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
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
