The US federal court decision affirms that state lawmakers and governors have a right to set standards for animal welfare and cruelty, if they choose to do so.
KELSEY PIPER: ‘Lots of states want to regulate animal cruelty. The courts are mostly agreeing they can… For more than a decade, foie gras producers have been fighting to stop California from banning foie gras… Their argument: that some states imposing different, higher animal welfare standards violates the commerce clause of the US Constitution (which leaves the regulation of interstate commerce up to the federal government), or alternately violates federal laws about the production of poultry products…
California’s foie gras ban passed in 2004, but the state phased it in gradually; foie gras wasn’t fully prohibited until 2012. Then producers sued… But they haven’t met with much success in court. While one federal judge overturned the foie gras ban in 2015, that decision was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit, and the ban went back into effect when the Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year. The courts have also struck down trickery such as restaurants giving away foie gras with purchase of an expensive tasting menu. After that, foie gras advocates sued again — and last week, the courts found against them again…
The latest ruling reaffirms that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to stop states from imposing their own animal welfare requirements. And while foie gras is a tiny fraction of animal farming, the ruling has implications for more expansive welfare laws, too… The decision “affirms that state lawmakers and governors have a right to set standards for humane treatment, if they choose to do so,” Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society, wrote. That’s a big deal because the vast majority of animals raised for food in the US are now factory farmed, often in horrific conditions’. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: