Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird is leading a group of states in a court brief in a lawsuit challenging a Massachusetts law that limits the sale and transport of pork and other animal products in the state unless they’re raised in humane ways.
The brief was filed Tuesday in support of the lawsuit brought by Triumph Foods against the Massachusetts law, which was passed as a ballot measure called Question 3 in 2016.
The law bans the sale of pork in the state that comes from sows unless they are given enough room to lie down and turn around, including pork that is raised outside the state. Sows are generally kept in restrictive gestation crates. It also bans the sale of eggs and veal unless they are raised in certain conditions.
The law mirrors a California law, Proposition 12, that has many of the same restrictions and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.
“Massachusetts’s radical pork ban hogties Iowa pork producers,” Bird said in a statement Tuesday. “With these strict new mandates in effect, Iowa farmers will face extreme costs and regulations to compete in the industry, forcing many family hog farms to close shop. Massachusetts doesn’t get to dictate how Iowans farm. We are fighting to support our pork producers and protect Iowa family farms.”
Attorneys general from Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and nine other states joined the brief, led by Bird’s office.
Bird’s office said in a news release that the law goes even further than California’s, barring the transportation of pork through the state to other states in New England. According to the brief, Massachusetts is a major distribution hub for surrounding states, and the prohibitions affect warehouses that ship from Massachusetts to other states.
The law took effect Aug. 25 after state officials and industry groups came to a deal amid ongoing litigation, according to a Boston NBC affiliate. The regulations on pork being transported through the state have not taken effect.
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the California law’s constitutionality. The Massachusetts case is being argued on different grounds, with the meat processing company arguing the law violates equal protections under the Constitution and the Import-Export Clause, among other things.
Newsletter Signup
Delivered to your inbox every day
Many of Iowa’s members of Congress have co-sponsored legislation that would make it illegal for states to pass laws like the ones in Massachusetts and California. The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act would prohibit states from passing laws regulating agricultural products that originate outside the state.
The Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups have opposed the proposed legislation, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers opposed adding it to the 2023 farm bill, saying it would limit the power of states to make local decisions about food and agriculture.
www.thegazette.com
The brief was filed Tuesday in support of the lawsuit brought by Triumph Foods against the Massachusetts law, which was passed as a ballot measure called Question 3 in 2016.
The law bans the sale of pork in the state that comes from sows unless they are given enough room to lie down and turn around, including pork that is raised outside the state. Sows are generally kept in restrictive gestation crates. It also bans the sale of eggs and veal unless they are raised in certain conditions.
The law mirrors a California law, Proposition 12, that has many of the same restrictions and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.
“Massachusetts’s radical pork ban hogties Iowa pork producers,” Bird said in a statement Tuesday. “With these strict new mandates in effect, Iowa farmers will face extreme costs and regulations to compete in the industry, forcing many family hog farms to close shop. Massachusetts doesn’t get to dictate how Iowans farm. We are fighting to support our pork producers and protect Iowa family farms.”
Attorneys general from Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and nine other states joined the brief, led by Bird’s office.
Bird’s office said in a news release that the law goes even further than California’s, barring the transportation of pork through the state to other states in New England. According to the brief, Massachusetts is a major distribution hub for surrounding states, and the prohibitions affect warehouses that ship from Massachusetts to other states.
The law took effect Aug. 25 after state officials and industry groups came to a deal amid ongoing litigation, according to a Boston NBC affiliate. The regulations on pork being transported through the state have not taken effect.
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the California law’s constitutionality. The Massachusetts case is being argued on different grounds, with the meat processing company arguing the law violates equal protections under the Constitution and the Import-Export Clause, among other things.
Daily News
Newsletter Signup
Many of Iowa’s members of Congress have co-sponsored legislation that would make it illegal for states to pass laws like the ones in Massachusetts and California. The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act would prohibit states from passing laws regulating agricultural products that originate outside the state.
The Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups have opposed the proposed legislation, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers opposed adding it to the 2023 farm bill, saying it would limit the power of states to make local decisions about food and agriculture.
Capitol Notebook: Iowa AG leads brief against Massachusetts animal welfare law
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird is leading a group of states in a court brief in a lawsuit challenging a Massachusetts law that limits the sale and transport of pork and other animal products in the state unless they’re raised in humane ways.
www.thegazette.com
