Comparative Report to Curb the Expansion of Industrial Animal Agriculture
The analysis of how courts are addressing industrial animal agriculture in four countries is the first of its kind from the Farmed Animal Protection Project of the Center of Animal Law Studies (CALS).

The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) at Lewis & Clark Law School has released a new report, titled “A Comparative Analysis of Litigation Strategies in Brazil, India, Mexico and Zimbabwe.” This first-of-its-kind project is the work of CALS’ Farmed Animal Protection Project and examines how courts are addressing the rapid industrialization of animal agriculture in four populous low- and middle-income countries (PLMICs), namely: Brazil, India, Mexico and Zimbabwe.
Industrial animal agriculture is scaling rapidly across PLMICs, with profound animal welfare, environmental, public health, and community impacts. By documenting successful and not-so-successful litigation strategies in the countries studied, the report provides advocates with comparative research to press for enforceable standards, stronger oversight, and both short-term welfare improvements and long-term reforms in industrial animal agriculture.
Led by CALS Visiting Assistant Professor, Hira Jaleel and developed by Farmed Animal Protection Project students during the 2024–2025 academic year, the report features country chapters authored by students and peer-reviewed by external experts. The full report provides an overview of industry conditions, governing law (animal, environmental, food safety/consumer protection), seminal case law, and recommendations for litigation strategies in the four countries. A companion Project Overview report summarizes cross-jurisdictional trends and recommendations for advocates and policymakers.
The report seeks to answer the following research question: How have legal strategies in PLMICs succeeded or failed in halting or slowing industrial animal agriculture, what legal or socio-cultural factors influence outcomes, and which strategies can be replicated across jurisdictions?
Some key findings from the report include:
- Environmental and public health arguments are more effective in court than purely animal rights based ones: Arguments tied to environmental protection and public health, for example pollution control or disease risk, tend to be more successful than claims premised solely on establishing independent animal rights or welfare obligations.
- Seeking court-monitored enforcement of existing laws appears to be a successful strategy: Petitioners frequently use procedural tools such as public interest or amparo litigation to compel administrative agencies to enforce existing laws, with courts issuing orders focused on monitoring, rulemaking, and oversight.
- Progress is incremental and fragile. Even favorable rulings can face legislative pushback, appeals, or weak follow-through, underscoring the need for sustained advocacy after litigation victories.
- Cultural concerns need to be counterbalanced with animal protection: Where animal welfare conflicts with cultural or religious claims, courts apply balancing tests. The outcomes of these cases often preserve tradition while narrowing harmful conduct. This trend reflects judicial caution about overriding entrenched animal use practices motivated by culture or religion.
- Standing barriers in the four PMLICs are lower than in the U.S. Courts in the profiled PLMICs generally accept standing for animal protection organizations and public interest petitioners, enabling courts to frequently reach the merits of an industrial animal agriculture related case.
“This report is the culmination of tireless work by our students in the Farmed Animal Protection Project. Through this project, we aim to put litigation strategies from all four countries in conversation with each other, so we can examine overarching trends. We envision this research being useful for advocates and lawyers working on farmed animal protection issues across the studied regions and in the United States.” said CALS Visiting Professor, Hira Jaleel.
Access the full report and the companion Project Overview.

About the Farmed Animal Protection Project
Industrial animal agriculture, including aquaculture, is extremely detrimental for the well-being of animals, human health, and the environment. The Farmed Animal Protection Project at Lewis & Clark Law School provides an exciting non-clinic experiential opportunity for students to advance their knowledge and skills. At the end of the academic year, projects produced through the Project are shared with the public to increase awareness and to aid other farmed animal advocacy efforts within the animal protection movement.
Law Communications is located in room 304 of Legal Research Center (LRC) on the law Campus.
MSC: 51
email jasbury@lclark.edu
voice 503-768-6605
Cell: 626-676-7923
Assistant Dean,
Communications and External Relations, Law School
Judy Asbury
Law Communications
Lewis & Clark Law School
10101 S. Terwilliger Boulevard MSC 51
Portland OR 97219
More Stories

Year in Review
Top Stories of 2025
As the calendar year draws to a close, we’ve compiled a sampling of top stories from the undergraduate college, the graduate school, and the law school.

Justice for Animals and the Environment on a Global Scale
The law school’s Global Law Alliance is helping to advance environmental and wildlife protections across the globe while giving students hands-on experience in international law.

2025-2026 Multnomah Bar Association Fellows Announced
Three 1ls were named as Multnomah Bar Association Fellows: Finn Johnson, Hooman Dadkho, and Christina Smith

Business Law Forum Provides Legal Perspectives on Corporate Climate Action
The 2025 Business Law Forum at Lewis & Clark Law School convened scholars, industry leaders, and policy experts to examine how corporate law, regulation, disclosure, and litigation are rapidly evolving in response to the global challenges of climate change.