throbber
Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`SYLVIA SHIH-YAU WU (CA Bar No. 273549)
`Center for Food Safety
`303 Sacramento Street, 2nd floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(p) 415-826-2770 / (f) 415-826-0507
`swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`RYAN D. TALBOTT
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice on Jan. 28, 2020)
`AMY VAN SAUN
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice on Jan. 28, 2020)
`Center for Food Safety
`2009 NE Alberta Street, Suite 207
`Portland, OR 97211
`(p) 971-271-7372
`rtalbott@centerforfoodsafety.org
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`ZACHARY B. CORRIGAN
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice on Jan. 28, 2020)
`Food & Water Watch, Inc.
`1616 P Street, NW, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20036
`(p) 202-683-2451
`(f) 202-683-2452
`zcorrigan@fwwatch.org
`
`JAMES B. DOUGHERTY
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice on Apr. 6, 2020)
`700 7th St. SW, Suite 805
`Washington, DC 20024
`(p) 202-488-1140
`jimdougherty@aol.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
` Case No. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`(ADMINISTRATIVE
`PROCEDURE ACT CASE)
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; FOOD &
`WATER WATCH, INC.; HUMANE FARMING
`ASSOCIATION; PETER VAN GORDER; and
`ROBIN MANGINI;
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
` 1
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SONNY PERDUE, in his official capacity as the
`Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
`MINDY BRASHEARS, in her official capacity as
`the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S.
`Dept. of Agriculture; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE; and FOOD SAFETY AND
`INSPECTION SERVICE;
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The plaintiff non-profit organizations, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Food & Water
`1.
`Watch, Inc. (FWW); the Humane Farming Association (HFA); FWW member Peter Van Gorder;
`and CFS and FWW member Robin Mangini (collectively, Plaintiffs) bring this action against the
`above-listed Defendants (individually and collectively Defendants) for their issuance of new rules
`that vitiate this country’s food-safety inspection system for swine in slaughter plants, effectively
`turning it over to the slaughter companies themselves. Defendants’ New Swine Inspection System
`(NSIS) rules, at 84 Fed. Reg. 52300 (October 11, 2019), also lift prior limits on slaughter-line
`speeds, allowing plants to move swine carcasses past government inspection-program personnel
`(hereinafter, inspectors or Program employees) at speeds that neuter the mandatory government’s
`critical appraisal of swine carcasses and parts. Defendants approved these dangerous regulatory
`rollbacks, despite the fact that contaminated pork may cause as many as 1.5 million cases of
`foodborne illnesses, 7,000 hospitalizations, and 200 deaths in the United States each year.
`As a result of all of these changes—which will essentially eliminate much of the
`2.
`government inspection of ninety-three percent of the domestic pork supply—the health and welfare
`of the individual plaintiffs, as well as that of CFS, FWW, and HFA’s members, are seriously
`endangered by adulterated and unwholesome pork product. The individual plaintiffs and the
`groups’ members have already been forced to spend money and will continue spending money in an
`attempt to avoid pork from animals slaughtered in plants likely to switch to NSIS.
`The rules cannot stand and should be permanently enjoined. They are ultra vires and
`3.
`contrary to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA or the act), 21 U.S.C. §§ 602-695 (2018).
`
`
`
` 2
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Further, they are otherwise contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity and
`arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law in violation
`of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706 (2018).
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018), which grants federal district
`4.
`courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States,”
`as well as the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704, and 21 U.S.C. § 674 (2018), which establishes U.S.
`district court jurisdiction for all kinds of cases arising under the FMIA.
`VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (2018) because this suit was filed in
`the district where Plaintiffs CFS, HFA, Peter Van Gorder, and Robin Mangini all reside, and there
`is no real property involved in the action. Plaintiff CFS resides in the County of San Francisco and
`has more than 15,500 members in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
`and Sonoma counties. Plaintiff HFA resides in the County of Marin, with roughly 40,000 members
`in California and 12,000 residing in in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
`Mateo, and Sonoma counties.
`Plaintiff Robin Mangini resides in Alameda County. Peter Van Gorder resides in
`6.
`Sonoma County. FWW has on office in Oakland and more than 9,400 dues-paying members in
`Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties.
