[ad_1]
For immediate release:
October 15, 2021
Contact:
Nicole Meyer 202-483-7382
Jefferson, Wisconsin. – PETA received USDA reports disclosing two recent violations of the law at Vallia Foods, LLC, outside Jefferson. In response, PETA sent a letter to Jefferson County District Attorney Monica Hall this morning urging her to address the matter and, if necessary, bring animal cruelty charges against the plant and workers responsible for the incidents.
On September 27, the bull was still on the move after being shot twice in the head by workers, and was still standing after being shot five times – it took a sixth shot to pass out. On October 1, the cow was still standing and trying to dodge the bolt after the workers shot her twice – it took four shots in total before she passed out.
“These alarming messages show that both this goby and this cow have gone through a long painful death at Vallia Foods,” says PETA Senior Vice President Daphne Nachminovic. PETA is calling for a criminal investigation into these animals and calling on everyone to help prevent animal suffering in slaughterhouses by going vegan.
PETA, whose motto is in part that “the animals are not ours to eat” – opposes arrogance, a worldview focused on human superiority. The group notes that cows, sheep, pigs, chickens and other animals feel pain and fear and value their lives, just like humans.
For more information on collecting news and reporting on PETA investigations visit PETA.org or subscribe to the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram… …
PETA Hall’s letter follows.
October 15, 2021
Honorable Monica Hall
Jefferson County District Attorney
Dear Ms. Hall:
I hope this letter will correct you. I would like to ask your office (and the relevant local law enforcement agency, if you deem appropriate) to investigate and bring appropriate criminal charges against Wallia Foods LLC and the staff responsible for headshots of animals under six. once, leaving them wounded and conscious, on two recent incidents at the company’s slaughterhouse located at 3705 Hwy. 89, near Jefferson. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has documented the incidents in attached reports, which state the following:
October 4, 2021
[O]n October 1, 2021 … [t]The fourth animal of the day (a brown Swiss cow) was taken to the stunning area where its head was secured with a head restraint. IPP [FSIS Inspection Program Personnel] observed that facility personnel installed and fired a retained captive bolt (HHCB) device. The animal remained conscious and stood straight, threw its head back, leaving its head in the fixator. The stunning operator … made a second attempt to get the animal unconscious. The animal remained upright, [her] the eyes tracked movement and tried to avoid HHCB. The facility manager … then made a third attempt with the HHCB device and was unable to bring the animal unconscious. [The establishment manager] made the fourth attempt and managed to bring the animal unconscious. … The IPP conducted a head examination after it was removed from the carcass. IPP, referring to training provided by the Cattle Stunning Surveillance Institution, found that the placement of the three puncture holes was lower than prescribed.1
September 27, 2021
The second animal (Holstein goby) of the day was taken to a stunning area where [his] The head was restrained by a headrest. IPP watched as facility staff placed … HHCB … on the animal’s head and heard shots from HHCB. The animal remained conscious, stood straight and moved back, holding the headrest. Facility staff then made a second attempt to bring the animal unconscious using the HHCB backup device. The animal had the same signs of consciousness – the animal remained upright, [his] eyes tracked movement and [he] moved around. Institutional personnel used HHCB for the first attempt, ready for the third attempt. The third attempt lost the consciousness of the animal. Institutional personnel attempted to bring the animal unconscious on the fourth and fifth stunning attempts, but both attempts were unsuccessful. The animal was left standing, and [his] the eyes tracked the movement. Institutional staff concluded that the HHCB was inadequate and then used a pistol to successfully incapacitate the animal.2
This behavior appears to violate the Stat. Article 951.02. It is important to note that FSIS action does not invalidate state criminal liability for slaughterhouse workers who commit acts of cruelty to animals.3
Please let us know what we can do to help you. Thank you for your attention and for the hard work you are doing.
Sincerely,
Colin Henstock
Assistant Investigation Manager
1FSIS District 25, Manager Dr. Dawn Sprouls, Notice of Reinstatement Suspension, Vallia Foods, LLC (October 4, 2021) https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-10/M44183-NOROS-10042021.pdf.
2FSIS District 25, Manager Dr. Dawn Sprouls, Suspension Notice, Wallia Foods LLC (September 27, 2021) https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-10/M44183-NOS-09272021.pdf.
3See Nat’l. Meat Assoc. v. Harris, 132 C. Ct. 965, 974 n.10 (2012) (“… states may impose civil or criminal sanctions for cruelty to animals or other conduct that also violates [Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)]… See [21 U.S.C.] §678; Wed Bates vs. Dow Agrosciences, OOO, 544 US 431, 447 (2005), stating that a preemptive clause prohibiting state laws “in addition to or different from federal law” does not conflict with a “equivalent” state provision. While FMIA is ahead of many state slaughterhouse laws, it leaves some room for regulation to states. “
[ad_2]
Source link