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.
Actions
2016 - Franklin 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: # | % | Franklin County Results |
City/Town | Ward | Pct | Blanks | Total Votes Cast | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | 22,766 |
15,925 |
840 | 39,531 | ||
Ashfield |
701 |
420 |
34 |
1,155 |
||
Bernardston |
655 |
559 |
30 |
1,244 |
||
Buckland |
615 |
437 |
15 |
1,067 |
||
Charlemont |
415 |
304 |
16 |
735 |
||
Colrain |
449 |
468 |
17 |
934 |
||
Conway |
759 |
460 |
16 |
1,235 |
||
Deerfield |
1,849 |
1,194 |
52 |
3,095 |
||
Erving |
377 |
442 |
15 |
834 |
||
Gill |
501 |
442 |
10 |
953 |
||
Greenfield
More » |
5,192 |
3,301 |
204 |
8,697 |
||
Hawley |
106 |
96 |
4 |
206 |
||
Heath |
274 |
176 |
9 |
459 |
||
Leverett |
832 |
429 |
35 |
1,296 |
||
Leyden |
261 |
228 |
13 |
502 |
||
Monroe |
44 |
15 |
0 |
59 |
||
Montague
More » |
2,419 |
1,969 |
103 |
4,491 |
||
New Salem |
307 |
296 |
11 |
614 |
||
Northfield |
946 |
787 |
24 |
1,757 |
||
Orange
More » |
1,941 |
1,405 |
89 |
3,435 |
||
Rowe |
140 |
90 |
11 |
241 |
||
Shelburne |
663 |
499 |
35 |
1,197 |
||
Shutesbury |
870 |
376 |
36 |
1,282 |
||
Sunderland |
1,322 |
595 |
31 |
1,948 |
||
Warwick |
258 |
211 |
5 |
474 |
||
Wendell |
238 |
340 |
13 |
591 |
||
Whately |
632 |
386 |
12 |
1,030 |
||
County Totals | 22,766 |
15,925 |
840 | 39,531 |