Triumph Appeals Question 3 Decision

Triumph, Food Companies File Federal Appeal on Court Decision Regarding Animal-Welfare Law

Todd Neeley
By  Todd Neeley , DTN Environmental Editor
Connect with Todd:
Triumph Foods LLC asked a federal appeals court to review a ruling on Massachusetts' animal-welfare law. (DTN file photo)

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A group of farms and food companies led by Triumph Foods LLC has asked a federal appeals court to review a Massachusetts federal court's ruling that upheld the state's animal welfare law created through ballot initiative Question 3.

A federal court ruled in July that the Federal Meat Inspection Act does not preempt the Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.

The state's law bans the sale of pork meat that doesn't meet sow housing requirements no matter where it is produced. In February, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that an exemption from the animal welfare law for federally licensed meat-processing plants operating in the state was unconstitutional.

Food companies joining Triumph Foods in an appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, include Christensen Farms Midwest, LLC; The Hanor Company of Wisconsin, LLC; New Fashion Pork LLP; Eichelberger Farms, Inc.; and Allied Producers' Cooperative. Thirteen states also joined the original lawsuit including Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

The appeal filed on Aug. 13, 2024, asks the court to review the judgment and all orders in that action rendered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, including the companies' motion for preliminary injunction rejected by the court.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The food companies had motioned the court to sever the sales ban from the law. Doing so would have made the law applicable only to farm owners in the state.

The companies argued the sales ban should be severed because it includes pork sold by federal facilities. Pork producers represented in the case reside in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Missouri, Wyoming and Indiana.

U.S. District Judge William G. Young said in the July ruling that there was no conflict between the federal and state laws.

In addition, he said Triumph Foods already has implemented a system that allows it to separate compliant and noncompliant pork to be sold in Massachusetts. The company processed over 11 million pounds of pork meat sold in the state in 2022.

Triumph provided estimates to the court that the company processes about 58,000 pigs per month in compliance with the act, which Triumph estimates to be about 700,000 compliant pigs or 70 million pounds per year available through Triumph.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court upheld California's animal welfare law created as a result of Proposition 12, which was modeled after the Massachusetts law.

Read more on DTN:

"Question 3 Survives in Massachusetts," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R1] D[300x250] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R2] D[300x250] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
DIM[1x3] LBL[article-box] SEL[] IDX[] TMPL[standalone] T[]
P[R3] D[300x250] M[0x0] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Todd Neeley

Todd Neeley
Connect with Todd: