« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3
This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items. The proposed law’s confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig’s expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period. The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier. The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

2016 - Berkshire County - Question 3Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?

View as: # | %

Berkshire County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
50,256
13,912
2,340 66,508
Adams More »
 
3,031
939
110
4,080
Alford
 
238
60
9
307
Becket
 
780
227
40
1,047
Cheshire
 
1,340
499
52
1,891
Clarksburg
 
655
221
20
896
Dalton More »
 
2,576
808
99
3,483
Egremont
 
644
176
25
845
Florida
 
254
123
23
400
Great Barrington More »
 
3,101
558
105
3,764
Hancock
 
270
120
7
397
Hinsdale
 
810
283
43
1,136
Lanesborough
 
1,309
381
57
1,747
Lee
 
2,400
596
103
3,099
Lenox
 
2,474
515
107
3,096
Monterey
 
434
101
19
554
Mount Washington
 
75
30
2
107
New Ashford
 
102
55
4
161
New Marlborough
 
625
222
24
871
N. Adams More »
 
4,303
1,316
260
5,879
Otis
 
608
266
50
924
Peru
 
357
146
16
519
Pittsfield More »
 
15,474
4,199
805
20,478
Richmond
 
802
178
25
1,005
Sandisfield
 
339
114
35
488
Savoy
 
258
131
12
401
Sheffield
 
1,423
428
91
1,942
Stockbridge
 
1,053
208
44
1,305
Tyringham
 
216
70
13
299
Washington
 
232
91
4
327
W. Stockbridge
 
717
160
24
901
Williamstown More »
 
2,965
554
104
3,623
Windsor
 
391
137
8
536
County Totals
50,256
13,912
2,340 66,508