by Helena Bottemiller | Jan 24, 2012
Food Safety News
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law on Monday that required the euthanization of downer livestock, to promote animal welfare and keep them out of the food supply.
In 2009, California enacted a ban on selling or slaughtering downer, or lame animals unable to walk, in response to undercover footage showing animal handlers abusing cows -- forcefully dragging and forklifting non-ambulatory animals -- in a San Bernadino County slaughterhouse. The video, released by the Humane Society, sparked consumer outrage and led to the nation's largest-ever meat recall.
Non-ambulatory cows are at a higher risk for BSE, or mad cow disease. The packer caught prodding downed animals into slaughter had also been supplying the National School Lunch Program.
California's law required meat processors to remove downed animals -- including pigs, goats, and sheep -- from the herd and euthanize them immediately. Federal law currently only prevents downer cows from being slaughtered.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibits state regulation that goes above and beyond, or is different from the law, which has ruled over the meat industry since the beginning of the 20th century. The National Meat Association challenged the California's law, on behalf of pork producers, and a federal judge in Fresno, CA struck down the slaughter ban. The decision was later reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco. The judge called the lower opinion "hogwash."
In its decision released this week, the Supreme Court noted that the federal meat inspection law "expressly pre-empts" the California law's application to federally inspected pork facilities.
"The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the supremacy of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and USDA's role in regulating meat process plants," said NPPC President Doug Wolf, a hog farmer from Lancaster, WI. "It also recognized that non-ambulatory hogs with proper recovery time and veterinary oversight do not need to be condemned immediately in all cases."
Animal rights advocates argue that the California law would promote humane treatment and keep sick, weak animals out of the food supply. According to NMA, around 3 percent of pigs are non-ambulatory, or unable to walk, when they show up to the slaughterhouse.
"Non-ambulatory hogs that are allowed to recover pose no food-safety risk to the public," Wolf said. "Such pigs are inspected by USDA inspectors and veterinarians regarding their fitness for processing and entering the human food supply, and strong regulatory safeguards for humane treatment in the processing of animals already exist."
Related articles
North Country Times, EDITORIAL: The correct decision
Supreme Court Squashes California Downer Law
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
TX Dog Owners May Sue to Recover the Sentimental Value
I think it's going to have a significant impact on the private sector, particularly veterinarians, kennel owners, even individuals who take care of their neighbors' pets. I mean, for example, on veterinarians, things which would be routine care for a pet, now they have to practice much more defensive medicine," Texas attorney Boudloche said. "The value of a dog has changed in the eye of the law. So, if mistakes happen, the exposure for everybody is much greater."
By David Lee. Courthouse News Service
FORT WORTH (CN) - A Texas appeals court ruled that the owners of a mistakenly euthanized dog can sue to recover the sentimental value of their lost pet, reversing and remanding the ruling of a trial court. The closely reasoned opinion cites more than a century of Texas courts rulings on dogs.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd District of Texas reinstated Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen's negligence lawsuit against Carla Strickland, a City of Fort Worth animal shelter employee.
According to court filings, their 8-year-old Labrador mix, Avery, escaped from the Medlens' back yard and was picked up by the city's animal control. Jeremy Medlen went to the shelter to bail out Avery, but did not have enough cash in hand to pay the fees. He was told he could return the next day and that a hold-for-owner tag would be placed on Avery's cage, to prevent him from being euthanized. But Avery was killed the next day before the Medlens could pick him up.
The Medlens sued for "sentimental or intrinsic" damages. Strickland objected, saying such damages are not recoverable for the death of a dog. The First Tarrant County Court at Law dismissed for failure to state a claim for damages recognized by law. The court said the Medlens could recover only the market value of the dog. Full story
By David Lee. Courthouse News Service
FORT WORTH (CN) - A Texas appeals court ruled that the owners of a mistakenly euthanized dog can sue to recover the sentimental value of their lost pet, reversing and remanding the ruling of a trial court. The closely reasoned opinion cites more than a century of Texas courts rulings on dogs.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd District of Texas reinstated Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen's negligence lawsuit against Carla Strickland, a City of Fort Worth animal shelter employee.
According to court filings, their 8-year-old Labrador mix, Avery, escaped from the Medlens' back yard and was picked up by the city's animal control. Jeremy Medlen went to the shelter to bail out Avery, but did not have enough cash in hand to pay the fees. He was told he could return the next day and that a hold-for-owner tag would be placed on Avery's cage, to prevent him from being euthanized. But Avery was killed the next day before the Medlens could pick him up.
The Medlens sued for "sentimental or intrinsic" damages. Strickland objected, saying such damages are not recoverable for the death of a dog. The First Tarrant County Court at Law dismissed for failure to state a claim for damages recognized by law. The court said the Medlens could recover only the market value of the dog. Full story
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Supreme Court skeptical of California's slaughterhouse law
By MICHAEL DOYLE. McClatchy Newspapers
Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.
In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.
"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.
Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.
"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.
Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."
The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.
Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.
Full story at link.
Related articles
National Hog Farmer. Supreme Court to Hear Downer Hog Case
Hogs on the menu at Supreme Court
Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.
In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.
"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.
Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.
"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.
Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."
The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.
Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.
Full story at link.
Related articles
National Hog Farmer. Supreme Court to Hear Downer Hog Case
Hogs on the menu at Supreme Court
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Minn. foie gras producer challenges notion that process is cruel
by Elizabeth Baier, Minnesota Public Radio
October 10, 2011
Caledonia, Minn. — On a winding road in southeastern Minnesota, there's a 60-acre farm unlike any other in the Midwest.
Au Bon Canard, or "good duck" in French, is where Christian Gasset raises ducks to produce a culinary delicacy: foie gras, or fattened duck liver. The Au Bon Canard duck livers — along with breasts, wings and other parts — end up on plates of the most celebrated restaurants in the Upper Midwest.
Inside a barn on Gasset's farm on a recent morning, four long wooden pens each held about 16 adult male ducks, with room for the ducks to walk around. Gasset and his wife, Liz Gibson-Gasset, moved slowly to keep the birds calm.
"With foie gras, the really big thing is you can't have a good product if you're not treating your ducks well," she said. "If they're unhappy, if they're stressed out, if anything's wrong with their living conditions, you don't get a good product."
But as much as the Gassets try to keep their birds content, how they and other foie gras producers feed ducks makes the product controversial. Animal rights activists say the process used to fatten the ducks' livers amounts to animal torture.
The Gassets, who started their business in 2004, raise and slaughter about 2,100 males ducks a year, a fraction of what their competitors in New York and California produce. The birds on their farm are Mullard ducks, a cross between Pekins and Muscovies. They arrived from California as day-old chicks.
After living the first few weeks in a temperature-controlled room, they spend another eight weeks or so outdoors, eating a mixture of corn, bugs and grass before going into the barn for controlled feedings.
Twice a day for the last two weeks of a duck's life, Gasset tilts the bird's head back, inserts an eight-inch funnel into its throat and pours three-quarters of a pound of freshly cooked kettle corn down the duck's esophagus.
The corn goes into a small organ called the crop, which Gasset massages for a few seconds as he pulls the funnel out. It takes him seven seconds to feed each bird.
Gasset said controlling the amount of corn the duck ingests during the last two weeks of its life plumps its liver up to 10 times its normal size — making it foie gras. As the liver's color changes from black to yellow, its texture becomes creamy, like butter.
Gasset said the process is meant to mimic the way a bird puts on weight before fall migration, even though the ducks never migrate. To him, many of those who criticize the process simply don't want anyone to eat meat and see foie gras as an easy target.
"It's such a small production and you kind of target the rich people, because it's a really extremely expensive product at the end," he said.
Full story and video at link
October 10, 2011
Caledonia, Minn. — On a winding road in southeastern Minnesota, there's a 60-acre farm unlike any other in the Midwest.
Au Bon Canard, or "good duck" in French, is where Christian Gasset raises ducks to produce a culinary delicacy: foie gras, or fattened duck liver. The Au Bon Canard duck livers — along with breasts, wings and other parts — end up on plates of the most celebrated restaurants in the Upper Midwest.
Inside a barn on Gasset's farm on a recent morning, four long wooden pens each held about 16 adult male ducks, with room for the ducks to walk around. Gasset and his wife, Liz Gibson-Gasset, moved slowly to keep the birds calm.
"With foie gras, the really big thing is you can't have a good product if you're not treating your ducks well," she said. "If they're unhappy, if they're stressed out, if anything's wrong with their living conditions, you don't get a good product."
But as much as the Gassets try to keep their birds content, how they and other foie gras producers feed ducks makes the product controversial. Animal rights activists say the process used to fatten the ducks' livers amounts to animal torture.
The Gassets, who started their business in 2004, raise and slaughter about 2,100 males ducks a year, a fraction of what their competitors in New York and California produce. The birds on their farm are Mullard ducks, a cross between Pekins and Muscovies. They arrived from California as day-old chicks.
After living the first few weeks in a temperature-controlled room, they spend another eight weeks or so outdoors, eating a mixture of corn, bugs and grass before going into the barn for controlled feedings.
Twice a day for the last two weeks of a duck's life, Gasset tilts the bird's head back, inserts an eight-inch funnel into its throat and pours three-quarters of a pound of freshly cooked kettle corn down the duck's esophagus.
The corn goes into a small organ called the crop, which Gasset massages for a few seconds as he pulls the funnel out. It takes him seven seconds to feed each bird.
Gasset said controlling the amount of corn the duck ingests during the last two weeks of its life plumps its liver up to 10 times its normal size — making it foie gras. As the liver's color changes from black to yellow, its texture becomes creamy, like butter.
Gasset said the process is meant to mimic the way a bird puts on weight before fall migration, even though the ducks never migrate. To him, many of those who criticize the process simply don't want anyone to eat meat and see foie gras as an easy target.
"It's such a small production and you kind of target the rich people, because it's a really extremely expensive product at the end," he said.
Full story and video at link
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall MO town hall meeting to discuss threats to agriculture
Town hall meeting planned for Oct. 26 in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall Democrat-News
Two agriculture organizations and four Missouri legislators are hosting a town hall meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26, at Martin Community Center in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture.
Representatives from Missouri Farmers Care and Sante Fe Agri-Leaders are expected to help lead the discussion. According to a news release from MFC, state Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, and state representatives Joe Aull, D-Marshall; Caleb Jones, R-California; and Mike Lair, R-Chillicothe, are also expected to attend.
The announcement specifically mentions the Humane Society of the United States as a threat. HSUS sponsored the controversial "puppy mill" ballot issue that narrowly passed in 2010 and was subsequently revised by the legislature.
HSUS reportedly backs a current initiative petition that would place on the ballot a measure limiting the Missouri legislature's ability to amend laws approved by referendum.
Supporters of the measure hope to have it considered during a 2012 election.
For more information, contact Dan Kleinsorge at Dan@mofarmerscare.com or 573-821-2040
Online: Missouri Farmers Care News
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall Democrat-News
Two agriculture organizations and four Missouri legislators are hosting a town hall meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26, at Martin Community Center in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture.
Representatives from Missouri Farmers Care and Sante Fe Agri-Leaders are expected to help lead the discussion. According to a news release from MFC, state Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, and state representatives Joe Aull, D-Marshall; Caleb Jones, R-California; and Mike Lair, R-Chillicothe, are also expected to attend.
The announcement specifically mentions the Humane Society of the United States as a threat. HSUS sponsored the controversial "puppy mill" ballot issue that narrowly passed in 2010 and was subsequently revised by the legislature.
HSUS reportedly backs a current initiative petition that would place on the ballot a measure limiting the Missouri legislature's ability to amend laws approved by referendum.
Supporters of the measure hope to have it considered during a 2012 election.
For more information, contact Dan Kleinsorge at Dan@mofarmerscare.com or 573-821-2040
Online: Missouri Farmers Care News
Attorneys disqualified in Palm Springs Animal Shelter lawsuit
An animal rights group will likely appeal an Indio judge’s ruling to disqualify attorneys representing it in a suit against the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, a spokeswoman for the group said.
Riverside Superior Court Judge John G. Evans granted a motion Monday by shelter attorneys to disqualify Marla Tauscher, a private practice attorney in Palm Springs representing the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and fund attorney Michelle Lee.
Evans granted the motion because Tauscher at one point gave Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter legal advice, helped prepare manuals and waivers and attended at least one closed-door board meeting, according to court records.
Lee was disqualified because she had access to the information Tauscher had, Palm Springs city attorney Doug Holland said.
"Disqualification is mandatory in light of the substantial relationship,” court records on the ruling stated. “It is immaterial that Ms. Tauscher did not have an express contact for legal services, as an attorney-client relationship can be established when the attorney volunteers his or her legal services or otherwise provides legal advice to a prospective client even where there is no free agreement.”
Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter is a nonprofit group that raised money to build the new city shelter, scheduled to open Oct. 22.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a suit in April against the city alleging the shelter euthanizes animals too quickly and has lax record-keeping.
“Even though we have an abundance of evidence about the unlawful killing of animals at the Palm Springs Shelter, the city has maneuvered to try to kill the case by getting rid of the lawyers representing the interests of the animals,” said Lisa Franzetta of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
“We are currently considering our next legal options for how best to win the justice that the homeless animals of Palm Springs so desperately need and deserve.”
A status hearing is scheduled for Dec. 2 at the Larson Justice Center in Indio. Full story
Related:
Lawsuit alleges Palm Springs Animal Shelter Euthanizes Too Soon
Riverside Superior Court Judge John G. Evans granted a motion Monday by shelter attorneys to disqualify Marla Tauscher, a private practice attorney in Palm Springs representing the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and fund attorney Michelle Lee.
Evans granted the motion because Tauscher at one point gave Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter legal advice, helped prepare manuals and waivers and attended at least one closed-door board meeting, according to court records.
Lee was disqualified because she had access to the information Tauscher had, Palm Springs city attorney Doug Holland said.
"Disqualification is mandatory in light of the substantial relationship,” court records on the ruling stated. “It is immaterial that Ms. Tauscher did not have an express contact for legal services, as an attorney-client relationship can be established when the attorney volunteers his or her legal services or otherwise provides legal advice to a prospective client even where there is no free agreement.”
Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter is a nonprofit group that raised money to build the new city shelter, scheduled to open Oct. 22.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a suit in April against the city alleging the shelter euthanizes animals too quickly and has lax record-keeping.
“Even though we have an abundance of evidence about the unlawful killing of animals at the Palm Springs Shelter, the city has maneuvered to try to kill the case by getting rid of the lawyers representing the interests of the animals,” said Lisa Franzetta of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
“We are currently considering our next legal options for how best to win the justice that the homeless animals of Palm Springs so desperately need and deserve.”
A status hearing is scheduled for Dec. 2 at the Larson Justice Center in Indio. Full story
Related:
Lawsuit alleges Palm Springs Animal Shelter Euthanizes Too Soon
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Restore the U.S. Horse Industry
6,808 letters and emails have now been sent from the Petition2Congress site requesting Congress to restore the U.S. horse industry.
As U.S. horse industry members, supporters, and concerned citizens we call on Congress to take proactive measures to stop the needless suffering of horses and people by 1) removing the annual riders from the Ag Appropriations bill that prevent USDA inspection on a voluntary fee basis (the processor pays for the inspection) which does not cost the taxpayer a dime, allows for the overnight creation of hundreds of private sector jobs, and allows the entire horse industry to begin to regain economic value, viability and vitality; and 2) oppose any and all measures that use the heavy hand of federal intervention such as S. 1176 and H.R. 2296 that do absolutely nothing to improve the welfare of horses, and only result in increased suffering.
You can Sign the petition at the link.
As U.S. horse industry members, supporters, and concerned citizens we call on Congress to take proactive measures to stop the needless suffering of horses and people by 1) removing the annual riders from the Ag Appropriations bill that prevent USDA inspection on a voluntary fee basis (the processor pays for the inspection) which does not cost the taxpayer a dime, allows for the overnight creation of hundreds of private sector jobs, and allows the entire horse industry to begin to regain economic value, viability and vitality; and 2) oppose any and all measures that use the heavy hand of federal intervention such as S. 1176 and H.R. 2296 that do absolutely nothing to improve the welfare of horses, and only result in increased suffering.
You can Sign the petition at the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