` This Court may issue a declaratory judgment in this case pursuant to the Declaratory
`7.
`Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (2018), and may grant the requested relief pursuant the
`APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2018), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
`pursuant to its inherent authority as a federal district court.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff CFS is a national, non-profit, public interest and environmental advocacy
`8.
`organization that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful
`food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture.
`
`
`
`
` 3
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 74
`
`
`
`CFS has approximately 950,000 members in the United States, with nearly 67,000 in California,
`including Plaintiff Robin Mangini. CFS’s members were some of the hundreds of thousands of
`individuals that submitted public comments to the FSIS in 2018, urging the Defendants not to
`finalize the proposed NSIS rules.
`Plaintiff FWW is a national, non-profit, public interest, consumer advocacy organization
`9.
`that works to ensure safe food and clean water. FWW presently has approximately 284,000 dues-
`paying members in the United States, with 33,000 in California, including Plaintiffs Peter Van
`Gorder and Robin Mangini. Its members were some of the hundreds of thousands of individuals
`that submitted public comments to the Defendants in 2018, urging them not to finalize the proposed
`NSIS rules.
`10. Plaintiff HFA is a national, non-profit, animal protection and consumer advocacy
`organization—registered since 1985 as a tax-exempt charity under §501(c)(3) of the Internal
`Revenue Code—that works to advance the welfare of farm animals and protect the health of
`Americans who consume animal products. HFA’s programs focus on protecting farm animals from
`cruelty, protecting the public from the risks of consuming adulterated and unwholesome animal
`products produced in slaughterhouses, restricting the misuse of antibiotics, hormones, and other
`chemicals used on industrial farms, and protecting the environment from the impacts of
`industrialized animal farming. HFA currently has approximately 250,000 members in the United
`States. In 2018, HFA submitted comments to the Defendants urging against adoption of the then-
`proposed NSIS rules which are the subject of this lawsuit.
`11. Plaintiff Peter Van Gorder is a resident of Sebastopol, California. He is a dues-paying
`member of FWW. Before the challenged NSIS rules became effective, he has been a regular
`consumer of pork, and he intended to continue consuming unadulterated USDA-inspected pork
`product.
`12. Plaintiff Robin Mangini is a resident of Piedmont, California. She is a dues-paying
`member of FWW and a member of CFS. Before the NSIS rules became effective, she has been a
`
`
`
`
` 4
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`regular consumer of pork, and she intended to continue consuming unadulterated USDA-inspected
`pork product.
`13. Defendant Sonny Perdue is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
`and is given authority to administer or delegate the administration of the FMIA. 21 U.S.C. §§ 621,
`601(a).
`14. Defendant Dr. Mindy Brashears is Deputy Under Secretary of Food Safety for the
`USDA, which has been delegated the administration of the FMIA by the USDA Secretary. 7
`C.F.R. § 2.18(a)(1)(ii)(B) (2019).
`15. Defendant USDA is the U.S. department that houses Defendant FSIS.
`16. Defendant FSIS’s staff and senior management wrote and approved the final NSIS rules.
`The agency is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and
`egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged for human consumption.
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`17. The APA governs federal agency actions, including but not limited to its rulemaking.
`The purpose for the APA is to improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair
`administrative procedure.
`18. Under the APA, a court is empowered to hold unlawful and set aside agency action for
`findings and conclusions that, among other reasons, are “contrary to constitutional right, power,
`privilege, or immunity[,] . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`accordance with law[,]. . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
`statutory right[,] . . . and without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
`B.
`The Federal Meat Inspection Act
`19. When Congress passed the FMIA in 1907 it declared that “[i]t is essential in the public
`interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that meat and meat food
`products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
`packaged.” 21 U.S.C. § 602. To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
` 5
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 74
`
`
`
`Agriculture to issue regulations “to protect the health and welfare of consumers” from
`“[u]nwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded meat or meat food products[.]” Id. The reason was
`that “unwholesome, adulterated, mislabeled, or deceptively packaged articles can be sold at lower
`prices and compete unfairly with the wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and
`packaged articles, to the detriment of consumers and the public generally.” Id.
