Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack
| Decision Date | 14 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:21-cv-01539 (CJN) |
| Parties | ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Under the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq., the Department of Agriculture must prevent sellers of certain poultry products from misleading customers. The Animal Legal Defense Fund asserts that the packaging of certain poultry products is misleading, and therefore claims that the Department is violating both the Inspection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. See generally Am. Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 12. But ALDF lacks Article III standing, and the Court therefore grants the government's Motion to Dismiss. See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 15, at 7-24.
The Poultry Products Inspection Act prohibits the sale or transportation of “misbranded” poultry products. 21 U.S.C. § 458(a)(2). The Inspection Act was enacted upon Congress's determination that “[i]t is essential . . . that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that poultry products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked labeled, and packaged.” Id. §451. A poultry product is “misbranded” within the meaning of the Act if its label is “false or misleading.” Id. § 453(h). And the term “label” includes “display[s] of written, printed, or graphic matter.” Id. § 453(s).
The Inspection Act gives the Department of Agriculture various tools to ensure that poultry products comply with the statutory requirements. For example, the Department has the authority to cooperate with and review the operations of the States, conduct inspections, promulgate regulations for the operations of facilities and equipment involved in poultry products, and determine certain labeling requirements. Id. §§454-57. And relevant to this case “[i]f the [Department] has reason to believe” that a poultry-product label “is false or misleading,” the Department “may direct that such use be withheld unless the marking, labeling, or container is modified in such manner as [it] may prescribe so that it will not be false or misleading.” Id. § 457(d).
The Department has implemented § 457(d) by requiring all final labels to be “submitted for approval” to the Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). See 9 C.F.R. § 412.1(a). The submission to FSIS must include any “[s]pecial statements and claims” that will appear on the final label, such as “claims, logos, trademarks, and other symbols on labels that are not defined in the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations or the Food Standards and Labelling Policy Book, . . . health claims, ingredient and processing method claims[,] . . . structure-function claims, claims regarding the raising of animals, organic claims, and instructional or disclaimer statements concerning pathogens ....” Id. § 412.1(c)(3), (e). Only “generically approved labels” are exempt from this pre-market review requirement. See id. §§ 412.1(a), 412.2. “Generically approved labels are labels that bear all applicable mandatory labeling features (i.e., product name, safe handling statement, ingredients statement, the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, net weight, legend, safe handling instructions, and nutrition labeling) in accordance with Federal regulations.” Id. § 412.2(b).
Perdue is a nationwide poultry-production company. Compl. ¶ 56. It is vertically integrated, meaning it controls the production of chickens and turkey at every stage of their birth, growth, slaughter, and processing. See id. ¶ 57. ALDF alleges that most of these chickens and turkeys, including those raised for the Perdue Fresh Line, have little-to-no access to outside spaces during their lives. See id. ¶¶ 58-64.
On May 24, 2018, Perdue submitted its first label application to FSIS for “Whole Chicken and Chicken Parts Blanket” in its Fresh Line. Id. ¶ 65. The Court includes one of the sketches included in this application below:
(Image Omitted) Id. at 14. FSIS approved the application on July 9, 2018. Id. ¶ 70. Its approval required the removal of the word “healthy” from one sentence, but otherwise demanded no other edits. Id. ¶ 71. FSIS did not require any changes to the picture occupying the bottom-quarter of the package. Id. ¶ 72. A nearly identical application for the Fresh “Cuts” Line, submitted on November 29, 2018, was approved shortly thereafter. See id. ¶¶ 73-78. Again, FSIS did not require any edits to the graphic imagery included on the label. Id. ¶ 78.
“Perdue submitted a ‘blanket' application for Fresh Line turkey products label that contained nearly identical imagery to the Fresh Line chicken products label.” Id. ¶ 85. FSIS also approved that application. Id. ¶ 86. The label looks something like this:
(Image Omitted)
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, or “ALDF,” is a nationwide animal-advocacy nonprofit based in California. Id. ¶ 15. It counts “over 300,000 members and supporters” among its ranks. Id. The organization's mission is “to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system.” Id. ¶ 16. It does so “by advocating against cruelty to animals and for the protection of animals in commercial enterprises, including animal agriculture.” Id. Specifically, ALDF “focus[es] significant organizational resources on educating the public . . . and advocating for greater legal protections for animals in agriculture.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 17. The organization identifies a number of ways in which it accomplishes these goals. See id. ¶ 18 (listing, for example, “conducting and publicizing undercover investigations of industrial farms and slaughterhouses,” as well as “conducting webinars, educational events, and social media campaigns on matters related to industrial farming”).
A “signature focus area[]” of ALDF's work “is curbing the misleading labeling and advertising of animal products.” Id. ¶ 19. ALDF explains that it achieves this goal “through public education initiatives, media campaigns, legal resources and webinars, consumer protection litigation, and legislative and regulatory advocacy.” Id. “ALDF has long engaged federal regulators-including the USDA and the Federal Trade Commission-to advocate for the robust enforcement of federal labeling and consumer protection laws” to eliminate such abuses. Id. ¶ 20 (parenthetical omitted).
One of ALDF's “members” is Marie Mastracco. See id. ¶¶ 30-37. For the several months preceding the filing of the Amended Complaint, Mastracco “regularly purchased Perdue's Fresh Line chicken breasts for her sick and elderly dog, Ozzie.” Id. ¶ 31. She “was influenced to purchase” those products because the labels state that the chicken does not include any antibiotics. Id. ¶ 32. Id.
“Because of her dog's health condition, Ms. Mastracco feels compelled to continue purchasing whole chicken breasts.” Id. ¶ 34. So long as the Department does not review the graphic images on the meat labels to evaluate if they are false or misleading, however, “Mastracco will continue to suffer a lack of confidence in whether any chicken labels convey accurate descriptions of the product's animal raising conditions.” Id.
“On January 3, 2020, ALDF submitted a package of information to FSIS, explaining that label imagery like Perdue's, showing chickens and turkeys outside of a barn, under the sun, and surrounded by vegetation . . . is misleading and contrary to how the animals were raised.” Id. ¶ 88. Part of this package was a consumer survey of the Perdue Fresh Line labels, which ALDF commissioned. Id. ¶ 89. The results of the survey showed that, of the about one thousand adults polled, 29 percent thought the chicken labels meant that the chickens were “given access to a barnyard/pasture,” while 19 percent thought that the turkey label meant that the turkeys “were given access to a barnyard/pasture.” Id.
ALDF thus requested that FSIS “decline to approve any Perdue label applications that contain the same or similar imagery.” Id. ¶ 90. To do otherwise, ALDF stated, “would allow highly misleading product claims into the market.” Id.
FSIS disagreed. See id. ¶¶ 91-93. In a March 2020 letter, FSIS stated that “the images [at issue] are not in violation [of] FSIS labeling requirements and can be used on product.” Id. ¶¶ 9192. This is because, FSIS explained, “[t]he photos, colors, and graphics used on the packaging are not considered labeling claims and do not make the product label false or misleading.” Id. ¶ 93.
Thus, when in September 2020, Perdue again applied for sketch label approval of some different Fresh Line products, FSIS approved them. See id. ¶¶ 95-98. The graphics were “identical to the graphics in FSIS's 2018 and 2019 approvals.” Id. ¶ 95.
ALDF alleges here that the approval of the Perdue Fresh Line label applications violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. See id. ¶¶ 10008. As ALDF puts it, “[c]ontrary to the bucolic scene of chickens on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial