The Woman Who Gave Water to a Thirsty Pig Won’t Go to Jail

A Canadian judge has ruled it's not illegal to give a thirsty pig a drink of water on its way to slaughter, in a heated months-long court case..

Anita Krajnc, an animal activist from Toronto, was acquitted of the charges of criminal mischief after she dribbled some water through the slats of a transport truck full of pigs in the summer of 2015. She was facing fines of up to $5,000 and possible jail time, but the judge ruled that since the pigs were still slaughtered, her actions clearly didn't really disrupt anything.

"Pigs are not persons, they are property," Justice David Harris said, in response to an argument the defense had presented. "But the simple answer is that Krajnc didn't interfere with the lawful enjoyment of the property."

It may seem like a commonsense verdict—since when is giving an animal a drink of water a crime? But the trial served as paradigm for a contentious debate over animal welfare, property rights, and food security.

Activists like Krajnc argued her actions were compassionate and should be applauded, not punished. Personal property defenders argue it's not up to her to interfere with a farmer's animals in any way, even if she's trying to help. And food security experts said these laws are in place to protect the food supply from contaminants, and that they're taken more seriously due to recent zoonotic disease outbreaks.

Assistant Crown attorneys (Canada's version of district attorneys) argued that Krajnc's actions threatened the safety of the food supply, since the driver of the truck couldn't verify that she was only giving the pigs water. Eric Van Boekel, the farmer who owned the pigs in the truck, testified in court that any interference, no matter how well intentioned, puts his animals at risk of contamination, and could make them unfit for slaughter.

Concerns about food-borne illnesses, or even terrorist attacks, have made biosecurity—the process that manages risks in the food system—much stricter in recent years, according to Keith Warriner, a food security expert and professor of food science at the University of Guelph, in Canada.

"The worst case scenario is that somebody could introduce drugs for whatever reason—when I say drugs, I don't mean LSD, I mean an unknown antibiotic, for example," Warriner told me. "I do believe [Krajnc] had the best intentions, I'm not suggesting at all that she was trying to harm the pigs. But in the broader picture, it is a biosecurity issue, because not everybody will have the best intentions."

Warriner pointed to cases of people intentionally poisoning dogs with tainted dog treats and said that farmers, and truck drivers, are just trying to prevent any unknown variables from entering the food system. He also said that the benefit of a small amount of water given to one or two pigs may not be worth the risk.

But Harris ruled that it was clear, at least in this case, Krajnc didn't do anything wrong and compared her actions to people who leave out water dishes for thirsty dogs.

"How is this any different?" Harris asked the Crown lawyers.

The trial attracting international attention, pitting animal welfare activists against farmers and champions of personal property rights. Hundreds of supporters attended the courthouse in Milton, a suburb of Toronto, on Thursday to hear the verdict and support Krajnc.

Subscribe to Science Solved It , Motherboard's new show about the greatest mysteries that were solved by science.