuts-feed-costs-emissions.aspx(describingaresearch initiative “aimed at harnessing genomicstoboost feed efficiencyand reduce methane emissionsindairy cattle”). 51.See JEFFREY M. SMITH,GENETIC ROULETTE:THE DOCUMENTED HEALTH RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS 194 (2007) (“Since GM foodisproclaimed by proponentsand some regulatorstobeassafeasits non-GM counterpart,the pressure on researcherstonot contradictthis assumptionisconsiderable. ...Thishelps explain thelack of serious studiesonGMfoods ....”). 52.See, e.g.,Leonid Bershidsky, Whythe EU Approved Bayer-Monsanto,BLOOMBERG (Mar. 23, 2018), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-23/bayer-monsanto-analysis-eu- approval-is-about-competition(explaining that,ifamerger is approved, threecompanies will control 61% of theseed andpesticide market); see also Jennifer Clapp, Mega-Mergersonthe Menu: Corporate Concentration and the PoliticsofSustainability in aGlobal Food System,18GLOBAL ENVTL.POL.12, 12 (2018) (examining“theenvironmental dimensions of corporateconcentration in theagricultural input industryaswellasthe challenges involved in establishinginternational policyand governance on this issue”). 53.Bosselmann,supra note5,at160. 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 465 framework forbuildingajust,sustainable,and peacefulglobal society,”54 recognizes theinterdependence of species,and thevalue of alllivingthings, regardless of theirutility forhuman animals.55 Cormac Cullinan claims that “the essential purpose of human governancesystems shouldbetosupport peopletoplayamutually enhancing role within thecommunity of life on Earth.”56 Maintainingthe focusonGarver’sten features,features 1, 2,and 6seemtolead us toward interspecies justice.57 Feature1,requiringusto “recognize[]thathumansare part of Earth’s life systems,”movesusaway fromanthropocentricapproachestofood law.58 “[L]ife systems”seem to includeall species, includingnon-human life,assomething humans must relatetoinabalanced and systemicway.59 Feature6clearly encompasses allthree types of justiceinBosselmann’s definition, when it requireslaws to “ensurefair sharingofresources amongpresent and future generations of humansand other life forms.”60

III. DOES INTERSPECIES JUSTICE DEMAND (HUMAN)VEGANISM?

At first glance, it wouldseem that an ecological lawthat includes interspecies justice wouldmake veganism anon-negotiablenecessity—itis unjustfor humans to subordinateother species’right to life to theirhuman tastesand preferences.61 Afullanalysisofwhether ecological law—or more narrowlyinterspeciesjustice—presumes anon-human animal right to life is beyond thescopeofthisEssay.However,the consumptionofanimal productsmay notundermine thegoal of interspecies justice per se and certainlynot in allcases.62 Thomas Berry argues that:

54.What is theEarthCharter?,EARTH CHARTER INITIATIVE,http://earthcharter.org/ discover/what-is-the-earth-charter/ (last visitedApr.14, 2019). 55. See The Earth Charter,EARTH CHARTER INITIATIVE,http://earthcharter.org/discover/the- earth-charter/ (last visitedApr.14, 2019) (outliningthe foundational principle“that allbeings are interdependent andeveryform of life hasvalue regardless of itsworth to human beings”). 56.Garver, supra note1,at318 (quotingCORMAC CULLINAN,WILD LAW:AMANIFESTO FOR EARTH JUSTICE 29 (2ded. 2011)). 57.Id. at 325–27. 58.Id. at 325. 59. Id. (explaining that “Earth’s life systems”includes“thecommunity of alllivingspecies” (quotingBERRY, supra note36)). 60.Id. at 327. 61.See Bosselmann, supra note5,at154 (explaining howinterspeciesjustice requires recognizing “the intrinsicvalue of thenon-human natural world”). 62.See Thomas Berry, Rights of theEarth: We Need aNew LegalFramework Which Recognises theRightsofAll Living Beings, in EXPLORING WILD LAW:THE PHILOSOPHY OF EARTH JURISPRUDENCE 227, 229 (Peter Burdon ed.,2012)(acknowledging that “predatory-prey relationships” arepart“of theEarth community”). 466 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455

(2)Every component of theEarth community has threerights: theright to be, theright to habitat, andthe right to fulfil[l]its role in the ever-renewingprocesses of theEarthcommunity.

(3)All rightsare specific andlimited. Rivershaveriver rights. Birdshave bird rights.Insectshave insect rights.Humans have human rights. Difference in rightsisqualitative, not quantitative. Therightsofaninsect wouldbeofnovalue to atree or afish.

(6)These rightsare based on theintrinsic relations that the various componentsofEarth havetoeach other. Theplanet Earth is asinglecommunity whosemembersare bound togetherwith interdependent relationships.Nolivingbeing nourishes itself. Each component of theEarth community is dependentonevery other member of thecommunity forthe nourishment and assistance it needs forits ownsurvival.Thismutual nourishment, whichincludespredator-preyrelationships,isintegral with the role that each component of theEarth has within the comprehensivecommunity of existence.63

Also,itisimportant to recallthat not allanimal-productproductionis industrialorexploitative.64 Many societies—such as some indigenous peoples,hunter-gatherers,and fishing groups—havemaintained balanced relationships with other speciesand ecosystems forgenerations as interdependent communitiesoflifewithout captivity,cruelty,or exploitationofother species andecosystems.65

63. Id. 64.See JENNIFER CLAPP,FOOD 181–82 (2ded. 2016) (introducing alternativefood movements,which “seektoaddress theecological damage associated with industrial farming practices by promotingecologically sound farmingmethods”). 65. See Nancy J. Turneretal., Traditional EcologicalKnowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia,10ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 1275, 1276 (2000) (“Practices of aboriginal peoples to maintain and enhance theirlands, waters,and livingresourcesare derived from generations of experimentation andobservation, leadingtoanunderstanding of complex ecological and physicalprinciples.”). Indigenous nations, cultures, andindividualsobviouslydiffer vastlyintheir approaches to food and thefoodsystem.For example, some indigenous scholars have advocated veganismasnot incompatible with some indigenous cultures. Compare Margaret Robinson, Veganism and Mi`kmaq Legends,33CAN.J.NATIVE STUD.189, 190 (2013) (acknowledging that in Mi’kmaq culture,“[t]hekillingofamooseacted as asymbol of aboy’sentry into manhood,”but “propos[ing]a postcolonial ecofeminist reading of Mi’kmaqlegends as thebasisfor avegan diet rooted in indigenous culture”), with Priscilla Settee, Indigenous FoodSovereigntyinCanada, in TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE:LEARNING FROM INDIGENOUS PRACTICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 175, 179 (Melissa K. Nelson &Dan Shillingeds.,2018) (“Indigenous peoples holdlands, foods, medicines, and animals as sacred andfreely gifted.Without them,Indigenous values of reciprocity andrelationship diminishand aloss of Indigenous humanity results.”). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 467

