Resources

Academic Resources

Abercrombie, Debra L., Shelley C. Clarke, and Mahmood S. Shivji. “Global scale genetic identification of hammerhead sharks: Application to assessment of the international fin trade and law enforcement.” Conservation Genetics 6 (2005): 775-788.

Often it is unknown which species are more endangered than others when fishermen capture sharks, as it is difficult to tell the species just by the fin or a headless body. The authors conducted shark tissue test samples in order to collect data about the types of sharks that are being hunted.

DeSoucey, Michaela Anne. “Gullet Politics: Contentious Foie Gras Politics and the Organization of Public Morality in the United States and France.” Diss. Northwestern U, 2010.

This doctoral dissertation examines the moral and market issues behind foie gras. Through a sociological lens, the author first analyzes various responses to the foie gras market. Second, she compares and contrasts the state of the trade in the U.S. and in France.

European Union. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. “Welfare Aspects of Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese.” 16 Dec. 1998.

This extensive document, issued by the EU, influenced many activists and citizens to advocate for the ban of force-feeding within European member-nations.

Faure, Jean-Michel, Daniel Guémené, and Gérard Guy. “Is there avoidance of the force feeding procedure in ducks and geese?” Anim. Res. 50 (2001): 157-164.

By testing multiple cases of geese reactions to the force-feeding method, the authors conclude that there is no obvious signs of avoidance by animals to gavage.

Girgen, Jen. “Constructing Animal Rights Activism as a Social Threat: Claims-Making in the New York Times and in Congressional Hearings.” Diss. Florida State U, 2008.

In Girgen’s dissertation, she analyzes how animal rights groups and policies in the U.S., since the 1970s, are portrayed in news outlets as extreme and even terrorist-like. The author focuses on the New York Times’ slanted representations of these social movements.

Golan, Elise, Fred Kuchler, and Lorraine Mitchell. “Economics of Food Labeling.” Journal of Consumer Policy 24 (2001): 117-184.

The authors delve into the theoretical background of government-issued food labels. It takes an economic stance by outlining the problem of asymmetric information in the process of labeling.

Grubbs, Jennifer Dora. “Farm Sanctuary: Creating a Space Where Theory Meets Practice.” Diss. U of Cincinnati, 2008.

This dissertation relates theories of farm work to practices in local cases. Specifically, Grubbs looks at animal rights movements and how theoretical arguments become reality.

Guémené D. and G. Guy. “The past, present, and future of force-feeding and “foie gras” production.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 60 (2004): 210-222.

Guémené and Guy chronicle the uses of force-feeding, beginning in Ancient Egypt to 19th century Europe, and the current techniques of gavage. Covering equipment, breeding and management, and economics, the authors seek a solution to the future of foie-gras production.

Harrington, Alexandra R. “Not All It’s Quaked Up To Be: Why State and Local Efforts to Ban Foie Gras Violate Constitutional Law.” Drake Journal of Agricultural Law (2007).

This article delves into how the foie gras bans in California and Chicago (though repealed) are unconstitutional. Using a comparative lens, it explores the rhetoric of the bans themselves and how legislation framed the issue.

Hinrichs, C. Clare. “The practice and politics of food system localization.” Journal of Rural Studies 19 (2003): 33-45.

This article analyzes the problems of labeling and constructing food systems in terms of “local” or “localized.” It focuses on localization movements in Iowa in order to discover how the term disregards diversity and difference in food practices.

Hobbs, Jill E. and William A. Kerr. “Consumer information, labeling and international trade in agri-food products.” Food Policy 31 (2006): 78-89.

 Looking at the WTO’s producer protections, this article researches consumer concerns to the labeling policies of international trade.

Lack, Mary and Glenn Sant. The Future of Sharks: A Review of Action and Inaction. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International and the Pew Environment Group, 2011.

This pamphlet, assembled by the organizations the Pew Environment Group and TRAFFIC International, provides an overview on global regulation and government acts to deter the overfishing of sharks.

Pimbert, Michel P. Transforming Knowledge and Ways of Knowing For Food Sovereignty. London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2006. 

This book takes a look at the food sovereignty movement, and the ways in which access to knowledge about food transformed in recent years. With greater information on global food and agricultural practices, public policies reshape public perceptions of health, equality, sustainability, and other concerns for the modern eater.

Rodenburg, T.B., M.B.M. Bracke, J. Berk, J. Cooper, J.M. Faure, D. Guémené., G. Guy, A. Harlander, T. Jones, U. Knierim, K. Kuhnt, H. Pingel, K. Reiter, J. Serviére and M.A.W. Ruis. “Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 61.4 (2005): 633-646.

This article scans how housing, feeding, and hygiene affect the animal welfare of Pekin, Muscovy, and Mule ducks in European farms. It draws from other authors on this page, in determining how gavage impacts the well-being of the animal in relation to the farm environment.

Schindler, Daniel E., Timothy E. Essington, James F. Kitchell, Chris Boggs, and Ray Hilborn. “Sharks and Tunas: Fisheries Impacts on Predators with Contrasting Life Histories.” Ecological Applications 12.3 (2002): 735-748.

This article introduces management plans to preserve blue shark and yellowfin tuna populations. Large fisheries exploit these ocean predators, which hold complex life and food web histories, creating issues for conservation and sustainability.

Spiegel, Jessica. “Even Jaws Deserves to Keep His Fins: Outlawing Shark Finning Throughout Global Waters.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 24 (2000-2001): 409-438.

Spiegel follows the history of shark finning’s transformation into a global industry,  looking at the trade in the Atlantic and Pacific. She then goes on to a discussion of particular responses to finning and lastly, what can be done on a global scale to regulate or abolish this practice.


Legislative Resources

California. Leg. Senate. 2004 Leg. S. 1520 (enacted).

Part of California Health and Safety Code, this bill prohibits the force-feeding of birds. Citations for violations of this bill cost up to $1,000 per day.

Fisheries off West Coast and in the Western Pacific; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Implementation of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. 67, No. 28 Fed. Reg. 11 Feb. 2002.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prohibits any possession of shark fins or engagement in shark finning aboard a U.S. fishing vessel.

“H.R. 5461–106th Congress: Shark Finning Prohibition Act.” GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). 2000. November 25, 2012.

The House Committee on Natural Resources amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to remove the act of shark finning.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public Law Fed. Reg. 94-265. 12 Jan. 2007.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) remains the central law in the governance of U.S. marine fisheries. First issued in 1976 by Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Ted Stevens, it has since been amended in 1996 and 2006.

Advertisements