Massachusetts humane pork law survives industry court challenge
By Nate Raymond
July 22 (Reuters) -A federal judge on Monday rejected an industry-backed bid to block enforcement of a Massachusetts law banning the sale of pork from pigs kept in tightly confined spaces, saying a federal law governing slaughterhouses does not preempt it.
U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston rejected arguments by Missouri-based pork producer Triumph Foods and out-of-state pig farmers that the state law conflicted with a federal law regulating slaughterhouse inspections.
The pork producers argued the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempted the state's law because it created additional, different requirements on how pigs are to be handled than the federal law provided.
But Young said Massachusetts' law does no more than ban the sale of non-compliant pork meat and does not regulate how a slaughterhouse itself operates.
He said all a slaughterhouse needs to be able to do to sell pork in Massachusetts is be able to identify if the meat originated from a legally compliant pig.
"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.
Representatives for Triumph and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, whose office defended the law, had no immediate comment.
The restrictions were part of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which barred the sales of pork, veal and eggs in Massachusetts from pigs, calves and hens whose confinement failed to meet certain minimum space requirements.
The measure was adopted through a ballot initiative that 77% of voters approved of in 2016.
The lawsuit focused only on a provision that bars the sale of pork meat originating from breeding pigs who were "cruelly confined" in spaces that prevent them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs or turning around freely.
The law mirrored a similar voter-approved measure in California. Those pork-related provisions were similarly challenged by industry groups, but the U.S. Supreme Court in May preserved the law by dismissing the case on a 5-4 vote.
Young in February ruled that one part of the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional and discriminated against out-of-state pork processors.
That provision created an exemption allowing for sales of pork that do not meet the requirements at federally inspected slaughterhouses in Massachusetts so long as buyers take possession of the pork while on their premises, rather than at grocery stores.
But Young severed that provision rather than blocking the whole law, saying it could be separated without frustrating the law's overall purpose.
The case is Triumph Foods LLC v. Campbell, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 23-cv-11671.
For Triumph Foods: Cynthia Cordes of Husch Blackwell
For Massachusetts: Grace Gohlke, Vanessa Arslanian and Maryanne Reynolds of the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
Read more:
Part of Massachusetts pork law ruled unconstitutional, rest survives
U.S. Supreme Court preserves California humane pig confinement law
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
