[ad_1]
For immediate release:
February 23, 2021
Contact:
David Pearl 202-483-7382
Westport, Massachusetts. – PETA received a USDA report revealing a recent violation of the law at a meat processing plant, a Westport slaughterhouse. In response, the group sent a letter today to Bristol County District Attorney Thomas M. Quinn III urging them to address the matter and, if necessary, bring charges of animal cruelty against the institution and employee (s) responsible for shooting a cow in the head four times. The animal was still standing and looking around after the first three shots, which were inappropriate, and was finally incapacitated by the fourth shot.
“This alarming report shows that this cow has gone through a long painful death at a meat processing plant,” says PETA Senior Vice President Daphne Nachminovic. “PETA is calling for a criminal investigation on behalf of a cow injured at this site and calls on all compassionate members of the public concerned about this atrocity to become vegan and help prevent more animals from suffering in slaughterhouses.”
PETA, whose motto is in part that “the animals are not ours to eat,” opposes specisism, which is a worldview focused on human excellence. The group notes that cows, sheep, pigs, chickens and other animals feel pain and fear and value their lives just like humans, and that the only way to prevent their suffering in slaughterhouses is not to eat them.
For more information visit PETA.org or subscribe to the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram…
This is followed by PETA’s letter to Quinn.
February 23, 2021
The Honorable Thomas M. Quinn III
District Attorney for Bristol County
Dear Mr. Quinn:
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 Meatworks and the workers responsible for the repeated head shots of a cow resulting in an injured animal that went through prolonged suffering before it was finally terminated with a fourth shot on January 29 at his slaughterhouse located at 287 State Rd. in Westport. The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) documented the incident in an attached report, which states the following:
“After the first cow of the day was loaded … the first attempt at stunning forcibly was ineffective, as evidenced by [the fact that] the animal remained standing and alert, blinking normally and tracking its gaze. Immediately, a second attempt was made to install the bolt … and again the animal did not lose consciousness, as evidenced [the fact that] the animal remains standing and awake, blinking normally and tracking its gaze. The establishment then tried to stun the cow with the first recharged bolt. … [T]The animal lowered slightly and closed its eyes, but after a couple of seconds it opened its eyes again, blinked normally and looked around the room warily. On the fourth attempt, the establishment is successful[ly] stunned the animal … [o]At the postmortem examination of the skull to the left of the cow, three holes were found penetrating the sinus cavity. The fourth hole was 1/2 inch taller than the previous three and was located directly in the midline through the skull, as evidenced by the observed medulla.one
This behavior appears to violate MGLA 272 § 77. It is important to note that FSIS’s actions do not invalidate state criminal liability for slaughterhouse workers who commit acts of cruelty to animals.2
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
oneDistrict 60 FSIS Manager Dr. Linda E. Liliestrom, Suspension notice, meat work (January 29, 2021) https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/482e74a7-4101-4673-bc6f-89a75f34be9f/46351-nos-01292021.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
2See 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, Ltd, 544 US 431, 447 (2005) (ruling that a pre-emptive 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