Midwest pig farmers, pork producer sue over Massachusetts humane-treatment law; warn of jackbooted Bay State inspectors stomping through Midwest pig farms

A group of Midwestern pig farmers and the pork producer they sell to yesterday asked a federal judge in Boston to keep Massachusetts from enforcing a humane-treatment law passed by voters in 2016, saying the law violates their constitutional rights and would mean ruinously high prices and spot shortages not just for Massachusetts bacon lovers but pork consumers across the country.

And, they argue, rather than try to comply with the law, pig farmers would likely just slaughter many of the pregnant pigs the law was meant to protect, so checkmate, supposed animal lovers.

The suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, comes a little more than two months after the Supreme Court upheld a similar California humane-treatment law requiring more space for pigs than the crate-like boxes many now live their lives in. Pork and restaurant groups in New England sued over the Massachusetts law last year, but both they and the state Agriculture Department agreed to hold off any court action until after the Supreme Court ruled on the California law. The stay in that case runs until Aug. 23.

But, the pork purveyors charge, the Massachusetts law is just wrong on so many levels it needs to be stopped regardless of what the Supreme Court said or what another federal judge might rule in the earlier suit.

They allege the regulations the state has been drawing up to enforce the law create "a protectionist trade barrier" would let Massachusetts inspectors cross state lines and order pig farmers in other states to comply with the law or be fined and that pork is a national product that crosses state lines and so federal laws take precedence.

The Regulations announced, for the first time, that the Department or third-party validators may go beyond the boundaries of Massachusetts and inspect a farm "pursuant to any applicable authority" for compliance with the Minimum Size Requirements to ensure that "animals are not being Confined in a Cruel Manner." 330 CMR 35.06-.07.

This means that Massachusetts intends to have Massachusetts state officials go to out-of-state farms to ensure that they comply with the Act and Regulations.

If, during an inspection of a farm, the Department of Agricultural Resources or a third-party validator observes violations of the Act or the Regulations regarding the implementation of the Act, the Department may refer the violations to the Attorney General's Office.

Massachusetts consumers would suffer the dire consequences first - in part because Massachusetts has so few pig farms of its own, but also because pork producers are struggling just to comply with the California regulations and so would have nothing left to comply with Massachusetts's slightly different regulations.

The Act and its Regulations will also increase retail pork prices for consumers in Massachusetts, and because Massachusetts imports at least 99.5% of the pork it consumes, the implementation of the Act and Regulations is likely to lead to periodic retail pork stockouts and shortages in Massachusetts.

But eventually every pork-chop eater in the country would turn their angry eyes towards Massachusetts, because despite our small size, we make up "a large percentage of the national consumer market" and so would cost the pork industry "hundreds of millions of dollars" to comply, sums that would be passed onto consumers, because of the difficulties of segregating what Massachusetts considers "humanely" raised pork and pork meant for other states in what has become a complex national supply chain.

The producers say this would start with the rest of New England, since pork bound for other states in the region mostly pass through Massachusetts, but then spread across the entire country as farmers spend all that money - and years - to try to comply with the Massachusetts laws. And in the meantime, consumers everywhere could see shelves devoid of hams and loins due to shortages, and it would all be Massachusetts's fault, they charge. And all those Massachusetts-forced price increases would only make it even harder for America's "economically-distressed families and those already facing food insecurity to afford this critical source of protein."

Through the Act, Massachusetts seeks to unilaterally impose sweeping changes across the national pork production industry and subject out-of-state pig farmers and processors in the pork market to Massachusetts’ scientifically unsupported preferences. ...

In effect, Massachusetts is forcing the entire nation's pig production chain to adopt its Regulations for pig production and is no longer permitting each state to set its own regulatory scheme. The Act and Regulations, in practical effect, create a national regulation, and attempt to unilaterally impose Massachusetts' moral and policy preferences for pig farming and pork production on the rest of the nation in an extraterritorial manner in violation of the Commerce Clause. These substantial burdens on the nation's pig production supply chain far outweigh any legitimate local benefit that Massachusetts contends the Act and its Regulations advance.

Except, the suit then adds, there is no legitimate local benefit, it "does not actually exist."

The suit also alleges that far from being inhumane, making sows live much of their lives in boxes, or "gestation crates" is for their - and their offspring's - protection, because pigs are rather rude, aggressive, even, in the sort of open fields Massachusetts allegedly prefers and so they could be easily trampled or attacked. The same goes, they say, for the workers who care for them. Massachusetts is also wrong about pigs raised that way being "adulterated," the suit says, continuing the USDA does a damn fine job of keeping actually adulterated pigs out of the supply chain.

The farmers and producer ask a judge to issue an immediate injunction prohibiting the state from finally enforcing the law while the suit is pending.