`20. Regulations promulgated under the FMIA establish an exhaustive scheme (detailed
`further below) requiring the federal government inspection of animals, or “amenable species,”
`including swine, before they are slaughtered (ante-mortem) as well as inspection of the carcasses
`after slaughter (post-mortem). Congress was so concerned with the need for federal oversight of
`slaughterhouses that it made it a criminal activity to slaughter animals or prepare or sell, transport,
`offer for sale or transportation, or receive for transportation, in commerce, products intended for
`food without a federal inspection of the animals and meat and meat products as prescribed by the
`law. Id. § 610.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`21. As detailed more fully below, this case involves a radical transformation of the federal
`government’s food-safety inspection of swine and swine carcasses, affecting the pork product that
`ends up in grocery stores and restaurants around the country. Prior to the NSIS rules that are the
`subject of this suit, each and every swine was to first receive a mandatory government “inspection”
`prior to slaughter. As part of this process, federal government inspectors critically appraise animals
`for disease and food-safety issues. They must tag those animals with symptoms of disease so that
`they receive a more careful inspection, both before and after they are slaughtered separately from
`other animals. Federal inspectors also flag animals for residue and drug tests where necessary.
`Second, after slaughter, federal inspectors must critically appraise each animal’s head, viscera, and
`carcass on the lines where prepared. Third, federal inspectors condemn those animals and carcasses
`that are found to be adulterated. Finally, federal inspectors supervise the disposal of such
`condemned animals and carcasses.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 7 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22. Defendants’ new NSIS rules, quite to the contrary, prevent federal inspectors from
`performing crucial inspection activities of swine prior to slaughter and of carcasses afterwards. The
`new rules thus curtail the ability of federal inspectors to detect serious food-safety problems, and
`they expose those who consume such pork products to serious health threats. Under this new
`regime, it is slaughter-plant employees rather than federal inspectors that are charged with
`identifying those animals with food-safety conditions, such as septicemia, before and after
`slaughter. Septicemia is linked to pathogens including Salmonella, a serious human pathogen in
`contaminated pork that Defendants estimate annually sickens 69,000 people.
`23. Likewise, after slaughter, under these new rules, plant employees without minimum
`education or training (an estimated average of four hours’ worth, according to the Defendants’ cost-
`benefit analysis) are now solely charged with trimming carcasses that may have problems such as
`bruises from drug injections (thus avoiding the detection of illegal drug use) and parts contaminated
`with fecal material, ingesta, or milk. Fecal matter, ingesta, and milk can contain infectious agents
`that can be transmitted to humans. Under- or un-trained plant employees are now charged with
`identifying and notifying federal inspectors when swine carcasses show serious diseases such as
`pork measles, a rare but fatal disease caused by a tapeworm that is transmittable to humans. The
`rules also preclude inspectors from preventing the release of swine infected with animal diseases,
`such as Foot-And-Mouth Disease and African Swine Fever, back into the animal supply, thereby
`substantially increasing the risk of wide-spread mortality and increased prices, threatening the
`health and welfare of consumers.
`24. This Complaint outlines how the new NSIS rules violate the FMIA and APA as follows.
`Section I details the comprehensive manner in which federal inspectors are required to perform
`their mandatory FMIA inspection duties by critically appraising all swine prior to slaughter. It also
`details how federal inspectors follow the FMIA’s mandates to ensure that those animals showing
`symptoms of disease are slaughtered separately so that they receive a careful inspection when
`slaughtered. Federal inspectors also condemn those animals found adulterated and supervise their
`disposal pursuant to the FMIA. Section II details how federal inspectors under the former,
`
`
`
`
` 7
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 8 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`traditional inspection system followed the FMIA by critically appraising all carcasses and parts of
`swine after slaughter and condemning and supervising the disposal of carcasses and parts found to
`be adulterated. This section also details the training that allows federal inspectors to perform such
`critical and complicated tasks.
`25. Section III details how the new NSIS rules abrogate the FMIA’s mandatory ante-mortem
`inspection, separate-slaughter, and post-mortem inspection duties. The NSIS rules prevent and
`preclude federal inspectors from critically appraising animals prior to slaughter, and carcasses and
`parts afterwards. Section IV details how the NSIS rules also eliminate the act’s condemnation and
`disposal-supervision requirements for federal inspectors. Section V details how the Defendants
`have rolled back pathogen standards at the same time, despite the fact that the NSIS rules amount to
`a massive change in the way inspections will be carried out in swine plants.
