The title of this post is also the title of my forthcoming essay in Law, Culture & the Humanities (a special issue on Law & Food). Get it here.
Here’s the abstract:
Law and food are distinct concepts, though the discipline (Law and Food) implies a relationship worthy of study. The conjunction (“and”) creates meaning. However, its absence also conveys meaning. For example, “meat animal” suggests that animals can be both meat and animal. This conflation has powerful legal implications. National Meat Association v. Harris (2012) makes chillingly plain the law’s indifference to whether a meat animal is alive or dead. This essay examines the way supposedly humane federal practices ignore the systematic brutalization of “food animals” as those animals getprocessed into marketable flesh. It concludes with some observations about why this legal blindness exists.
Get it, read it, tell all your friends.