Attorneys general from some of the top pork-producing states are challenging Massachusetts’ animal confinement law, known as Question 3, which mirrors California’s Proposition 12.
According to Eldon McAfee, attorney for the Iowa Pork Producers Association, there is a key difference between the two laws: “The Massachusetts law has not yet gone through the court system or reached the Supreme Court like California’s Prop 12.”
Recently, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird filed an amicus brief, supported by attorneys general from Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and other states, in support of Triumph Foods’ appeal of the most recent district court ruling on Question 3.
“If the circuit court rules against Triumph Foods, it’s likely that Triumph Foods will request the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case,” McAfee added.
Andy Curliss, with the National Pork Producers Council, emphasized that a patchwork of state regulations is not sustainable, urging Congress to step in. “We need a stable, consistent foundation set by Congress so that commerce, farming, and the delivery of food to people across the country can continue without disruption.”
McAfee concluded that without federal intervention, litigation remains one of the few options for pork producers attempting to overturn both Question 3 and Proposition 12.