It is important to remember that ecological lawand justicedonot only require interspeciesjustice, but also inter- and intragenerationalhuman justice.66 While veganfood systems, andsomeindigenous or other more symbiotic human–animal systems, mayappear to more adequatelyachieve interspecies justice than theglobalindustrialfood system,wouldtheybe abletoachieve inter- and intragenerationalhuman justice—particularly if we do not address theproblemsoffood wasteand human population growth? Focusingonindustrialanimalfarming practices, it wouldbedifficultto qualify forcibly endingthe lives of animals raisedfor food, reducingthe quality of theirshortened lives drastically,and breeding or genetically alteringanimals to producemoreprotein faster—despite thepainand shortened lifespansthismay cause67—merelytosatisfy human wants,as interspecies justice.68 Thus,although ecologicallaw andits commitment to interspecies justicewouldhave anuanced view of veganism greatly depending on place, culture, and ethical reasons foreatinganimalproducts, ecologicallaw wouldrequire an endto, or adrastic reductionin, industrial animalagriculture.69 However,wouldthisactually lead to inter- or intragenerationaljustice? For example, wouldecological lawalways favor plant-based alternatives to animalproducts?Wouldecological lawlead aparticular human consumer,all other factors beingequal,toopt foramass-produced, processedplant-based burger over awild caught salmon? Rather than providing acomplete, unequivocal answer,Ithinkthatecological lawleads us to askhelpful questions to guide us to possibleanswers, leading to a choice that enhances ecological justicefor allspecies, now and in the future.For example,the plant-based burger does notinvolve theintentional raising, reproducing, and killingofanimals in an industrialenvironment, whichseemstoenhance interspecies justice.70 However,ifproducing the plant-based burgerchallengesthe amountorviability of subsistence crops in adevelopingcountry to provide processed, corporatefoods forwealthier

66.Garver, supra note 1, at 327. 67. See McLeod-Kilmurray, Commoditizing Animals, supra note 24, at 73–74 (highlightingthe animal suffering that occursatintensive livestock operations). 68.Cf. Nigel Barber, Do Humans Need Meat?,PSYCHOL.TODAY (Oct. 12, 2016), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201610/do-humans-need-meat (“In general, modern-day vegetariansare as healthy as their meat-eating counterparts and actually have lower rates of heartdisease.”). 69.See infra PartIV(analyzing the question of whether ecological justice requires veganism). 70. See Rina Raphael, Meatless Burgervs. Beef:How BeyondMeat’sEnvironmental Impact StacksUp,FAST COMPANY (Sept.26, 2018),https://www.fastcompany.com/90241836/meatless- burgers-vs-beef-how-beyond-meats-environmental-impact-stacks-up(describing the environmental benefitsofplant-based burgers). 468 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 consumersinthe global North, this might not enhance intragenerational justice. Howmuch does theburgercostincomparison to meat burgers? Wherecan theplant-based burger be accessed andbywhom?How much water, energy,transportationemissions,and wasteare involved in producing, packaging,and distributingit? Is themove towardsthesemeat alternatives transferring more power to largeindustrialfood corporations to further controlthe shapeand future of theglobalindustrialfood system? Theanswers to thesequestions might suggestthatthe plant-based burger is not evenenhancingequityamong consumerswithin theWestern market in whichitissold. Whethercatching thewild salmon wouldreduce interspecies justicemay dependonawide range of otherfactors. Wouldthe consumerbecatchingthatfishhim-orherself? Wouldthisreduce reliance on corporatefoods?Woulditalsoreduce theincomeoflarge fish farming companies that maybecreatingunnecessary and uncontrollablerisks to wild fish and other elementsofaquatic ecosystems? Forthe human consumer,which food choice has more nutrients, calories,orother impacts on health?Thus,although theruleofecological lawmay notlead us to one clearand simpleanswer, it providesspecific guiding principles forgetting closer to finding arational, sustainable, and just answer.

IV.WOULD ENDINGORREDUCING INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ENHANCEORCHALLENGE INTER- AND INTRAGENERATIONAL HUMAN JUSTICE?THE 10 FEATURESOFECOLOGICAL LAW AND THE INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL FOOD SYSTEM

If we focussolelyonGarver’s ten features of ecological law, they provide helpfulguidanceinrethinking theindustrialproductionofanimal productsfor food. Thefeatures can be helpfully separated intothree sections:features 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9highlight theecological lawinjustices the industrialanimalfood system causes.71 Features 3, 5,7,and 8suggest changes to thelegalsystemtotacklethese problems.72 Finally,feature10 provides anuancedanswertothe question of whether ecological law demands an endtoindustrialanimalagriculture.73

71.See infra notes 76–130 and accompanying text (explaining how Garver’s theory of ecologicallaw illustrateswhy theglobalfood system causesinter-and intragenerational,aswell as interspecies, injustice). 72.See infra notes 112–31 and accompanying text (arguing that Garver’stheory of ecological law requires reducing meat consumption, overconsumptionoffood, and food waste). 73.See infra notes 143–47 and accompanying text (asserting that ecological lawrequiresa drasticreduction, but not completeelimination, of meat consumption). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 469

Feature1provides that ecological law“recognizes that humans arepart of Earth’s life systems.”74 This highlightsthathumans have an interdependent relationshipwith allspecies,suggesting that ecological law does embraceinterspeciesjustice.75 Theidea of “systems”isimportant.76 First, ecologicallaw emphasizes theimportance of Earth’s life systems.77 If our globalindustrialanimalfood system threatens theselife systems, then thefood system shouldchange.78 Some arguethatthe solutiontoglobalhunger is to produce more food; yet,producing even more food, particularlymeat,often79 directly contravenesplanetary boundaries, causing threatstointerspeciesand human justicefor current and future generations.80 This idea of respectingecological limitswill be raisedagain in thediscussionoffeature2below.81 ecological lawalso asks whyweproduce food in aglobal system in the first place.82 What arethe advantagesofaglobalsystemasopposed to a more regional,local, or evenindividualapproachtofood production? Garver suggests that oneway to achieve therelated second featureof ecological law—ensuringthat “ecological limits” have primacy over social, political,and legal concerns83—isbychanging thedriver of human systems (including legalsystems)from“growth-driven economic globalization” to de-growtheconomics(i.e.,ensuringthatwelivewithinthe basic limitsof ecology and planetaryboundaries).84 Afew examples suggestthat industrial animalagriculture is failingtoachieve this.

74.Garver, supra note 1. 75. Id. 76. Id. 77.Id. (“First,and most fundamentally,the rule of ecological lawrecognizes that humans are partofEarth’s lifesystems, not separate fromit.”). 78.See id. at 326 (“[L]egal regimesmust be constrained by ecological considerations necessary to avoidcatastrophicoutcomes and promotethe enhancement of life....”). 79.Somearguefor “[s]ustainableintensification ...asaprocess or systemwhere yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without thecultivationofmoreland.” Jules Pretty &Zareen Pervez Bharucha, SustainableIntensificationinAgriculturalSystems,114 ANNALS BOTANY 1571, 1578 (2014).Ithank AngelaLee forthis observation. 80.See supra notes 24–29 and accompanying text (describing how meat productionand expanding food systemsthreaten ecologicalhealth). 81.See infra notes84–101 and accompanying text (exploring how Garver’s second feature of ecologicallaw wouldchangeindustrial animal agriculture). 82.See Garver, supra note1,at328 (explaining that ecological law has a“preference for establishingpolicyatthe local level”). 83. Id. at 326. Thisisanested sustainability approach. Pretty &Bharucha, supra note79, at 1571. 84.Garver, supra note1;see, e.g.,Johan Rockströmetal., PlanetaryBoundaries: Exploring the Safe OperatingSpace forHumanity,14ECOLOGY &SOC’Y 32, 33 (2009)(presenting the“novel concept”of“planetaryboundaries, forestimatingasafe operatingspace for humanity with respecttothe functioning of theEarth System”). 470 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455

TheCanadiangovernment’s approach to agricultural food policyis largelybased on “growth-driven economic globalization.”85 In 2017, it adopted as onegoalofits national budget to increase agricultural-food exports from $50 billionto$75 billion by 2025.86 Although Canada intends to do this sustainably, ecological balance is not currentlyaspecifictargeted goal of thebudgetinthe same wayasthisenumerated economicgrowth target is.87 In addition, ecological law, similartoGreen Legal Theory,88 wouldask us to examine whyand howour current food system cametobestructured as it is, and,specifically, whywehavemoved so quicklytoincreasing and exportingour industrialanimal-food-productionsystem.89 As Ihavenoted elsewhere, thehistory of corn illustratesamajorreasonwhy theseIntensive LivestockOperations (ILOs)and Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs)have grown.90 While other scholarshave elaborated on the concept,the main idea is that subsidiesand increased centralizationled to a grainsurplus,which wasfed to livestock.91 This meant that industrial

85.Garver, supra note 1. 86.DEP’TOFFIN.CAN., BUILDING ASTRONG MIDDLE CLASS 107 (2017) [hereinafter2017 Budget],https://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/budget-2017-en.pdf; see also Kelsey Johnson, Ottawa WantsFarmers to Grow theEconomy, Agriculture Exports, IPOLITICS (Mar. 21, 2017), https://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/21/agriculture/ (explaining that theCandian government seekstogrow agriculture exportsfrom $50billion to $75 billion by 2025); Agri-InfoNewsletter–May 2017,AGRIC. &AGRI-FOOD CAN., http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/agri-info-newsletter/agri-info- newsletter-may-2017/?id=1493224585244 (lastvisited Apr. 14,2019) (“To support Canada’sfarmers andfood processors, Budget 2017 setsanambitious target to grow Canada’s agri-food exports to at least $75 billion annuallyby2025, and launches several initiatives, from investments in science and innovationtovalue-added processing and infrastructure.”). Canadaset this goal afterthe government asked theAdvisoryCouncilonEconomicGrowthfor areport,which it entitled Unleashing theGrowth Potential of KeySectors,where it identifiedthe agri-food sectorasanarea with potentialfor significant growth.ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ECON.GROWTH,UNLEASHING THE GROWTH POTENTIAL OF KEY SECTORS 2(2017), https://www.budget.gc.ca/aceg-ccce/pdf/key-sectors-secteurs-cles-eng.pdf.Aclearer exampleofGarver’s “growth-driven economic globalization” wouldbehardtofind. Garver, supra note 1. 87. See 2017 Budget, supra note86, at 108 (outlining fundingfor “advanced researchin agriculturalscience and genomics,” “agricultural discoveryscience and innovation, with afocuson addressing emerging priorities, such as climate change,”and the“expanded adoptionofclean technology by Canadian agricultural producers”). 88.See Green Legal Theory,POLIS PROJECTONECOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE, https://www.polisproject.org/projects/greenlegaltheory (last updated Jan. 22, 2013) (“[Green Legal Theory] seeks to understand how to create self-sustaining social, economic andpolitical institutions that are ecologicallybased ....”). 89.See Garver, supra note1,at325–26(explaining that ecological lawchallenges “growth- driven economic[s]” and focuses on reducing thematerial andenergydemands of theeconomy). 90.McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingAnimals, supra note 24, at 73. 91.See DAVID N. CASSUTO,ANIMALS &SOC’Y INST., THE CAFO HOTHOUSE:CLIMATE CHANGE,INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE & THE LAW 3–4 (2010) (citing Pollan, supra note48, at 54–64), http://www.planetaverde.org/arquivos/biblioteca/arquivo_20131031141640_2453.pdf; see also JEREMY 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 471 farmerscouldfeed livestock more cheaplywith cornand soythan small- scalefarmers could with theirown grazing land, creatingstrong economic incentives forcentralizationand industrializationoflivestock production.92 So neither humanhealth, animalwelfare,environmental sustainability,nor human food preferences havebeenthe driving forcebehind industrializationoflivestock production.93 Thetransitiontoanindustrial- animal-agriculture system wasbased on producing more at less cost.94 Theseindustrialefficiencies,and thetechnologiesthatenable them,are best achieved by largecorporations.95

TheFAO reports that industrialanimalproductionsystems are increasing at six timesthe rate of traditional mixed farming systems and at twicethe rate of grazing systems. At least50% of theworld’s pigmeatand over70% of theworld’s poultrymeat andeggs are produced in industrialsystems.96

This is still due in parttothe many economic subsidiesand legalrules that promotethe industrializationofour animal food supply.97 Forexample, theWorld Society forthe ProtectionofAnimals notes that industrialmeat productioninCanadawouldnot be economically viablewithout

RIFKIN,BEYOND BEEF:THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CATTLE CULTURE 93 (Penguin Books 1992) (“America cameupwith aunique scheme. For thefirsttimeinagricultural history, they brought together cattle productionand grainproductionintoanew symbiotic relationship....”). 92.McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingAnimals, supra note 24, at 73. 93. Id. 94. Id. 95.Id. (“The real controlofth[e][industrial livestock] ‘industry’isnow highlycentralized in the handsofasmall numberofverypowerfulcorporations ....”). 96.COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING,GLOBAL WARNING:CLIMATE CHANGE AND FARM ANIMAL WELFARE 4(2009), https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3817777/global-warning-full-report.pdf. The high levelsofconcentrationthat exist in livestockproductionare aresult of twotrendsinthe agribusinessworld:consolidation,orthe joining togetherof firmsthrough mergers or strategicalliances,and vertical integration, theprocess by which one agribusiness buys up controloffirms alongthe production chainfor afood product....The smalland mid-sized operations thatuntil recently suppliedmostofour domestically-producedmeathave disappeared, to be replacedbylarge-scale animal feeding operations. Specialization has replaced diversityonthe farm....And uniformityhas replaced variety—inthe kinds of feed cropsgrown, thebreedsoflivestock raised,and thecompaniestowhich farmers sell their productsand from whichconsumersbuy them. Elanor Starmer, Corporate Power in Livestock Production: How it’sHurtingFarmers, Consumers, and Communities—AndWhat We CanDoAbout It,ISSUE BRIEF 1(AGRIBUSINESS ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE), at 1–2, http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_1_3.pdf (lastvisitedApr. 14, 2019). 97.McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingAnimals, supra note 24, at 73, 74. 472 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 governmentsubsidies, such as the$4billiongiven to hog producerssince 1996 (“with nearly three-quarters going to thelargest corporations”).98 Laws also assist industrialanimalfood producers.99 For example, Canadian animal welfare and transportlawsare veryweak, whichreduces thecostfor producersatthe expenseofanimalwelfare but also creates waste—apresumedpercentage of deaths per voyage.100 Some countries criminalizethose raisingawareness of cruelty to animals raisedfor food, thus legally protectingthe practiceand reducingthe agencyofconsumers by limitinginformation.101 Feature 9ofecological lawalsoreferstoecological boundaries, cautioning that thelaw shouldenforce precautioninrelationtocrossing them.102 Theglobalindustrialized food system is asignificant threat to planetary boundaries.103 Indeed, of thenineplanetary boundariesidentified by Johan Rockströmetal.,104 thefour that havealready been transgressed

98.WORLD SOC’YFOR THE PROT. OF ANIMALS,WHAT’S ON YOUR PLATE?: THE HIDDEN COSTS OF INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL AGRICULTUREINCANADA 19 (2012). Canada’s hog productionsector wouldnot even be viablewereitnot formulti- milliondollartaxpayer-funded subsidies. Since 1996, taxpayers have given more than $4 billion to hog producers,with nearly three-quarters going to thelargest corporations. In 2009, thelargest 28 percent (with annual revenuesgreater than $1 million) collected 72 percent of thesupport. Federal and provincial governmentshavefacilitatedthe proliferationofILOs and thesize of themby steadilyincreasing themaximum subsidyper operation. Each operation cannow receive up to $3 millionper year –triple what they couldhave received13years ago–essentially working to triple thesizeofthe ILO.Inaddition, there aretax exemptions forbuildingmaterials,subsidiestopackersand tens of billions of dollars worthofsubsidies paidtograin farmers whichfacilitate theproduction and saleoffeedgrains below actual costsofproduction. Allofthisdemonstrates that ourfoodsystem is actually veryinefficient.Many ILOs wouldnot be ableto turn aprofitwithout thesesubsidies. Id. 99.Anna Pippus, The Fox Regulatingthe Henhouse: How theLaw Fails AnimalsFarmed for Food, in FOOD LAW AND POLICYINCANADA (Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, AngelaLee &Natalie Chalifour eds.)(forthcoming 2019) (manuscript at 23–24) (on file with author). 100. Id. 101. See,e.g., What Is Ag-Gag Legislation?,AM.SOC’YFOR PREVENTION CRUELTY ANIMALS, https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation(last visitedApr.14, 2019) [hereinafter What Is Ag-Gag](discussing how seven states in theU.S.“penaliz[e]whistleblowers whoinvestigatethe day-to-day activities of industrial farms”). 102.See Garver, supra note1,at329 (“[T]heruleofecological lawrequiresprecautionabout crossing planetaryboundaries, with marginsofsafety to ensureboththat theboundaries arerespected from the global to thelocal level,and that Earth’s life systems have thecapacity to thrive.”). 103.Compareid. (explaining the precautionary planetaryboundaries set forclimatechange), with McLeod-Kilmurray, Vegetarianism, supra note45, at 58-59 (highlightingthe significant contributions industrialized livestock productionmakes to climatechange). 104. Rockström, supra note84, at 37–38 (identifying thenine planetary boundariesasthe “nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, and water[cycles];the [planet’s] physicalcirculationsystems...(the climate, stratosphere, ocean systems); biophysicalfeatures of Earth ...(marine andterrestrial 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 473 aregenetic diversity,105 biochemical flows (particularly of nitrogen),106 climatechange,and land system change.107 In relationtogenetic diversity—apart fromstronglyencouragingthe consumptionofalimited numberofanimals such as cows,pigs, and chickens—industrialmeat productionalso limits thegenetic diversity within these threemainanimals raised andconsumed as food.108 The WorldwatchInstitute suggests that“as thegloballivestock population increases,its diversity declines,” whichisdangerous forsustainability in theface of climatechange andits resultingeffectsonresources.109 Large- scalemeat farmingalsosignificantly reduces crop diversity andinduces land system change.110 Furthermore,feature 4ofecological lawrequires“aradical re-focusing of theeconomyonreductionofits throughput of materialand energy.”111 Feature 4isreminiscentofSustainableDevelopmentGoal12, which

biodiversity, land systems); and twocritical featuresassociated with anthropogenic global change (aerosolloading and chemical pollution)”). 105.Will Steffenetal., PlanetaryBoundaries:Guiding HumanDevelopment on aChanging Planet,347 SCI.736, 736 (2015). 106.NinaChestney, Meat and DairyConsumption ShouldBeHalved inEuropetoCut Nitrogen: Report,SCI.AM., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-dairy-consumption- should-be-halved-in-europe-to-cut-nitrogen-report/ (last visited Apr. 14, 2019) (“Around 79-88percent of totalemissions in theEUrelated to nitrogenare from livestockproduction. The nitrogen footprintof meat and dairy isconsiderably higher thanthat from plant-based products ....”); see also Henk Westhoeketal., FoodChoices, Health and Environment:Effects of Cutting Europe’sMeat andDairy Intake,26GLOBAL ENVTL.CHANGE 196, 196 (2014) (“Concerns about animalwelfare, reactive nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissionshavestimulated public debateinEurope about eating less meat anddairy products.”). 107.Will Steffenetal., supra note 105. 108.VITAL SIGNS, supra note26, at 55. 109. Id. Industrial meat operations rely on anarrowrange of commercial breeds selected for their high productivity—twocow breeds, Holstein and Jersey, make up 97 percent of theUSdairy-cow herd. As aresult, indigenous livestock breeds, which have evolved to thespecific climate, terrestrial,and diseasecharacteristics of their regions, are rapidlydisappearing: in 2010, FAOreported that at least 21 percent of theworld’s livestock breeds areatrisk of extinction. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2007, one breedofcattle, goats, pigs, horses, or poultrywas lost every monthonaverage. Thisnarrowing of geneticdiversity greatly compromiseslivestock producers’ abilitytowithstandthe challenges of climate change, including watersupplychanges,lackofforage, disease expansion, and increasingtemperature variation. Id. (footnotes omitted). 110.See, e.g., id. (“[C]ountriesinSouthAmerica are clearing large swathsofforestand other land to growfeed crops likemaize and soybean.”). 111.Garver, supra note1,at326. 474 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 requires“[r]esponsible consumptionand production.”112 Garver suggests that to do this,weneed systems that “improve[] resource productivity.”113 Closelyconnected,feature 6provides that ecological lawshould“ensure fair sharing of resourcesamong present and future generations of humans and other life forms.”114 However,anincreased focusonanimalproducts, particularly thosethat areindustrially produced, doesnot seemtoachieve this goal. For onething,many advocates pointout that,ascomparedtoplant- based diets, producing andeatingmeat and dairy isinefficientdue to the “Feed-Conversion Ratio[],”meaning theamount of energy, water, and other inputsneeded to produceand consumeanimals.115 Forexample, “[o]ne kilogramme of ediblebonelessbeef requiresaround 20 kg of animal feed and15,500 litresofwater to produce ....One calorie of food energy obtained frombeef requires inputsof9caloriesoffood energy fromplants and40caloriesoffossil fuel energy.”116 ThePew Commission claims that “the ratioofenergyinput to output forindustrially producedmeat can reach as high as 35:1.”117 Another wayoflooking at this is to saythat“the American diet wouldfeedonly2.5 billionpeopleglobally.”118 This suggests that thedietary choices of wealthierpeople, mainly in the developed world,iscurrently one factor causingthe food insecurity of the poorer in thedeveloping world.119 This is asituationofintragenerational inequity caused by dietshighinproductswith significant environmental footprints,including animalproducts.120 Notonlyisincreasingmeat and dairy consumptionunjusttothe animal victimsofthisfood system,but also to thecurrent and future generations of humansconsumingthem.

