Most voters wanted it. A U.S. District Court judge upheld it. And now producers wait to see whether an appeal will stop its implementation.
In 2016, 77% of Massachusetts voters approved a ballot initiative that created the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. It was similar in purpose to one previously instituted in California. There have been legal questions since.
Massachusetts’ legislation impacts the hog, beef, and poultry industries. Much of the focus is what constitutes “cruelty” to animals in the methods used to raise them.
RELATED: California voters approved Prop 12 in 2018, which supporters said would improve living conditions for pigs and hens. Some producers complained that the requirements would increase costs. This Vox report in 2021 takes an in-depth look at what Prop 12 would do and the pushback against it.
The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act stated this:
“The purpose of this Act is to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of Massachusetts consumers, increase the risk of foodborne illness, and have negative fiscal impacts on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
The Act also would make it unlawful to sell products that came from animals that were raised in a “cruel manner.”
“Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for a business owner or operator to knowingly engage in the sale within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of any
(A) Shell egg that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the product of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner.
(B) Whole veal 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.
(C) 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.”
The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act established guidelines that supporters felt would prevent animals from being so packed together that they could barely move at all. That meant defining terms, so that producers would understand what was required.
Here are some of the terms explained in the Act:
“Confined in a cruel manner”
“Confined so as to prevent a covered animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, or turning around freely.”
“Fully extending the animal's limbs”
“Fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure. In the case of egg-laying hens, fully extending the animal’s limbs means fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens and having access to at least 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen.”
“Turning around freely”
“Turning in a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an enclosure or another animal.”
Triumph Foods, a Missouri-based pork producer, sued in U.S. District Court claiming that the Act should not apply because it conflicts with federal law that governs slaughterhouses.
On Monday, a federal judge rejected that argument. Meat & Poultry has a response from Triumph Foods President and CEO Matt England who pledged to appeal the court’s ruling. The ruling also found that ground pork was outside the scope of the Act. Read that here.
