In 1995, the New Jersey State Legislature amended New Jersey's anti-cruelty statute. Section 4:22-16.1 went into effect on January 5, 1996, requiring that the State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture draft and adopt humane standards for the treatment of domestic livestock. Specifically, the statute requires that by July 1996 the Board and the Department

develop and adopt...(1) standards for the humane raising, keeping, care and treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock; and (2) rules and regulations governing the enforcement of those standards.(1)

The legislature's definition of "domestic livestock" includes: cattle, horses, donkeys, swine, sheep, goats, rabbits, poultry, and fowl.(2) Thus, the humane standards will apply not only to small family farms, but to the treatment of animals raised for food on large factory farms, as well.

It is important to recognize that Section 4:22-16.1 was not intended to completely exempt commonly accepted animal husbandry practices from coverage under the cruelty statute. Rather, the legislative intent in calling for these standards was to deem only certain specifically enumerated practices per se humane.(3)

To date, more than five years after the deadline set by the legislature, the Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture have yet to promulgate "humane" standards, rules or regulations. Their failure has important implications for farmed animals. Namely, no uniform set of duly adopted guidelines currently exists to determine whether certain agricultural practices should be considered "humane." Moreover, the Department of Agriculture's failure to adopt humane standards has severely hindered proper enforcement of the cruelty laws as they pertain to farmed animals. Indeed, factory farmers as well as livestock transporters have recently argued that the lack of humane standards has made the New Jersey animal cruelty law unenforceable since the Department of Agriculture has failed to put farmers on notice as to which practices are permissible and which are not. Furthermore, given the fact that the Legislature has directed the Department of Agriculture to promulgate humane standards, judges hearing cases involving cruelty to farmed animals may be reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of the Department of Agriculture.

In its effort to draft humane standards for the keeping, care and treatment of domestic livestock, the Department of Agriculture should look to the abundance of scientific evidence showing that intensive confinement systems clearly cause animals to suffer and that more humane alternative methods exist making certain practices unnecessary. Indeed, other industrialized countries have banned practices that, while common, are clearly cruel. The fact that a practice is common is not justification in and of itself, otherwise the Legislature would not have mandated that humane standards be promulgated. If the Department adheres to its mandate to promulgate standards which are indeed "humane," current intensive confinement practices cannot stand.

(1) N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. a. Emphasis added.
(2) N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. c.
(3) N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. b.(1) provides that "there shall exist a presumption that the raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock in accordance with the standards developed and adopted therefor pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall not constitute a violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to, or inhumane care or treatment of, domestic livestock." Emphasis added.