Animal Law Review
First Page
167
Abstract
Animal-based food industries—meat, egg, and dairy—have a history of opposing even relatively minor attempts to reduce human consumption of animal-based foods. In the face of growing evidence that eating meat, eggs, and dairy is detrimental to human health, these industries and their supporters maintain the opposite: that these foods are essential for a healthy diet and have no negative impact as normally consumed. Recognizing parallels between animal-based food industries and another industry heavily invested in maintaining the notion that its product was benign as normally consumed, this Article argues the tobacco litigation saga holds instructive lessons for combatting the current animal-based food industries. This Article, using the Hallmark slaughterhouse suit as a case study, illustrates how plaintiffs can deploy key strategies that prevailed against the tobacco industry—whistleblowing, fraud claims, government involvement in litigation, and identification of negatively impacted children. Finally, this Article outlines the potential developments that would deepen the parallels between the animal-based food and tobacco industries, suggesting conditions under which the litigation strategies used against the tobacco industry would become increasingly applicable and valuable.
Recommended Citation
Amanda Winalski,
Shocked, Horrified, Sickened: How Cigarettes (and the Lessons from the Tobacco Litigation) Can Take Years Off Animal-Based Food Industries,
20
Animal L. Rev.
167
(2013).
Available at:
https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol20/iss1/9