## Facts

- A nonprofit organization alleged that veal sold by a producer was sourced from calves raised in dark, confined pens and fed iron-deficient diets to produce paler meat.
- The organization also alleged the calves’ feed contained subtherapeutic antibiotics, creating human health risks through residues and antibiotic resistance.
- Although the producer did not raise the calves itself, the complaint alleged it specified husbandry and feeding requirements to suppliers.
- Members alleged they sought to avoid veal produced under these conditions, but lacked point-of-sale information; some allegedly purchased the producer’s veal without knowing the production methods, while others avoided veal altogether.
- The suit sought equitable relief under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A compelling retail-consumer disclosures about confinement conditions, diet, and antibiotic use, alleging nondisclosure was unfair or deceptive.
- The defendant removed the action to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

## Issues

1. Whether federal regulation of meat inspection/labeling and drug use in food animals preempts a state consumer-protection claim that would compel additional disclosures about calf-rearing practices and antibiotic use.
2. Whether a private organization may use a state consumer-protection statute to enforce alleged violations of federal food/drug statutes or state criminal animal-cruelty laws through disclosure-based relief.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the requested disclosure obligations were preempted because federal law comprehensively regulates meat labeling and the use of antibiotics in animal feed.
- The court held the plaintiff could not use chapter 93A to obtain private enforcement of alleged violations of federal food and drug statutes.
- The court held alleged animal cruelty concerns sounded in criminal law and were enforceable only by public prosecutors or specifically authorized entities, not through this private chapter 93A action.

## Legal Principles

- Where Congress has created a comprehensive federal scheme governing meat inspection and labeling and the use of drugs in food animals, state-law requirements that effectively impose additional labeling or disclosure obligations are preempted.
- The FDCA and related federal food-safety statutes generally provide for public enforcement by designated agencies and do not authorize private enforcement through state consumer-protection litigation.
- Criminal animal-cruelty statutes are ordinarily enforceable by public authorities (or expressly authorized groups) and cannot be converted into a private civil consumer-protection claim seeking to police husbandry practices indirectly.
- Even if withheld production-method information could matter to consumers, a state consumer-protection statute cannot be used to mandate disclosures in a federally occupied regulatory area.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a consumer-protection suit seeking compelled disclosures about veal production practices, ruling that federal meat and food/drug regulation preempted the state-law disclosure theory and that chapter 93A could not be used as a private mechanism to enforce federal statutory standards or criminal animal-cruelty laws.


Animal Legal Def. Fund Bos., Inc. v. Provimi Veal Corp., 626 F. Supp. 278 (D. Mass. 1986)