![]() Original article by Ann Reus A federal judge has ruled the Massachusetts’ animal welfare law, known as Question 3, is not pre-empted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and allowed the law to stand in a defeat for pork producers. A federal judge has ruled the Massachusetts’ animal welfare law, known as Question 3, is not pre-empted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and allowed the law to stand in a defeat for pork producers. The ruling on July 22 by Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts came after a ruling in February in which he ordered a slaughterhouse exemption be severed from the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act and allowed the legal challenge brought by pork processor Triumph Foods and several pork producers to continue. Triumph, which supplies pork to Seaboard Foods, filed a lawsuit in July 2023 challenging the constitutionality of Question 3 and laws like it, including California’s Proposition 12. Question 3, passed by Massachusetts voters in 2016, makes it unlawful “for a farm owner or operator within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to knowingly cause any covered animal to be confined in a cruel manner.” This includes pigs, chicken and veal calves. The act defines “confined in a cruel manner” as confining a “breeding pig in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs or turning around freely.” It also makes it unlawful for a “business owner or operator to knowingly engage in the sale within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of any … whole pork meat that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner, or is the meat of the immediate offspring of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner.” Pork produced by St. Joseph, Missouri-based Triumph is sold into Massachusetts as well as throughout the country. Triumph’s facility is inspected under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). There are three pork processing facilities that are FMIA-inspected within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Outside Massachusetts, there are 101 other FMIA-inspected facilities that package and distribute such products for sale. Question 3 provides an exemption from its requirements for pork products when those products are sold on the premises of an FMIA-inspected facility. The slaughterhouse exemption only occurs for the sale at the inspected facility. With the slaughterhouse exemption severed from the act, the plaintiffs argued the act is pre-empted by the FMIA, an argument the state disputed. The pig farmers alleged the act would force them to convert their farm operations to meet minimum size requirements, and Triumph alleged the adjustments it would need to make to comply with the law are “penalties.” However, Young said in his ruling, slaughterhouses only need to identify whether the meat it processed came from a pig raised in compliance with the law. "Slaughterhouses may still operate in the same way they did previously — noncompliant pork processing is not only allowed, but slaughterhouses are not even required to segregate noncompliant pork from compliant pork," he said. Triumph Foods indicated it planned to appeal the ruling. “Triumph’s claims have not yet been presented before any federal appeals court, and we intend to build on the success of the dormant commerce clause challenge win and appeal the most recent order," said Triumph Foods President and CEO Matt England in an emailed statement. "The industry’s pursuit for relief from these unconstitutional state laws is not over.” The producers named as plaintiffs in the suit are Christensen Farms Midwest LLC, The Hanor Co. of Wisconsin LLC, New Fashion Pork LLP, Eichelberger Farms Inc. and Allied Producers' Cooperative. Original article written by Ann Reus on FeedStrategy.com Animal welfare lawcertified humaneJanice animal welfareComments are closed.
|