Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A.... Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A. magna cum laude from Amherst College. His academic writing focuses on the questions surrounding new food products, specifically plant-based and cell-based meat, and is available on SSRN. He is a founding editor of Oyez's newest platform about U.S. Supreme Court arguments, Oral Argument 2.0. He also writes guest columns for Justia's Verdict and performs legal research for the Animal Law Podcast. Read more about Jareb Gleckel Read More
In chess, a gambit is an opening involving sacrifice. A player risks one or more pawns, or a minor piece, to gain an advantage in position. We’ll come back to this.
Source: Netflix/YouTube
May 2024 brings two new updates to a high-stakes tug-of-war between the animal law movement and the meat industry. On one side of the rope, animal law coalitions have successfully mobilized voters in states like California and Massachusetts to pass increasingly powerful laws protecting farmed animals. On the other side, the meat industry is up in arms to stop states from passing these welfare laws. Here’s a recap of the back-and-forth we’ve described in several earlier columns:
That brings us to May 2024, when the industry made two new maneuvers. First, the House Agriculture Committee snuck pieces of the EATS Act into the new 2024 Farm Bill. Among other things, language in the Bill could nullify laws like California’s Proposition 12, subsidize the U.S. mink farming industry, create obstacles for animal rescue groups, and weaken the Endangered Species Act. Fun times. But at least the next steps for the animal law movement here are clear: fight these parts of the Farm Bill tooth and nail in the House and Senate.
The second industry move is more complex — it’s a cell-based meat ban in Florida. Most (though not all) of the animal law movement agrees that cell-based meat is an important piece of the “how to protect animals” puzzle. In short, if cell-based meat replicates the taste and texture of dead animals, it can replace the mass slaughter regime that we currently call the food industry. So Florida’s maneuver has the transparent goal of preventing competition with agriculture. But it’s also a gambit — bait, tempting the animal-law movement to challenge it — because if the animal-law movement jumps recklessly to challenge the Florida ban, we risk arguing against the very state rights we need, and have fought for, to establish stronger animal protection laws. (Hence the other shoe.) So the movement needs a bit of patience now, and unity. There are strong challenges to Florida’s cell-based meat ban, and I’m hopeful that we can outplay the gambit.

For more Animal Law Updates:
Easy Ways to Help the Planet:
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Comments: