Massachusetts

Triumph Foods Sues Massachusetts for Question 3 Compliance

Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:26:01 GMT

Triumph Foods, a pork processor, announced that it launched a lawsuit in a Massachusetts federal court to dispute the legality of a Massachusetts law about sow housing regulations.

The law in question is the Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals , also known as Question 3. It was due to be implemented on July 12, but the commencement was postponed to Aug. 23. Massachusetts voters originally backed the measure in 2016.

Other entities that joined Triumph Foods in this legal action include Christensen Farms Midwest LLC, The Hanor Co. of Wisconsin LLC, New Fashion Pork LLP, Eichelberger Farms Inc., and Allied Producers’ Cooperative, which is a collective of smaller Midwest farmers.

Triumph Foods used the Supreme Court’s May decision concerning California’s Proposition 12 as a reference. In its legal filing, Triumph argued that the ruling against the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) on Prop 12 was specific to a limited number of claims and did not confirm the measure’s constitutionality.

Matt England, Triumph Foods’ president and CEO, stated that “Discriminatory trade restrictions like Q3 and Prop 12 hinder the establishment of resilient, dependable food supply chains throughout the United States” and negatively impact small enterprises, employees, consumers, and public sectors. He emphasized the importance of free and open interstate commerce for the nation’s economic growth.

Triumph highlighted that last year, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar backed several agricultural trade organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court about Prop 12. Prelogar had noted that the US Congress transferred food safety duties to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the organ that regulates pork supplies.

In June, the state of California postponed compliance with Prop 12 until Dec. 31.

Furthermore, Triumph Foods expressed support for similar litigation initiated by the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA).

Meatpacker Sues Producers, Alleges Conspiracy

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:24:59 GMT

A suit filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont alleges a conspiracy “to falsify weight records” that led to an over-payment of more than $222,000 in 2017 and 2018.

Walden Local, a Massachusetts-based meat packer, claims Arthur Chickering III and his daughter, Suzanne Chickering, conspired with Jeffrey Nichols, a lead cutter on the kill floor of Vermont Packinghouse, North Springfield, VT. The alleged changes to weight records by Nichols resulted in an overpayment of “at least $173,976 to Suzanne Chickering for the meat itself and $49,492 to VPH for the processing of the meat in 2017 and 2018,” court records indicate.

Arion Thiboumery, general manager of Vermont Packinghouse, told the Brattleboro (VT) Register , “we filed a police report about the alleged fraud with the Springfield Police Department.” However, he said Vermont Packinghouse is not a party to the suit.

Court documents stated, “Suzanne Chickering is a farmer who is in the business of selling beef cows, hogs and other farm products. Arthur Chickering III is the father of Suzanne Chickering and her agent.”

A representative for Walden Local wrote that over a two-year period, the Vemont Packinghouse slaughtered and processed beef and pork for Walden Local – the meat company – at an agreed upon price per pound.

Walden had separate contracts, one with the Chickerings to purchase the animals, and another with VPH to process the meat.

The lawsuit alleges that Arthur Chickering III regularly transported his daughter’s livestock to the slaughterhouse where employees determined the live weight at arrival. After slaughter, the carcass hanging weight was determined.

Nichols job at VPH was on the kill floor, and another employee weighed the animals and recorded the hanging weights in a log book. Cassandra LaRae-Perez, a lawyer representing Walden Local, told the Brattleboro Register, “After the employee responsible for weighing and recording the hang weight of the Chickering animals recorded the information, Defendant Nichols changed the handwritten records to reflect amounts greater than the actual weights shown on the scale.”

It is alleged that Nichols also changed the live weight records to correspond with the hanging weight changes and did so at the behest of Arthur Chickering III.

“Defendant Suzanne Chickering knew that Defendant Arthur Chickering was bribing Defendant Nichols to falsify the weight records to reflect weights that were higher than actual weights of the animals that she was delivering to VPH,” wrote LaRae-Perez, who alleged Suzanne Chickering invoiced VPH based on the fraudulent weights.

Through a lawyer, Suzanne Chickering claims there “is absolutely no factual basis for this lawsuit.”

Related stories:

Cattle to Be Sold In SD’s Big ‘Legal Mess’

Voter to Weigh Cost of Restrictive Cages for Farm Animals

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:30:06 GMT

When Massachusetts voters head to the polls in November, supporters of a pro-farm animal ballot question want them to have one question in their minds: What would it feel like to spend their entire lives without enough room to stand up, turn around, stretch their arms and legs and lay down again.

Opponents hope voters will have their eyes on their wallets instead, arguing that approving the ballot question will drive up the costs of eggs and meat.

The proposal — Question 3 on the ballot — is aimed at improving the living conditions of farm animals, not just in Massachusetts but at any farm that wants to sell eggs and meat in the state.

The question would “prohibit any farm from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from laying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs or turning around freely.”

Framers of the question have their sights set far beyond Massachusetts, where only one egg-producing farm could be affected if the proposal becomes law.

The question would also bar businesses in Massachusetts from selling any eggs or meat produced under those confining conditions — even if the hens, calves or pig were kept outside of the state.

Supporters say everyone should show concern for farm animals.

“Whether you’re a vegetarian, or a meat-eater, or anything in between, everybody should be able to agree that a baby veal calf, a mother pig, an egg-laying hen ought to be able to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs,” said Paul Shapiro, of the Humane Society of the United States, the largest contributor to the ballot question. “We wouldn’t allow that type of cruelty for a dog or a cat.”

Shapiro made the comments during a debate Tuesday sponsored by WBUR-FM and The Boston Globe.

Some major companies including Wal-Mart and McDonalds have already said they plan to make the switch to cage-free eggs.

But Bill Bell, of the New England Brown Egg Council, said even supporters have acknowledged that the question could drive up the cost of eggs — although supporters and opponents differ on how big an increase.

“If you believe that eggs should be produced in a cage-free environment, you can buy those eggs right now,” Bell said during the debate. “This is America and the marketplace responds.”

Bell urged voters to reject the question, saying it will have unforeseen consequences.

“To begin with, it will increase the price of food substantially for everyone, including especially those least able to afford it,” he said, adding that farmers care about the well-being of their hens, if only because happier hens produce better.

If approved, the ballot question wouldn’t fully take effect until 2022, giving farms times to adapt to the new rules.

While both sides passionately defend their views, so far only backers of the question have been raising money to make their case to the public.

Bakers of the question have reported raising $1.7 million so far in direct contributions and another $545,000 in in-kind contributions, like donated staff times.

The state’s most recent campaign finance deadline passed this week without any opposition group filing a fundraising report with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

The single biggest source of funding for Citizens for Farm Animal Protection — the group pushing the ballot question — has come from the Maryland-based Humane Society of The United States, which has contributed more than $1.5 million in direct and in-kind contributions.