Sick and Disabled Animals to Remain in Food Supply

The 2009 California law was presented after the Humane Society of the United States released an undercover video that revealed slaughterhouse workers using electroshock and other inhumane methods to move “downer” cows. The state law, which received support from 13 states, the Humane Society, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, instated a punishment of up to one year in prison and a $20,000 fine for the purchase, processing, or sale of “downer” livestock.

However, according to the Supreme Court ruling, the state law must take a back seat to a federal law that has been in place since 1906. The federal law gives federal meat inspectors the authority to determine whether nonambulatory animals are safe to use for human consumption.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, noted that the according to the Federal Meat Inspection Act, states do not have the authority to add requirements in connection with “premises, facilities and operations” that may be “in addition to or different from “those set forth in the federal law. “Where under federal law a slaughterhouse may take one course of action in handling a nonambulatory pig, under state the law the slaughterhouse must take another,” she wrote.

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

A federal judge initially blocked the law but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco took a different stance, finding that there was no conflict between the state and federal laws. “States aren’t limited to excluding animals from slaughter on a species-wide basis. States are free to decide which animals may be turned into meat,” wrote Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, on behalf of the appeals court, effectively ruling that the state law could be enforced.

Former Assembly Member Paul Krekorian, who authored the state legislation, expressed his disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the appeals court ruling, stating that the decision “will deprive states of the ability to protect their citizens.”

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

"If the federal government had strong rules and laws on the books, there would be no reason for California or any other state to adopt a reinforcing statute. But it's precisely because the Congress and the USDA are in the grip of the meat industry that we have anemic federal laws on the subject," points out Wayne Pacelle, the executive director of the Humane Society of the United States.

In 2008, 143 million pounds of beef were recalled from a Southern California slaughterhouse after the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service found that beef products produced at the facility had not been exposed to proper inspection. According to the Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer, veterinarians were not contacted to re-inspect animals that fell ill after the initial inspection. The facility supplied meat to a number of programs including school lunch programs. This is the same slaughterhouse that was filmed during the Humane Society’s undercover investigation.

Following this massive beef recall, the Agriculture Department imposed a ban on the slaughter of nonambulatory cows, stating that these animals presented infections risks, such as mad cow disease and E.coli. Today, in California, downed animals are still banned from transport to slaughterhouse facilities but those that fall ill during the journey to the slaughterhouse can still be processed and used for consumption.

The case was brought forth by the National Meat Association, an industry trade group that sued to block the state law. The association was supported by Chamber of Commerce business group, veterinarians, and pork producers. The case is the National Meat Association v. Harris, No. 10-224.