112.Goal 12: ResponsibleConsumptionand Production,UNITED NATIONS DEV.PROGAMME, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-12-responsible- consumption-and-production.html(last visitedApr. 14, 2019). 113.Garver, supra note 1, at 327. 114. Id. 115.Animals areInefficientConvertersofFood,AWELL-FED WORLD:NOURISHING PEOPLE/SAVING ANIMALS,https://awfw.org/feed-ratios/ (lastvisitedApr.14, 2019); see also Alon Shepon et al., Energyand ProteinFeed-To-FoodConversion Efficiencies in theUSand PotentialFood Security Gains fromDietary Changes,11ENVTL.RES.LETTERS,Oct.2016, at 5(“Plant-based diets can ...serve as aviablereplacement foranimalproducts, and confer larger mean environmental and foodavailability gains.”(citationomitted)). 116.McLeod-Kilmurray, Vegetarianism, supra note45, at 59 (alterationinoriginal)(footnotes omitted)(quotingCOMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING,BEYOND FACTOR FARMING:SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR ANIMALS AND THE PLANET 19 (2009)). 117. See Cassuto, supra note91, at 7(citingPEW COMM’NONINDUS.FARM ANIMAL PROD., PUTTING MEAT ON THE TABLE:INDUSTRIAL FARM ANIMAL PRODUCTION IN AMERICA 19 (2008)). 118.McLeod-Kilmurray, Vegetarianism, supra note45, at 59. 119.FOOD &AGRIC.ORG., LIVESTOCK, supra note28, at 6. 120.Id. at 10. 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 475

Responsible consumptionand production—and “a radicalre-focusing of theeconomyonreductionofits throughput of materialand energy”— also bothpoint to reducingfood waste.121 “Roughly one third of thefood produced in theworld forhuman consumptionevery year—approximately 1.3billiontonnes—getslostorwasted.”122 “Foodlossesand wasteamounts to roughlyUS$ 680 billion in industrialized countriesand US$310 billion in developing countries.”123 “Global quantitativefood lossesand wasteper yearare roughly30% forcereals, 40-50% forroot crops,fruits and vegetables,20% foroil seeds, meat and dairy plus 35% forfish.”124 Although food wasteoccursatevery stage of thefood system includingfarming, transporting, selling, consuming, and throwing away food—andwhile thesestatisticssuggest that meat and dairy arearelatively lowcontributor to overall food waste125—ecological law, particularly features 4and 6, wouldrequire significantly reducingfood wastebefore expandingindustrialanimalfood production.126 Features 4and 6wouldalsorequire us to focus on tacklingthe growing problem of overconsumptionoffood.The rates of over-nutrition arerising globally,with numbers in thedeveloping worldrecently almost attaining levels in developedcountries.127 Although itscauses arecomplex and varied, contributingfactors includethe growingavailability of fast and processedfoods,poor nutritionaleducation, lack of timefor homecooking, thecomparativecosts of fast versusfresh food, andthe massive, relentless marketingcampaigns of global food corporations.128 Increased consumption

121.Garver, supra note 1, at 326–27. 122. Facts on FoodLoss, supra note35. 123. Id. 124. Id. 125. Id. 126.Compare Garver, supra note 1, at 316 (summarizing thefourthand sixthfeatures of ecologicallaw,which demand reducingmaterial andenergy, and sharingresourceswith future generations of human life), with FactsonFoodLoss, supra note35(detailing thequantitiesofmaterials wasted each year in thefood system,ofwhich animalfood products areapart). 127. See Paul Allen, OvereatingHits theDeveloping World,GUARDIAN (Apr. 22, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/22/eat-smaller-and- smarter (“In the past threedecades, thenumber of obese peopleinthe developing world has tripled....”);Daniel Hoffman, Obesity in Developing Countries:Causes and Implications,28FOOD, NUTRITION &AGRIC.REV.35, 38 (2001), http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/003/y0600m/y0600m04.pdf (reportingthat therateofobesity is increasingworldwide,partlydue to over-nutrition). 128. See AndreaFreeman, The UnbearableWhiteness of Milk: FoodOppression and theUSDA, 3U.C.IRVINE L. REV.1251, 1253–54, 1270–71 (2013) (detailing how fast foodcontributes to over- nutritionindeveloped nations); see also CookingatHomeTonight?It’s Likely Cheaper and Healthier, Study Finds,SCI.DAILY:SCI.NEWS (Mar. 14, 2017) (mentioning that many lack thetimetoprepare nutritious meals). 476 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 of animalproducts is clearly apartofthesetrends.129 Amoreecological global food system wouldencourage andenablethe productionand consumptionofdiets that promotegood health,which wouldhelpto rebalance thetwo global challengesofunder-and over-nourishment.130 This quick examinationoffeatures 1, 2, 4, 6, and9ofGarver’s ecological lawhaveraisedanumber of questions aboutour industrial- animal-agriculture system:why we created thesystem; whether continuing it advances or reduces interspecies justice; and whether thesystemisfairto present andfuturehumans.The remainingfeaturesguide us more directly to thelegal aspects of this dilemma. Features3,5,and 7–9 focus more specifically on how lawitselfcan helpput ecological lawintopracticetoachieve its goals. Thethird feature demands that ecological law“permeate” alllegal systems.131 Food lawand policyisitselfanexcellent exampleofafield that cannot be reformed without changingmany different areas of law, whichall permeateeach other, such as environmental,health,trade,and social justicelaw.132 In the evolvingdebateonanew nationalfood policyfor Canada, forexample, some arecalling fora“joined-upfood policy”—which tackles both the problemsofgovernment and research silos133 andfood governance—that links health,social,economic,and environmentalconcerns,and moves away fromeconomic growth as its dominatinggoal.134

