Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Where Does California’s Foie Gras Law Stand After Faulty Federal Ruling Overturned Ban?
January 9, 2015
Foie gras is the product of extreme cruelty. Ducks are force-fed by having tubes shoved down their throats, which causes injury, swelling of the liver, and painful liver disease. In 2004, California banned the production and sale of force-fed foie gras. This landmark ban went into effect in 2012. Despite having had eight years to come into compliance, foie gras producers and sellers immediately challenged the law in federal court, seeking to halt enforcement of the sales ban through a preliminary injunction.
As part of a broad coalition of animal protection organizations, the Animal Legal Defense Fund played an integral role in helping defend the law as the litigation proceeded, submitting amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs at several stages. The law was upheld in the trial court and again by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to stop the law’s enforcement or reconsider its decision. The challengers’ petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was also denied. Having failed—at every judicial level—to halt enforcement through a preliminary injunction, the foie gras proponents returned to the trial court to argue the merits of their case.
On January 7, 2015, the federal judge hearing the case struck down the foie gras sales ban on the basis that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act preempts it. In a misguided decision, the court reasoned that the force feeding of ducks is somehow an “ingredient” of the final meat product, and thus, that states could not regulate it. The Animal Legal Defense Fund finds utterly meritless the idea that a ban targeting egregious cruelty on farms could be preempted by a law that applies exclusively to slaughterhouse operations and meat safety and labeling. California’s prohibition on force feeding to produce foie gras is unaffected by the decision.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund and its fellow coalition members are urging Attorney General Kamala Harris to appeal this faulty ruling. We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will ultimately uphold the law, as it has in previous rounds of litigation, thereby preserving the will of Californians and ending the sale of this cruel product in California once and for all.
As part of a broad coalition of animal protection organizations, the Animal Legal Defense Fund played an integral role in helping defend the law as the litigation proceeded, submitting amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs at several stages. The law was upheld in the trial court and again by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to stop the law’s enforcement or reconsider its decision. The challengers’ petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case was also denied. Having failed—at every judicial level—to halt enforcement through a preliminary injunction, the foie gras proponents returned to the trial court to argue the merits of their case.
On January 7, 2015, the federal judge hearing the case struck down the foie gras sales ban on the basis that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act preempts it. In a misguided decision, the court reasoned that the force feeding of ducks is somehow an “ingredient” of the final meat product, and thus, that states could not regulate it. The Animal Legal Defense Fund finds utterly meritless the idea that a ban targeting egregious cruelty on farms could be preempted by a law that applies exclusively to slaughterhouse operations and meat safety and labeling. California’s prohibition on force feeding to produce foie gras is unaffected by the decision.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund and its fellow coalition members are urging Attorney General Kamala Harris to appeal this faulty ruling. We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will ultimately uphold the law, as it has in previous rounds of litigation, thereby preserving the will of Californians and ending the sale of this cruel product in California once and for all.
For more information:
http://aldf.org/blog/where-does-california...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said on February 4 she would appeal last month’s decision by a federal judge to overturn the state’s ban on foie gras.
The ban was lifted Jan. 7 after U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with an existing federal law that regulates poultry products.
The move was decried by animal welfare groups and supporters of the ban, but cheered on by many local chefs who immediately returned foie gras to their menus.
Foie gras is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese to unnaturally enlarge their livers. The process creates a rich delicacy at the expense of immense animal suffering, animal advocates say.
“We are confident that the 9th Circuit will correct the District Court’s mistake, and hope that the attorney general will hasten this result by expediting the appeal,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Harris filed a notice with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles of her intent to appeal. Her office declined to comment Wednesday.
Foie gras from force-fed poultry was outlawed in California by a bill that passed the state Legislature in 2004 and went into effect in 2012.
The law was challenged in court by Hot's Restaurant Group, which operates restaurants in Northridge, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach; Hudson Valley Foie Gras, a producer based in New York; and a group of Canadian foie gras farmers called Assn. des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec.
The plaintiffs argued that states can not interfere with federally approved poultry products because they're already covered by the Poultry Products Inspection Act. That law gives the federal government the right to determine what ingredients belong in poultry. The plaintiffs argued it was then illegal for California to require foie gras to be made from birds that weren't force-fed.
"We're very confident that the district court's judgment will be upheld on appeal," the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. "The decision was based on the simple fact that, in the field of meat and poultry, federal law is supreme. California does not have the right to ban wholesome, [U.S. Department of Agriculture]-approved poultry products, whether it's foie gras or fried chicken. We look forward to having our victory affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."
Defenders of the ban say they are confident the ban’s reversal won’t hold up on appeal, arguing that the force-feeding takes place long before the birds enter slaughterhouses that are covered by the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
The ban was lifted Jan. 7 after U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with an existing federal law that regulates poultry products.
The move was decried by animal welfare groups and supporters of the ban, but cheered on by many local chefs who immediately returned foie gras to their menus.
Foie gras is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese to unnaturally enlarge their livers. The process creates a rich delicacy at the expense of immense animal suffering, animal advocates say.
“We are confident that the 9th Circuit will correct the District Court’s mistake, and hope that the attorney general will hasten this result by expediting the appeal,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Harris filed a notice with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles of her intent to appeal. Her office declined to comment Wednesday.
Foie gras from force-fed poultry was outlawed in California by a bill that passed the state Legislature in 2004 and went into effect in 2012.
The law was challenged in court by Hot's Restaurant Group, which operates restaurants in Northridge, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach; Hudson Valley Foie Gras, a producer based in New York; and a group of Canadian foie gras farmers called Assn. des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec.
The plaintiffs argued that states can not interfere with federally approved poultry products because they're already covered by the Poultry Products Inspection Act. That law gives the federal government the right to determine what ingredients belong in poultry. The plaintiffs argued it was then illegal for California to require foie gras to be made from birds that weren't force-fed.
"We're very confident that the district court's judgment will be upheld on appeal," the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. "The decision was based on the simple fact that, in the field of meat and poultry, federal law is supreme. California does not have the right to ban wholesome, [U.S. Department of Agriculture]-approved poultry products, whether it's foie gras or fried chicken. We look forward to having our victory affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."
Defenders of the ban say they are confident the ban’s reversal won’t hold up on appeal, arguing that the force-feeding takes place long before the birds enter slaughterhouses that are covered by the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
For more information:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-foie...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network