Court upholds Massachusetts Question 3 on pigs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit last week upheld the dismissal of Triumph Foods’ challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3, a voter-approved law that prohibits the sale of pork from pigs confined under certain conditions. 

“Once again, the courts have made clear that big meat companies cannot override the moral choices of voters who demand humane treatment of animals,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy. “Massachusetts voters stood up for basic decency, and the First Circuit has now stood with them.”

“Adopted by nearly 78% of Massachusetts voters in 2016, Question 3 requires that pork, eggs and veal sold in the state come from animals provided enough space to turn around and extend their limbs,” Pacelle added. “Modeled after California’s Proposition 12, the measure represents one of the strongest animal welfare standards in the nation.”

Triumph Foods has now filed a similar lawsuit against California’s Proposition 12 in federal court in California, Pacelle noted. 

“We’re confident that this latest challenge will meet the same fate as Triumph’s Massachusetts lawsuit,” said Pacelle. “The courts have consistently recognized that states can and should uphold humane standards that reflect the moral values of their citizens.”