129.See, e.g., Global Meat Production, supra note 8(explaining that ahigh-meat diet “can lead to ahostofhealth problems,including obesity”). 130.See Garver, supra note1,at327 (highlightingthat ecological lawputsthe “protectionof the global commons and public goods paramount” and “must ensurefair sharing of resources”); WORLD HEALTH ORG., THE DOUBLE BURDENOFMALNUTRITION:POLICY BRIEF 2(2017) (explaining “[t]he doubleburdenofmalnutrition,” which is “the coexistence of undernutritionalong withoverweight, obesityordiet-related”noncommunicablediseases). 131.Garver, supra note 1, at 326. 132.See What is FoodLaw?,LEGAL CAREER PATH,https://legalcareerpath.com/food-law/(last visited Apr. 14, 2019) (summarizing “the collectionoflawsand regulations” thatrelate to food production, including those governing “pesticide use, tariffsonagricultural imports...restaurant cleanliness,” bottledwater,the claims supplement producers canmake“about theeffectiveness of their products,” andfood stamps). 133.For example, food law and policyinCanada is governed by awide variety of ministries andatthree levelsofgovernment,not including theinternational level. See CENTRE FOR FOOD IN CAN., GOVERNING FOOD:POLICIES,LAWS, AND REGULATIONS FOR FOODINCANADA 13–14 (2011) (“[Policies, laws,and regulations] and bureaucratic structuresexist at alllevelsofgovernment,with multiple agencies responsible forthe numerous functions being carried out.”). Within the federal government alone, forexample, food lawand policy involves, amongother groups, Health Canada, Environmentand Climate Change Canada,Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada,Industry Canada, and the trade department. Id. at 13. Despiteincreasing efforts, coordinationremains difficult. Id. 134.Rod MacRae, AJoined-Up Food Policyfor Canada,6J. HUNGER &ENVTL.NUTRITION 424, 424–25 (2011). MacRae notes: [F]ood policyinthe 21st centurymust be designedand implemented to reflect fully the essential realityofour biological and social dependence on food and the 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 477

Garver’s fifth featureposits that ecologicallaw must be global, but distributed.135 This recalls thelegal doctrines of subsidiarity136 and the commonbut differentiatedresponsibilityapproach in theclimatechange treaties.137 As asidenote, themostrecent IPCC report emphasizes reducing meat consumptionasarapidand effective waytotackle climatechange.138 In addition, Garver’s fifthfeaturereminds us that in developing internationalfood lawand policy—and theglobal food systemstructure— thecurrent food productionand consumptionpatternsofwealthynations,as well as theirinfluence on global food tradepolicies,have resulted in the neglectoftheirheightened responsibilitiestoensureinter-and intragenerationaljusticetofoodproducersand consumersinpoorer countries.139 Feature7,which requires that ecological law“be binding ...and supranational, with supremacyover sub-global legal regimesasnecessary,” reinforces theseideas.140 Feature7also reminds us how trade lawinfluencesglobalfoodsustainability and justiceaswellas how corporateand trade laws aremoreeffectivelybindingand global than

resources needed to produce it sustainably. During the20th century, rulesabout foodwereframed in theindustrialworldbythe dominant view of markets.Food wasprimarily somethingtobebought and sold, rather thanabiological and culturalnecessity.... Overproductionatthe farm level waspositivefor food firmsbecause it helped keep farm and processorprices low.The food system was designed,directly andindirectly, to encourage peopletooverconsumebecause this contributedtofirm profitability, and aggregate levelsoffood waste received limitedattention.Thisconsumption,and thediseases it produced,actually appeared to be economically positivebecause it droveuphealth care costsand made some of Canada’seconomic accounts (eg, grossnational product)look better. Id. 135.Garver, supra note 1, at 327. 136. See 14957 Canada Ltée v. Hudson, 2001 SCC40, [2001] 2S.C.R.241, 249 (Can.) (describing thedoctrine of subsidiarity,which assumes that thelocal level of government is themost efficientlaw-making body becauseitisclosest to thepeople). 137. See UnitedNations FrameworkConvention on ClimateChange, art3.1,May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (“ThePartiesshouldprotect the climatesystem for thebenefitofpresent and future generations of humankind,onthe basisofequity and in accordance with their commonbut differentiatedresponsibilities and respective capabilities.” (emphasisadded)). 138.INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANELONCLIMATE CHANGE,SPECIAL REPORT:GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5°C,at327 (2018),https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (estimatingthat reducing “the demand for meat and other livestock products” could “bringlargeco-benefits, through GHGmitigation and improvementsinthe overall efficiency of food systems”). 139.See Carmen G. Gonzalez, The Global Food System, Environmental Protection, and Human Rights,26NAT.RESOURCES &ENV’T 7, 9–10 (2012) (outlining how international tradelaw “placed small farmers in ruinous competitionwith subsidized agricultural producers in theUnited States andthe European Union”); see also supra notes 71–130 (overviewinghow theglobalfoodsystem produces inter- and intragenerationalinjustice). 140.Garver, supra note 1, at 328. 478 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 human rightsand international environmental law.141 ecologicallaw suggests that internationaltrade,aswellascorporateand environmental laws,shouldbechangedtoaddressthe power of multinationalanimal-food corporations to build amoreecologicalfood system.142 Finally,143 but perhaps most importantly,feature10requiresecological lawtobeadaptive.144 Once again, this captures awiderange of ideasand goals,but twocometomindascrucial.First,ecology adaptstochanges, and ecological lawmustmirror this.145 If our laws are not producing the effects we desire,orare producingsurprisingresults,wemustadapt the laws to thesenew circumstances. For example, if we make aherculean effort toreducefood waste but we still have significant global hunger problems,then perhaps it wouldbetimetoturnback to ideasofincreased growth.Second, being adaptivesuggests that whetherafood is ecologically appropriate depends on theparticular place, society, group, or person.146 This brings us backtoour original question: doesecological lawdemand veganism?Asstatedatthe outset, increasing consumptionofindustrial- animalproducts is not an adaptiveresponsetothe growingrealitiesoffood insecurity that climatechange will create.147 However,whereplant-based dietsdonot provide healthy, nutritious,and culturally appropriate sustenance,sustainable meat productionand consumption—particularly place-basedhuntingand fishing—maybe, as it has always been,the most sustainable, appropriate,and adaptiveresponsetosatisfyfood needs and sustain abalancedecosystem.

141.See Gonzalez, supra note139, at 8–10(“[I]nternational tradelaw has taken precedence over human rightsand international environmental law, to thedetrimentofsmall farmers, agrobiodiversity,and effortstoforestallclimate change.”). 142. See, e.g.,CLAPP, supra note 64 (explaining that someinthe alternativefood movement promote“transnational efforts to make legally enforceable improvementstothe rulesand normsthat govern” theglobal foodsystem); see also JenniferClapp, AgribusinessMega-Mergers Won’t Help to Feed the World,HILL TIMES (Jan.18, 2017) [hereinafterClapp, Agribusiness], https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/01/18/agribusinessmega-mergers-wont-help-feed-world/92980 (arguing that because agribusiness is driven by profits, it will not create“sustainable foodsecurity”). 143.ThisEssay does not allow room to explore feature8,which requires“greatly expanded program[s] of researchand monitoring.” Garver, supra note1,at329. However,aninitialthoughtisthat ecologicallaw requiresustobevigilantabout what we areresearching and monitoring to guard against unexamined technologicalfixes for industrialanimalagriculture andtoappropriately balance the various goalsofanecologicaland just foodsystem. See,e.g.,Lee, supra note49, at 65 (“Although an ecofeminist interrogation of thepolitical,social,and ethical dimensions of new food technologies may be imperfect, it is arguably anecessarycorrective ...[given] thenarrowgrounds on whichthe benefits andimpactsoftechnologies areassessed under apurportedlymore‘science-based’approach.”). 144.Garver, supra note1,at330. 145.Id. at 329–30. 146.Id.at330. 147.See supra notes 23–29 (explaining thevarious problems associatedwith the currentglobal foodsystem). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 479

CONCLUSION:SOME SOLUTIONS THAT ECOLOGICAL LAW MIGHT POINT TOWARD

Thinking through afew of theimplications of thefeatures of ecological lawhas suggested some possiblealternatives to maintainingand expanding theindustrial-animal-agriculture system,suchasreducing population growth,reducing food waste, andadoptingecological law—ratherthan economic growth alone—as aguiding principlefor food governance.148 The following arefurther measures that ecological lawmight suggestfor improving, reducing,orevenending theindustrial-animal-agriculture system. In ordertomove toward interspecies justice, ecological lawwould consider thelong-term advantages and disadvantages of creating substantiverightsfor non-human animals.There have beenafew attempts at this recently,suchashabeas corpusclaimsbrought unsuccessfully in NewYork,149 but successfully in Argentina.150 If not fullsubstantiverights, perhaps non-human animals shouldenjoy procedural rights, such as legal standing to protecttheirinterests.151

148.See supra PartIV(discussing how ecologicallaw might reform theglobal food system). 149.InreNonhuman RightsProject ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery, 100 N.E.3d 846, 846(N.Y. 2018). 150.RichardLough, CaptiveOrangutan HasHuman Right to Freedom, ArgentineCourt Rules, REUTERS (Dec.24, 2014), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-orangutan- idUSKBN0JZ0Q620141221. Relatedly,inNew Zealand,the Whanganui River has beenrecognized as having thestatus of “a legal person [with]all the [corresponding] rights, powers, duties, andliabilities.” Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River ClaimsSettlement) Act2017, cls12, 14 (N.Z.); seealso DanCheater, Iamthe River and theRiver is Me:LegalPersonhood and theEmerging RightsofNature,W.COAST ENVTL.L.(Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.wcel.org/blog/i-am-river-and-river-me-legal-personhood-and- emerging-rights-nature (highlighting NewZealand’s 2017 legislation recognizing theWhanganui River as alegal person);WHANGANUI TRIBUNAL,THE WHANGANUI RIVER REPORT 309–10 (1999), https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68450539/Whanganui%20River%20Rep ort%201999.pdf (mentioning NewZealand laws that recognize theintrinsic valueofnatural resources). In addition, in March 2017, theHighCourtofUttarakhand, Indiadeclared the Gangaand Yamuna Rivers “asjuristic/legal persons/livingentitieshaving thestatus of alegal person with all corresponding rights, dutiesand liabilitiesofalivingperson.”Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition(PIL) No. 126of2014, ¶19(UttarakhandHC) (India).InJuly2017, however,the Supreme CourtofIndiastayed theHigh Court’s order.State of Uttarakhand v. Salim,Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (July7, 2017) (India); seealso AVaidyanathan, No,Ganga andYamuna areNot Living Entities, Says Supreme Court,NDTV, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/no-yamuna-and-ganga-are-not-living-entities-says- supreme-court-1721833 (last updated July7,2017) (outliningthe SupremeCourt’s ruling). 151. See ChristopherStone, Should TreesHave Standing?—Toward Legal Rights forNatural Objects,45S.CAL.L.REV.450, 464 (1972) (arguing that natural objectsshouldhavethe legal authority to sue); DavidCassuto,Jonathan Lovvorn&KatherineMeyer, Confronting Barriers to the Courtroom forAnimalAdvocates: Legal Standingfor Animalsand Advocates,13ANIMAL L. 61,61(2006) (examining theissue of “legal standing for non-human animals andtheir humanadvocates”). 480 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455

Alternatively, humans couldhavelegal dutiesnot to cause the suffering of animals farmed forfood. Forexample,several countrieshave bannedcertain industrialfarming practices suchasbattery cages152 and othersare workingtoachieve this soon.153 Laws could be enacted to ensure thefivebasicfreedoms: from discomfort;from hunger and thirst; fromfear and distress;frompain, injury,and disease; andtoexpressnatural behavior.154 Wherethesemeasures areresistedonthe basis that they increasecosts forproducersand consumers, ecological lawwould encourageafull accounting of thecosts,including theexternalized costsof failing to enact theseprotections. Various legal toolscouldenhance supportfor such measures by ensuringgreater accesstoinformationabout theindustrial-animal- agriculture system. So-called“ag-gag” laws couldberevoked.155 Animal “welfare” labelscould be required on animal-based food products.156 To enhance food literacy and consumeragency,which is partofthe broader consumer right to know,labelsonanimalproducts could also indicate: water, soil, antibiotic,and otherinputs; emissions;and feed-conversion ratios.157 Carbon taxes,and othertaxes on industrially producedanimal products, could help to alterproducer and consumer behavior through “free” market mechanisms (indeed,how canthe market be truly free if thereissuchlimited informationabout thefood we eat?).For example, a priceoncarbonwouldimpactthe priceoflocalfoods competingwith those

152. See James Andrews, European Union BansBattery Cages forEgg-Laying Hens,FOOD SAFETY NEWS (Jan. 9, 2012), https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/01/european-union-bans-battery- cages-for-egg-laying-hens/(describingthe E.U.’s ban on battery cages). 153. See Canada’sBattery Cage Phase-OutOfficially Begins,HUMANE CAN.(Mar. 27, 2017), https://www.humanecanada.ca/canadas_battery_cage_phase_out_officially_begins (“As of April 1, 2017, no new barrenbattery cages willbebuilt in Canada ....”). 154.McLeod-Kilmurray, CommoditizingAnimals, supra note 24, at 76–77. 155.“Ag-gag”laws are“designed to silence whistleblowersrevealing animal abuses on industrialfarms.” What is Ag-Gag, supra note102. In some states, these lawsare being challenged as unconstitutional. See,e.g.,AnimalLegal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, 4:17-cv-00362–JEG-HCA,2019WL 140069, at *2, 9(S.D. Iowa Jan.1,2019) (invalidating IOWA CODE ANN.§717A.3A(2012),which “prohibit[s]conduct and speechrelated to agricultural operations,”asfacially unconstitutional under the FirstAmendment). 156. See,e.g., LabellingRelated to Animal Welfare,EUROPEAN COMMISSION, https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/other_aspects/labelling_en (lastvisitedApr. 14, 2019) (explaining that despite increasing consumer interest for “informationonhow animals aretreated on farmsand in livestock facilities,”“thereisonlyone EU-widesystemofcompulsory labelingonanimal welfare -for tableeggs”). 157.See DavidAlanNauheim, Food Labelingand theConsumer’sRight to Know:Give the People What They Want,4LIBERTY U. L. REV.97, 99–102 (2009) (discussingthe consumer’srightto know in thecontext of food labeling). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 481 packagedand transportedlong distancesand might encourage thereduction of food waste.158 Nationalfood guidesare another tool that could significantly raise awarenessofthe ecological lawproblemsthat industrialanimalagriculture creates.Brazil’snewest food guide provides that “[h]ealthy[d]iets [d]erive [f]rom[s]ocially and [e]nvironmentally [s]ustainable[f]ood [s]ystems”and that “[d]ietary recommendations need to take into accountthe impact of the means of productionand distributionoffood on social justiceand environmentalintegrity.”159 Sweden’s 2015 food guidelines take asystemic approach,160 linking human and environmental health.161 Theguidelines linkSwedish consumers’ food choicestoclimatechange, whichhighlights intragenerationaljustice.162 Theguidelines justify theirrecommendationto eat less processed meatsbased upon thebenefitstohuman health,animal welfare, and theenvironment.163 TheCanadian government issuedarevised FoodGuide in January2019,164 and although it doesnot make an explicit linktoenvironmentalsustainability,its recommended food plate is quite similartothe EAT-Lancet Commission’sPlanetary Diet165 in recommending significantreductioninanimal-based foods and significant increases in vegetable, fruit, andgrain consumption.166 TheCanadian governmentisalsodevisingits firstnational food policy.167 It isinteresting

158.Cf. EatYour WaytoaSmaller Carbon Footprint,TERRAPASS:THE FOOTPRINT BLOG, https://www.terrapass.com/eat-your-way-to-a-smaller-carbon-footprint(last visitedApr.14, 2019) (explaining that by eating locally,carbon footprintscan be reducedbyupto7%). 159.MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF BRAZ., DIETARY GUIDELINESFOR THE BRAZILIAN POPULATION 18 (2ded. 2014), http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_ population.pdf. 160.NAT’L FOOD AGENCY,FIND YOUR WAY:TO EAT GREENER,NOT TOO MUCH AND BE ACTIVE 1(2015), https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/publikationsdatabas/andra- sprak/kostraden/kostraden-eng-a4-utskriftversion.pdf (“When it comes to food, it’s easy to concentrate on individualnutrientsorfoods to theexclusion of everything else. Butall aspects are interlinked, so it’s important to maintain aholistic approach.”). 161. Id. (“[W]e’vedevised this adviceonhow you caneat sustainably–tothe benefit of both your healthand theenvironment.Sothatyou don’thave to choose.”). 162.See id. (“[O]ne-quarterofthe climate impactofSwedish households comesfromthe food we eat––orthrow away.Economisingonthe Earth’s resourceswill ensurewehave good food to eatin the future.”). 163.Id. at 9. 164. See generally HEALTH CAN., CANADA’S DIETARY GUIDELINES:FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND POLICY MAKERS (2019) [hereinafterCANADA’S DIETARY GUIDELINES], https://food-guide.canada.ca/static/assets/pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf (providing Health Canada’s guidelines and considerations on healthyeating). 165.Willett et al., supra note 45, at 447. 166.CANADA’S DIETARY GUIDELINES, supra note164, at 9, 15. 167.Revision Process for Canada’sFood Guide,GOV’T CAN., https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/revision-process.html (last visitedApr.14, 2019) (explaining that Canada is revising its “food guide so that it meetsthe needs of 482 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:455 to imagine how our food system wouldchange if ecological lawwas adopted as aguiding principlefor this new policy. Governmentscouldalso move toward amoreecological lawapproach to food by creatinginstitutionalfood projectssuch as farmtoschoollunch programs.168 Theseprogramswouldrequire food procurement policies, whichcouldenhancelocal and sustainable food production.169 School lunch programscouldalso,asinJapan,beadded to theschoolcurriculumto enhance food literacy fromayoung age.170 This wouldbeparticularly effectiveifthe programsenhanced theplant-based food options in these meals.171 Governmentscouldalsopass laws to improve food sustainability, justice, and sovereignty.172 Forexample, aright to food couldbeenacted.173 Governmentscouldalsopromote an ecological lawapproachbychanging competitionlawstoaddress theconcentration andcorporatizationofthe food system,particularly themassive power of multinationalfood corporations.174 However,ecological lawdoesnot necessarily encourage relyingsolely, or evenprimarily,oncentralized government control. From amorebottom- up perspective, ecological lawwouldalsoencourage empoweringlocal food movements—farmers markets, urbanagriculture,and similar

different Canadian audiences”); see, e.g., Canada’s Food Guide,GOV’T CAN., https://food- guide.canada.ca/en/ (lastvisited Apr. 14, 2019) (showingCanada’snew interactivefood guide). 168.See What is Farm to School?,NAT’L FARMTOSCH.NETWORK, http://www.farmtoschool.org/about/what-is-farm-to-school (last visitedApr.14, 2019) (highlightingthe benefitsofexistingfarmtoschool programs). 169.See id. (noting that farm to school programs “always include[],”among other things, procurement,meaning that “[l]ocal foods arepurchased, promoted, andservedinthe cafeteria”). 170. See Nobuko Tanaka &Miki Miyoshi, School Lunch Programfor HealthPromotion Among ChildreninJapan,21ASIA PAC.J.CLINICAL NUTRITION 155, 156 (2012) (discussingcurriculum objectives forthe Japanese schoollunch program); seealso AlexisAgliano Sanborn, More thanaMeal: School Lunch in Japan,22EDUC.ABOUT ASIA 45, 45 (2017),http://aas2.asian-studies.org/EAA/EAA- Archives/22/1/1468.pdf (discussing how Japan’sschool lunch program focuses around local foods and educatesstudentsabout foodproduction issues). 171.See supra notes 115–20 and accompanying text (highlightingthe environmental benefitsof widespreadadoptionofthe plant-based diet). 172.See, e.g.,EarlBlumenauer, AGreen NewDealMustInclude Foodand Farming,10YEARS CIVIL EATS (Jan.30, 2019), https://civileats.com/2019/01/30/a-green-new-deal-must-include-food-and- farming/(“A GreenNew Dealcan startbyincorporatingthe principles of agriculturalreformand applying them to practices that will decarbonize theeconomy, while bringing justice to thefood system.”). 173.See, e.g., What is theHuman RighttoFood?,NAT’L ECON.&SOC.RTS.INITIATIVE, https://www.nesri.org/about/mission-vision (lastvisited Apr. 14, 2019) (listingthe various United Nationtreaties that prove aright to food). 174. See Clapp, Agribusiness, supra note 142 (arguingthatagribusiness mega-mergers allow for corporateconcentration, whichdoes not effectivelytacklehunger). 2019] Does theRuleofEcological LawDemandVeganism? 483 endeavors—through lawand policy, individualand group activism, and regionaland internationalsupport.175 Garver’s ten featuresofecological laware an excellent vehiclefor assessing and proposingalternatives to our current industrial-animal- agriculture system.176 Although ecologicallaw strives to achieve interspecies justice, it also seeksinter-and intragenerationalhuman justice, so it doesnot provide aclear and simpleanswertowhether it “demands” veganism.177 Instead,ecological lawprompts us to askprobing questions to guide us to food systemsthat enhance ecologicaljusticefor allspecies now and in thefuture.

175.See Garver, supra note1,at329 (discussinghow ecologicallaw encourages “global[], regional[]and local[]”connections). 176.See supra notes131–47 and accompanying text (suggesting how ecological lawprinciples wouldreform theglobal food system). 177. See supra notes 40–43, 143–47 and accompanying text (concluding that ecologicallaw wouldpermiteatingmeat in some circumstances).