`26. Section VI demonstrates how the Defendants have failed to provide any adequate basis
`whatsoever for the NSIS rules. The chief documents upon which the Defendants have relied were
`prepared in response to two 2013 reports by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S.
`Government Accountability Office (GAO). They found the pilot program for the NSIS rules
`lacking in oversight and usable data. This section of the Complaint painstakingly charts how the
`Defendants’ 2014 evaluation of the pilot program and revised 2018 risk assessment demonstrate
`that little has changed since these two audits. Defendants’ data supporting the NSIS rules remains
`seriously lacking. Defendants misrepresent the data that they have made public. Defendants also
`fail to address numerous comments including those from expert peer reviewers. This section also
`shows that the changes in the inspection system under NSIS will not be as protective of, much less
`better for food safety compared to traditional inspection. This is perhaps no surprise, as Section VII
`shows how the rulemaking is very much the product of Defendants’ undue bias.
`27. Last, Section VIII of this Complaint details how Plaintiffs have been, are being, and will
`be harmed by the NSIS rules, before ultimately presenting Plaintiffs’ seven claims for relief and
`relief requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 9 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`STATEMENTS OF FACT
`I. ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION UNDER THE FMIA
`A.
`Inspection
`28. The FMIA plainly and simply requires the “examination and inspection of all amenable
`species” before the animals are allowed to be slaughtered. 21 U.S.C. § 603 (emphasis added).
`An “inspection” is a critical appraisal by a federal inspector. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t
`29.
`Emps. v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (AFGE); 21 U.S.C. § 622 (including inspectors
`in a list of officers and employees “of the United States authorized to perform any of the duties
`prescribed by this chapter”).
`30. Under traditional inspection, federal inspectors perform ante-mortem inspection to
`remove obviously-diseased animals from the food supply prior to slaughter and to identify animals
`that require a more extensive post-mortem examination by a government Public Health Veterinarian
`(PHV). Defendants consider it the first line of defense in protecting the public from potentially
`harmful meat products.
`Inspectors observe all livestock at rest and in motion. FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev. 2
`31.
`(7/24/14) (FSIS Directive 6100.1) at X(B). This allows federal inspectors to catch certain abnormal
`signs, such as labored breathing, which are easier to detect while the animals are at rest, and others,
`such as lameness, which may not be detected until the animals are in motion.
`Inspectors are supposed to observe the overall condition of each animal, including the
`32.
`head—with attention to the eyes—legs, and body; the degree of alertness, mobility, and breathing;
`and whether there are any unusual swellings or any other abnormalities. Id. at X(C).
`Inspectors are to “pass” for slaughter the livestock that do not show signs of diseases or
`33.
`abnormalities and thus are fit for slaughter for human consumption. Id. at X(D).
`34. When inspectors find animals showing signs of abnormalities or diseases, they direct the
`establishment to set the affected animals apart into separate “U.S. Suspect” pens for further
`inspection by the PHV. Id. at X(E).
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 10 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Suspect Animals
`B.
`35. The FMIA also addresses how inspectors are required to treat animals showing symptoms
`of disease: “all amenable species found on [ante-mortem] inspection to show symptoms of disease
`shall be set apart and slaughtered separately from all other [amenable species], and when so
`slaughtered the carcasses . . . shall be subject to a careful examination and inspection, all as
`provided by the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary, as provided for in this
`subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 603 (2018).
`36. USDA’s existing regulations require that “[a]ny livestock which, on ante-mortem
`inspection, do not clearly show, but are suspected of being affected with any disease or condition
`that . . . may cause condemnation of the carcass on post-mortem inspection, and any livestock
`which show, on ante-mortem inspection, any disease or condition that . . . would cause
`condemnation of only part of the carcass on post-mortem inspection, shall be so handled as to retain
`its identity as a suspect until it is given final post-mortem inspection, when the carcass shall be
`marked and disposed of . . . .” 9 C.F.R § 309.2(a) (2019).
`37. Such animals are physically tagged with a “U.S. Suspect” tag because they are
`“suspected of being affected with a disease or condition which may require [their] condemnation, in
`whole or in part, when slaughtered, and [are] subject to further examination by an inspector to
`determine [their] disposal.” Id. § 301.2.
`“Each animal required . . . to be treated as a U.S. Suspect shall be identified as such by or
`38.
`under the supervision of a Program employee with an official device . . . . No such device shall be
`removed except by a Program employee.” Id. § 309.2(m).
`39. Such animals “shall be set apart and . . . slaughtered separately from other livestock at
`that establishment unless disposed of as otherwise provided[.]” Id. § 309.2(n).
`“When any animal identified as a U.S. Suspect is released for any purpose or reason, . . .
`40.
`the official identification device shall be removed only by a Program employee and he shall report
`his action to the area supervisor. When a suspect is to be released . . . for a purpose other than
`slaughter, the operator of the official establishment or the owner of the animal shall first obtain
`
`
`
`
` 10
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 11 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`permission for the removal of such animal from the local, State or Federal livestock sanitary official
`having jurisdiction.” Id. § 309.2(p).
`In accordance with these provisions, when inspectors find animals showing signs of
`41.
`abnormalities or diseases under traditional ante-mortem inspection, they direct the slaughter
`establishment to set the affected animals apart into separate pens, called “U.S. Suspect” pens, for
`further examination by the government PHV. FSIS Directive 6100.1 at X(E). Government PHVs
`are to examine and take the temperature (or direct establishment employees to take the
`temperature), as necessary, of abnormal or diseased livestock. Id. at XII(A). PHVs are to designate
`livestock as “U.S. Suspect” by applying or directing establishment employees to attach a serially
`numbered “U.S. Suspect” tag to livestock that:
`
`1. Have any disease or condition that may cause the PHV to condemn the carcass or part
`of a carcass when inspected post-mortem; and
`2. Are presented as non-ambulatory disabled.
`Id. at XII(B).
`Inspectors are also responsible for the detection and reporting of Foreign Animal
`42.
`Diseases (FADs) and reportable conditions. FSIS Directive 6000.1 Rev. 1 (8/03/06) (FSIS
`Directive 6000.1) at VII(A)-(B). FADs can significantly affect human health or animal production
`and can be costly to the livestock growers to control and eradicate, and thus also for consumers.
`Diseases such as classical swine fever (hog cholera), Foot-And-Mouth disease, and African Swine
`Influenza can cause high death rates or severe illness and production losses. This loss of
`productivity can increase the cost of food products obtained from those animals. Also, the
`quarantine required to control any disease outbreaks can stop all animal movement and trade for a
`significant period of time.
`43. A few of the signs when observed during ante-mortem inspection pointing to a FAD
`include sudden lameness and the existence of central nervous system conditions. Id. at VI(C).
`Inspectors are to deem such animals “U.S. Suspects” or “U.S. Condemned,” as
`44.
`appropriate, and report them to the FSIS District office if reportable or a FAD. Id. at VII(A)-(B).
`
`
`
`
` 11
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 12 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`45. When animals are identified as U.S. Suspect for chemical residues, the PHV is to collect
`required samples (of muscle, liver, and kidney) and test these animals for chemical residues during
`post-mortem inspection. FSIS Directive 10,800.1 Rev. 1 (3/3/14) (FSIS Directive 10,800.1) at Ch.
`4. I(A). Also, such testing for drug residues is required when post-mortem findings may indicate
`antimicrobial treatment or violative chemical use or exposure, even if the carcass and its parts have
`been condemned. Id. at Ch. 3. I(B).
`46. Such testing is required because chemical residues and antimicrobial use can affect the
`plant’s entire swine supply, regardless of whether an individual carcass is condemned.
`47. Some of the pathologies and conditions that are supposed to merit the retention and
`testing of carcasses for chemical residues include the presence of injection sites, injury, or
`inflammatory conditions, even if these are not condemnable conditions. Id.
