LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A group of farms and food companies asked a federal court to end Massachusetts' sales ban on pork not raised according to new state standards created as a result of the passage of ballot Question 3.
Currently, the state's law bans the sale of pork meat that doesn't meet sow housing requirements no matter where it is produced.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in February that an exemption from the animal welfare law for federally licensed meat-processing plants operating in the state was unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs led by Triumph Foods based in St. Joseph, Missouri, filed a motion for summary judgment last week asking the court to also sever the sales ban from the Massachusetts law.
The law exempted pork products sold at federal facilities in Massachusetts while requiring federal facilities outside the state to comply with the law.
Brook Duer, staff attorney with the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law at Penn State University, told DTN severing the sales ban would mean the remaining parts of the law governing pen sizes would apply only to producers in Massachusetts.
"If the sale prohibition were severed and permanently enjoined, then Massachusetts would be simply left with a law that makes it unlawful, provides for a fine up to $1,000 for and the ability of the attorney general to seek an injunction against, 'a farm owner or operator within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to knowingly cause any covered animal to be confined in a cruel manner,'" he said.
States are permitted to regulate within their borders in this way and impose restrictions solely on their in-state production, Duer said, but not on the same products coming from out of state.
The food groups argued in their motion that the sales ban must be severed by the court because it includes pork sold by federal facilities.
"In short, Massachusetts has predetermined that a USDA-approved product offered for sale in Massachusetts is adulterated, not fit for human consumption," the motion said.
"Or said another way, the act overrides the USDA's finding that the product is not adulterated -- overriding the USDA's inspection and approval of the product for sale. The sales ban is directly tied to how a breeding sow is raised on a farm nationwide."
The state's law took effect in June 2022, and on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld California's Proposition 12, a group of farms, food and processing companies in July 2023 asked the district court to halt enforcement of the law.
The farms and pork processors filing legal action include Triumph Foods LLC, Christensen Farms Midwest LLC, The Hanor Company of Wisconsin LLC, New Fashion Pork LLC, Eichelberger Farms Inc., and Allied Producers' Cooperative. Thirteen states have also joined the lawsuit.
In 2022, Triumph processed over 11 million pounds of pork meat, according to court documents, although it's not clear how much of that pork complied with the state's law.
Thirteen states signed on to an amicus brief in support of the companies, including Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
While the law facially appears to regulate just the sales of pork in Massachusetts, the 13 states have said it has a much broader effect on farms and companies across the country.
Read more on DTN:
"Massachusetts Animal Welfare Law Facing Scrutiny," https://www.dtnpf.com/…
Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com.
Follow him on X, formerly Twitter, @DTNeeley.
(c) Copyright 2024 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.