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
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