`48. Under the agency’s existing regulations, livestock suspected of having been treated with
`or exposed to any substance that may impart a biological residue which would make the edible
`tissues unfit for human food or otherwise adulterated shall be identified at official establishments as
`“U.S. Condemned.” 9 C.F.R. § 309.16(a). All carcasses and edible organs and other parts thereof,
`in which are found any biological residues which render such articles adulterated, shall be marked
`as “U.S. Condemned” and disposed of in accordance with 9 C.F.R. §§ 314.1 or 314.3. Id. §
`309.16(b).
`C.
`The Condemnation of Animals
`49.
`In addition to the inspectors’ ante-mortem-inspection duties to examine and inspect
`animals and ensure that suspect animals are identified as such, slaughtered separately, and given a
`“careful” post-mortem inspection, federal inspectors must condemn and dispose of animals that are
`found to be dead, dying, or diseased.
`50. Under existing regulations, “[l]ivestock found to be dead or in a dying condition on the
`premises of an official establishment shall be identified as U.S. Condemned and disposed of in
`accordance with § 309.13.” 9 C.F.R. § 309.3(a) (2019). “Livestock plainly showing on ante-
`mortem inspection any disease or condition that . . . would cause condemnation of their carcasses
`
`
`
`
` 12
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 13 of 74
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`on post-mortem inspection shall be identified as U.S. Condemned and disposed of in accordance
`with § 309.13.” Id. § 309.3(b)
`“U.S. Condemned” means “the livestock so identified has been inspected and found to be
`51.
`in a dying condition, or to be affected with any other condition or disease that would require
`condemnation of its carcass.” Id. § 301.2(b).
`52. According to FSIS directive, “[i]n accordance with 9 CFR 309.3(a)-(e), PHVs are to
`identify livestock as ‘U.S. Condemned’ by directing that a serially numbered metal ‘U.S.
`Condemned’ ear tag . . . be applied to each animal that is condemned on ante-mortem inspection.”
`FSIS Directive 6100.1 at XIV(A).
`53. PHVs do not have to apply the “U.S. Condemned” tag but are to observe that the “U.S.
`Condemned” tag is applied by an establishment employee. Id. at XIV(B).
`54. Federal inspectors may identify and tag dead animals as “U.S. Condemned.” Id. at
`XIV(C). Only government PHVs may condemn live animals. Id.
`“U.S. Condemned” tags are placed on:
`55.
`
`a) Livestock that are dead or in a dying condition when offered for slaughter on the
`premises of the official establishment;
`
`
`b) Livestock that are plainly showing on ante-mortem inspection any disease or condition
`that would cause the PHV to condemn the carcass when inspecting postmortem; and
`c) Any swine have a temperature of 106°F or higher.
`Id. at XIV(D).
`56. Only federal inspectors may remove U.S. Condemned tags. 9 C.F.R. § 309.13(a) (2019).
` “Livestock identified as U.S. Condemned shall be killed by the official establishment, if
`57.
`not already dead.” Id. “Such animals shall not be taken into the official establishment to be
`slaughtered or dressed[.]” Id. “The official U.S. Condemned tag shall not be removed from, but
`shall remain on the carcass . . .” until it is disposed of. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00256-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00256-JSW Document 26 Filed 04/06/20 Page 14 of 74
`
`
`
`II. POST-MORTEM INSPECTION UNDER THE FMIA
`A.
`Inspection
`58. The FMIA similarly requires that all amenable species’ carcasses receive inspection after
`slaughter:
`
`For the purposes hereinbefore set forth the Secretary shall cause to be made by inspectors
`appointed for that purpose a postmortem examination and inspection of the carcasses and
`parts thereof of all amenable species to be prepared at any slaughtering, meat-canning,
`salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment in any State, Territory, or the District of
`Columbia as articles of commerce which are capable of use as human food[.]
`21 U.S.C. § 604. The FMIA defines the term “prepared” to mean “slaughtered, canned, salted,
`rendered, boned, cut up, or otherwise manufactured or processed.” Id. § 601(l). Thus, when each
`swine is slaughtered and its carcasses and parts are prepared, it needs to be examined and inspected.
`59. Under Defendants’ still existing regulations, “[a] careful post-mortem examination and
`inspection shall be made of the carcasses and p

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket