`
`
`SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
`HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
`HELEN I. ZELDES (SBN 220051)
`hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
`JOSHUA A. FIELDS (SBN 242938)
`jfields@sshhzlaw.com
`AYA DARDARI (SBN 344039)
`adardari@sshhzlaw.com
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: (619) 400-4990
`
`PETA Foundation
`ASHER SMITH (pro hac vice application pending)
`ashers@petaf.org
`TALA DIBENEDETTO (pro hac vice application pending)
`talad@petaf.org
`2154 West Sunset Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90026
`Tel: (323) 210-2263
`Fax: (213) 484-1648
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Amber Takahashi-
`Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of herself
`and all others similarly situated.
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`Amber Takahashi-Mendoza, an individual, on behalf
`of herself and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools
`d/b/a Organic Valley, a Wisconsin Corporation.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`1. Violation of California’s
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`(“CLRA”); Cal. Civil Code § 1750
`et seq.
`2. Violation of California’s Unfair
`Competition Law (“UCL”); Bus. &
`Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`i
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff Amber Takahashi-Mendoza (“Plaintiff” or “Takahashi-Mendoza”) brings this action, on
`
`2
`
`behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools
`
`3
`
`d/b/a Organic Valley (collectively “Defendant” or “Organic Valley”). Plaintiff alleges the following
`
`4
`
`based upon information and belief, the investigation of counsel, and personal knowledge as to the
`
`5
`
`allegations pertaining to herself.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`1.
`
`Defendant, one of the largest sellers of organic milk products in the United States, takes
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`8
`
`in outsized profits off the booming market for humanely produced goods by labeling its products as being
`
`9
`
`manufactured through “Humane Animal Practices.” In reality, Defendant knows its milk is not.
`
`10
`
`2.
`
`When Plaintiff and others buy “Organic Valley” brand dairy products, they are told they
`
`11
`
`are supporting humane farming practices and pay premium prices for doing so. Instead, Defendant sells
`
`12
`
`them products made through needless cruelty to animals.
`
`13
`
`3.
`
`Unbeknownst to consumers, the dairy products they purchase come from cows whose
`
`14
`
`calves are stripped from them within days or hours of birth. These calves are then reared in isolation
`
`15
`
`hutches, often in poor health without vital socialization and natural sustenance. Male calves are quickly
`
`16
`
`sold for eventual commercial slaughter, while female calves go on to give birth to calves who are
`
`17
`
`immediately taken away from them. These practices are not “humane” and do not comport with
`
`18
`
`established “highest standards” of animal care “above and beyond other standards”—including provision
`
`19
`
`of “social” settings—that Defendant touts on its labels, but instead renders them false and misleading to
`
`20
`
`reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff. This is especially true given the context of the representations—
`
`21
`
`including, for example, cartons showing a mother cow and calf together in an open field, in direct contrast
`
`22
`
`to Defendant’s actual practices.
`
`23
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s representations are important to consumers seeking humane alternatives to
`
`24
`
`conventionally-produced dairy products. Research shows these consumers are willing to pay more for
`
`25
`
`milk from production systems that do not involve premature separation of cows and calves. Defendant
`
`26
`
`and others in the industry know it would pose a risk to dairy sellers’ outsized profits if consumers learned
`
`27
`
`the truth: that dairy products found in every grocery store—even many of those marketed as “humane”
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`and sold at premium prices like Defendant’s—are ruthless products of socially-deprived calves
`
`2
`
`prematurely separated from their mothers.
`
`3
`
`5.
`
`Defendant’s label statements, targeted to consumers who care about the humane treatment
`
`4
`
`of animals, deceive consumers about the true nature of its business practices and cause Plaintiff and other
`
`5
`
`consumers to pay premium prices. It is these premium prices that regularly provide Defendant more than
`
`6
`
`$1.1 billion in annual sales, including more than $1.2 billion in recorded sales for the year ending 2020.
`
`7
`
`6.
`
`Defendant should not be allowed to continue its cruelty and fraud. Plaintiff thus brings
`
`8
`
`this action pursuant to: (i) California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the Unfair
`
`9
`
`Competition Law or “UCL”); and (ii) California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. (the Consumers Legal
`
`10
`
`Remedies Act or “CLRA”). Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a California class for restitution and
`
`11
`
`any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, including without limitation, damages, exemplary
`
`12
`
`damages, declaratory relief holding that Defendant’s conduct violates both California’s consumer
`
`13
`
`protection laws and its penal code, and injunctive relief in the form of an order to remedy and put an end
`
`14
`
`to Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
`
`15
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein under the California
`
`17
`
`Constitution.
`
`18
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because it carries on a continuous and
`
`19
`
`systematic part of its general business within the State of California.
`
`20
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this county pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(d) because
`
`21
`
`Defendant does business here.
`
`22
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`23
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Amber Takahashi-Mendoza lives in Oroville, California, and grew up visiting
`
`24
`
`her uncle’s farm. Her experience observing cows with their calves, and calves playing with their
`
`25
`
`companions, influenced her own dietary and purchasing habits. When Ms. Takahashi-Mendoza
`
`26
`
`purchases milk for house guests, she pays substantial premium prices in an effort to ensure she is
`
`27
`
`supporting humane husbandry practices. After seeing Defendant’s advertising on its milk cartons,
`
`28
`
`including material representations referenced herein, she began regularly purchasing Defendant’s milk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`at a local grocery store. Based on Defendant’s representations, Ms. Takahashi-Mendoza believed
`
`2
`
`Defendant’s milk came from cows treated in a humane manner. Had she known the truth, she would not
`
`3
`
`have paid premium prices for Defendant’s milk or would not have purchased it at all. Ms. Takahashi-
`
`4
`
`Mendoza would consider purchasing Defendant’s milk again if Defendant were to treat cows in a manner
`
`5
`
`consistent with its advertising.
`
`6
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Organic Valley—headquartered in La Farge, Wisconsin—is one of the largest
`
`7
`
`organic dairy sellers in the world. Defendant markets products in all 50 states and exports to 25 countries.
`
`8
`
`It is organized for the express purpose of “adding value to, and marketing, its members’ production,” and
`
`9
`
`does so to great effect—regularly reporting annual revenue of more than $1.1 billion, including recorded
`
`10
`
`sales of $1.2 billion for the year ending 2020.1 At least 18 of Defendant’s member farms—whose welfare
`
`11
`
`policies and practices Defendant has oversight and control over, and regularly inspects and investigates—
`
`12
`
`are based in California. Defendant markets and sells its products across California, including in this
`
`13
`
`county.
`
`14
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Humane Treatment: What ‘Highest Standards’ Mean for Mother Cows and Newborn Calves
`
`12.
`
`Various third-party animal welfare standards for cows used in dairy production set
`
`17
`
`minimum thresholds for what the “Highest Standards of Animal Care” would look like with respect to
`
`18
`
`separation of mother cow and calf. For example, one prominent certifier recommends husbandry systems
`
`19
`
`“that allow young calves to remain in the herd with their mothers until weaning occurs naturally,”
`
`20
`
`with separation of mother cow and calf to occur only when doing so can “cause as little stress as
`
`21
`
`possible.”2 To qualify for the top two tiers of another certifier’s six levels of certification, sellers are
`
`22
`
`required to allow calves to stay with their mothers for at least 168 days, or else to make sure calves are
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 Organic Valley, Press Release: Organic Valley Upholds Mission to Sustain Family Farms, Hits
`Record $1.2 Billion in Sales (Jun. 9, 2021), available at
`https://www.organicvalley.coop/newspress/organic-valley-upholds-mission-sustain-family-farms-hits-
`record-12-billion-sales/.
`2 Animal Welfare Approved by AGW, Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW Standards for
`Dairy Cattle (last visited May 31, 2022), available at https://agreenerworld.org/wp-
`content/uploads/2022/02/AWA-Dairy-Cattle-Standards-2021-v2.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`fostered for at least 168 days by another nursing cow who is assigned no more than three calves.3 Despite
`
`2
`
`its promises, Defendant, on information and belief, does not meet these standards—and so inflicts undue
`
`3
`
`suffering.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Cows—Both Mothers and Calves—Are Sensitive, Intelligent Beings With Distinct Personalities
`
`13.
`
`Studies have shown cows are able to think and observe. They routinely demonstrate robust
`
`and rapid learning abilities and express joy when they successfully learn something new. Cows perform
`
`well in maze tests and can retain this knowledge for days or even weeks.4 Cows are also capable of
`
`extrapolating knowledge from smaller pieces of information. For example, in one study, cows taught to
`
`follow a trolley for food were able, after the trolley moved into a tunnel, to predict the trajectory of the
`
`10
`
`trolley and meet it at the far end of the tunnel.5
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14.
`
`Cows are also capable of an advanced degree of visual discrimination. Studies have shown
`
`they are capable of differentiating not only between shapes, colors, and brightness, but also among more
`
`complex dimensions, such as between members of their own species and other animals, and between
`
`14
`
`human handlers whose interactions with the cows are more or less rough, gentle, stingy, or generous.6
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`15.
`
`Cows are acutely sensitive. They experience a wide range of both positive and negative
`
`emotional states. Positive emotions include joy, pleasure, and excitement, often manifesting in, for
`
`example, play behaviors. But cows can also experience fear and frustration. Fear can manifest in
`
`behaviors such as hesitancy to enter new spaces, defecation, vocalizations, and escape attempts. More
`
`subtle physical changes are also associated with shifts in emotion, such as nasal temperatures, ear posture,
`
`heart rate, and eye widening in which a higher percentage of white space is visible below a cow’s upper
`
`eyelid. The latter, in particular, is associated with frustration and fear, as are other negative behaviors,
`
`such as aggression, repetitive pacing, certain vocalizations, and head-shaking.
`
`23
`
`//
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`3 Global Animal Partnership, 5-Step® Animal Welfare Pilot Standards for Dairy Cattle v1.1 (Dec. 9,
`2021), available at https://globalanimalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20211209-G.A.P.-
`5-Step-Standards-for-Dairy-Cattle-v1.1.pdf.
`4 See, e.g., Lori Marino & Kristin Allen, The Psychology of Cows, 4(4) Animal Behavior & Cognition
`474, 479 (2017), https://dx.doi.org/10.26451/abc.04.04.06.2017.
`5 See, e.g., id. at 477.
`6 See, e.g., id. at 478.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`16.
`
`They are also very social animals. Like humans, cows are capable of emotional
`
`2
`
`contagion—the spread of positive or negative emotions throughout a group. When one cow exhibits fear
`
`3
`
`or distress in response to a stimulus, other cows who witness her response may also experience fear or
`
`4
`
`distress. Cows also provide emotional support to one another. Studies have shown that following a
`
`5
`
`stressful event, cows will prioritize seeking out a non-stressed companion over food.7
`
`6
`
`17.
`
`Unsurprisingly, cows’ cognitive, emotional, and physical wellbeing are all inextricably
`
`7
`
`linked to their social needs. As elaborated below, social rearing and experiences, particularly early in life,
`
`8
`
`are a necessary and crucial part of normal psychological development in cows just as they are in humans.
`
`9
`
`Cows are social herd animals who crave companionship, and calves raised together, as they would be in
`
`10
`
`more natural settings, learn from each other. Bonds between mother cows and their babies from birth
`
`11
`
`through the months-long, normal weaning process are similarly vital to cow development and wellbeing.
`
`12
`
`When cows are allowed to meet these crucial needs, they can thrive. When these needs are unfulfilled,
`
`13
`
`they suffer.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Defendant’s Advertising and Resulting Premium Pricing Induces Justified Reliance
`
`18.
`
`An ever-growing population of American consumers believes it is important that the food
`
`industry treat farmed animals—including cows used by the dairy industry—humanely, and with attention
`
`to their needs and natural behaviors. Like Plaintiff, many consumers base their purchasing decisions on
`
`their perceptions of animal welfare and are willing to pay a premium to sellers who source their dairy
`
`products from cows who are treated well and allowed to engage in natural behaviors, like raising their
`
`20
`
`young.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`19.
`
`This is borne out by market research. In recent years, animal welfare claims outpaced
`
`growth in claims relating to categories like organic ingredients, non-GMO status, and lack of added
`
`23
`
`hormones.8 During fiscal year 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`7 See, e.g., id. at 483-84.
`8 Elizabeth Crawford, SPINS Data Shines Light on Why ‘Consumers Returned to Real Dairy Droves
`During the Pandemic,’ Food Navigator-USA (Jun. 1, 2021), https://www.foodnavigator-
`usa.com/Article/2021/06/01/SPINS-data-shines-light-on-why-consumers-returned-to-real-dairy-in-
`droves-during-the-pandemic.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Inspection Service received over 200 label applications with animal-raising claims each week.9 A 2018
`
`2
`
`survey by a research firm supporting foodservice clients found that close to a third of supermarket
`
`3
`
`industry decision-makers are motivated to stock products that promise better animal welfare, and that 70
`
`4
`
`percent of those stocking products with humane claims report that sales from these products have
`
`5
`
`increased.10
`
`6
`
`20.
`
`Dairy sellers such as Defendant are well aware of, and monitor and report on, consumer
`
`7
`
`expectations, understanding they have massive ramifications for their operations and outsized profits. A
`
`8
`
`2018 survey by a national research firm found that 76 percent of consumers shopping at conventional
`
`9
`
`grocery stores, and 87 percent of consumers at premium/natural grocery stores, including consumers of
`
`10
`
`dairy products, say they are concerned about the welfare of animals raised for food.11 Results were
`
`11
`
`similar across every demographic group.12
`
`12
`
`21.
`
`Defendant, one of the world’s largest dairy manufacturers, goes to extensive lengths,
`
`13
`
`while scaling up its intensive milk production, to market itself as uniquely humane even among other
`
`14
`
`sellers of premium priced, animal welfare-branded dairy products. This is not surprising. As Defendant’s
`
`15
`
`own vice president of brand management and innovation explained in November 2021, “concerns
`
`16
`
`regarding animal treatment” are “a narrative threatening the dairy industry.”13 But instead of combatting
`
`17
`
`this narrative by rigorously enforcing humane standards, Defendant uses marketing to mask its treatment
`
`18
`
`of cows.
`
`19
`
`//
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`9 Animal Raising Claims Labeling Guidelines Update, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Food Safety & Inspection
`Serv. (Sep. 1, 2021), https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-09/Animal-Raising-
`Claims-labeling-and-Non-GMO-slides-2021-09-01.pdf.
`10 The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Technomic Inc., Understanding
`Retailers’ Animal Welfare Priorities (2018), available at
`https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/aspca_2018_understanding_retailers_animal_welfare_prioritie
`s.pdf.
`11 Bob Meadow and Meryl O’Bryan, Results from a Survey of American Consumers, Lake Research
`Partners (Feb. 1, 2019), available at https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/aspca-
`2018_animal_welfare_labelling_and_consumer_concern_survey.pdf.
`12 Id.
`13 Anna Boisseau, 2021 State of the Industry: Milk is on a Long and Winding Road, DairyFoods (Nov.
`5, 2021), available at https://www.dairyfoods.com/articles/95315-2021-state-of-the-industry-milk-is-
`on-a-long-and-winding-road.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`22.
`
`Specifically, Defendant states on its cartons that:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Organic Valley has a “commitment to the highest . . . animal care practices”;
`
`Organic Valley employs “Humane Animal Practices”;
`
`That these “high standards of animal care go above and beyond” other standards
`
`since “the best milk comes from happy cows”;
`
`“We Hold Ourselves to the Highest Standards”;
`
`“OUR COWS ARE SOCIAL AND SO ARE WE”;
`
`Organic Valley farms are “growing real food the right way”;
`
`Organic Valley raises cows with “LOVE.”
`
`10
`
`23.
`
`These messages are prominently displayed to every consumer who may happen upon
`
`11
`
`Defendant’s milk cartons in the grocery aisle—frequently, as seen in the exemplary cartons below,
`
`alongside suggestive images of human mothers with their own children:
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Pasture-Reised with Love”
`
`eSElllUcaeSlhlrSlaonNBNONFeBHONOFPlUlUCOlClCUCOlClCeWOWUMUGNUNDNCCUCUCUMlUPUlUMOCUDNCOLEUS
`oOoNYONONONONVNVDNHNFSFFHFFSFKFSFUl
`
`
`
`
`
`Pasture-Rgi sed Goodness
`
`eye
`
`Standards and Cows
`
`sh Taste
`
`«
`
`We are your neighbors,
`sheaal cooperative of
`teol farmers grewenng real
`food the right wep
`Valle
`Orgenic
`farmer ot av.coop/Turme
`
`>
`
`indled with Care
`ty Checks
`ar milks
`
`"Haale ead Now UMU
`66\ GMOs errt Sietics
`
`-
`
`~ Animal Prectices
`te
`mat
`dona
`inchading daily
`4 Memith prectices,
`wre of cunsbiem. treat ote amck pestuine
`
`Vrcrvanicvatiey coop
`1-O08-444-iL&
`
`ire-Raised Goodness
`
`wi
`
`“ erganicvalley.coop
`
`
`
`oOeaJNDBDOAFFWONY
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`-8-
`COMPLAINT
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`24.
`
`These statements do not appear in isolation. In addition to the idyllic imagery seen above,
`
`2
`
`one of Defendant’s current product lines—while making the explicit animal welfare commitments
`
`3
`
`described above—actually depicts an image of what any reasonable consumer would infer to be a mother
`
`4
`
`cow and her calf:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Defendant’s representations misled Plaintiff into believing Defendant does not engage in
`
`needless, inhumane cruelty toward farmed animals, such as by separating cow mothers and babies within
`
`days or hours of birth, or by raising calves in a manner that deprives them of vital social bonding, health,
`
`and natural sustenance, or by engaging in practices beneath the requirements of other prominent third-
`
`party animal welfare standards. Plaintiff would not have paid a premium price for the products if she had
`
`known the true nature of Defendant’s practices, as set forth herein. Nor, as elaborated further below,
`
`would many other consumers who research has shown are willing to pay more specifically for dairy
`
`products from production systems that do not involve premature separation of cows and calves.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant uses these false and misleading representations to induce reliance from
`
`reasonable consumers like Plaintiff. Early separation of mother cows from their babies is a particular
`
`cruelty of the dairy industry. The babies of many other categories of farmed mammals—such as sheep,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`pigs, horses, and cows used for beef—are frequently housed with their mothers for some meaningful
`
`2
`
`period of time. Cows used in dairy production are an exception, one that reasonable consumers are
`
`3
`
`unaware of due to deceptive packaging like Defendant’s.
`
`4
`
`27.
`
`The implications of this for dairy sellers are well understood. As one study published in
`
`5
`
`2020 put it, research regarding the “overwhelming” views on calf housing options among American
`
`6
`
`youth and adults lends itself to the conclusion that “housing systems that enable greater degrees of
`
`7
`
`behavioral freedom [including socialization] for calves may be more socially sustainable for the dairy
`
`8
`
`sector.”14 This is consistent with other published studies showing that separation of mother and baby
`
`9
`
`cows is a subject of particular concern, and is considered an unacceptable practice to many reasonable
`
`10
`
`consumers—and linked to such consumers’ willingness to pay more.
`
`11
`
`28.
`
`For example, a 2015 study including hundreds of diverse U.S.-based consumers found
`
`12
`
`significant majorities agreeing that mother and baby cows should not be separated early—even after
`
`13
`
`reviewing common arguments for and against these practices.15 Unsurprisingly, these consumers left the
`
`14
`
`study tending to believe cows were cognitively and emotionally complex, and would suffer undue acute
`
`15
`
`and long-lasting psychological, physiological, and behavioral consequences from early maternal
`
`16
`
`separation.
`
`17
`
`29.
`
`This finding is far from unique. During a study conducted among North American
`
`18
`
`consumers across 2010 and 2011 with a diverse sample of participants, more than three quarters of those
`
`19
`
`with no prior involvement in the dairy industry answered negatively when asked “Should dairy calves be
`
`20
`
`separated from the cow within the first few hours after birth?,” citing concerns including the emotional
`
`21
`
`and physiological health of cow mothers and babies.16 Notably, “No” was also a popular response to this
`
`22
`
`question among participants with some knowledge of dairy industry standards, such as readers of trade
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`14 Rielle K. Perttu, Beth A. Ventura, & Marcia I. Endres, Youth and Adult Public Views of Dairy Calf
`Housing Options, 103(9) J. of Dairy Sci. 8507-8517 (Jul. 1, 2020), https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-
`17727.
`15 Gesa Busch, Daniel M. Weary, Achim Spiller, & Marina A. von Keyserlingk, American and German
`Attitudes Towards Cow-Calf Separation on Dairy Farms, 12(3) PloS one e0174013 (Mar. 16, 2017),
`https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174013.
`16 Beth A. Ventura , Marina A. von Keyserlingk, Catherine A. Schuppli, & Daniel M. Weary, Views on
`Contentious Practices in Dairy Farming: The Case of Early Cow-Calf Separation, 96(9) J. of Dairy
`Sci., 6105–6116. (Sep. 2013), https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6040.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`publications, veterinarians, industry professionals, and even participants recruited at an actual dairy
`
`2
`
`industry conference.17
`
`3
`
`30.
`
`Informed consumers also disapprove of these practices. North American consumers
`
`4
`
`surveyed in 2014 both before and after a self-guided tour of a 500-cow dairy farm emerged more, rather
`
`5
`
`than less, concerned about premature separation of mother and calf.18
`
`6
`
`31.
`
`Some of the most up to date and detailed research into public attitudes toward, and
`
`7
`
`perceptions of, premature separation of mothers and calves was published in early 2022. In that study,
`
`8
`
`researchers surveyed a representative sample of close to 2,000 participants, including 1,487 Americans,
`
`9
`
`who were provided descriptions of cow-calf management systems differing in types of social and
`
`10
`
`maternal contact allowed.19 The results suggested “low acceptance of any cow-calf management system
`
`11
`
`involving early separation,” and that these participants considered “that early separation was a breach of
`
`12
`
`[the] standard of care owed to both cows and calves.”20 All categories of participants, including those
`
`13
`
`who drink milk, expressed unfavorable attitudes “toward all systems involving early separation from the
`
`14
`
`mother, regardless of what form of additional social contact was provided.”21
`
`15
`
`32.
`
`Consistent with prior studies, participants explained that their attitudes and willingness to
`
`16
`
`pay premium prices were inextricably linked to their perceptions of animal welfare. Participants
`
`17
`
`expressed willingness to pay the same or more for milk from cows who were not separated from their
`
`18
`
`calves prematurely.22 This was echoed in qualitative findings offered by participants, who frequently
`
`19
`
`described premature maternal separation as “unnatural,” “unacceptable,” “inhumane,” and “cruel.”23
`
`20
`
`Some of the responses provided by participants included the following:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`17 Id.
`18 Beth A. Ventura, Marina A. von Keyserlingk, Hannah Wittman, & Daniel M. Weary, What
`Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a
`Dairy Farm, 11(5) PloS one e0154733 (May 31, 2016), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733.
`19 Lara V. Sirovica, Caroline Ritter, Hendricks, J., Daniel M. Weary, Sumeet Gulati, & Marina A. von
`Keyserlingk, Public Attitude Toward and Perceptions of Dairy Cattle Welfare in Cow-Calf
`Management Systems Differing in Type of Social and Maternal Contact, 105(4) J. of Dairy Sci. 3248–
`3268 (Jan. 28, 2022), https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21344.
`20 Id. at 3248.
`21 Id. at 3257.
`22 Id. at 3258-65
`23 Id. at 3261-63.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“This is disappointing to learn. I think if more customers of dairy milk were educated [on]
`
`this process they would be reluctant to purchase dairy milk.”
`
`“I am really saddened to learn this, both as a human being and a lover of animals. It makes
`
`me a lot more self-conscious about what I consume as food products and have more
`
`thoughts about the process in which these products are created. It is absolutely shocking
`
`to hear how cruel and inhuman the process is. The poor animals are disposable and not
`
`looked at as living life forms with emotions. Imagine doing this to a person, how
`
`appropriate and sane would that be to do? Any baby needs their mother.”
`
`“It’s cruel to take a baby away from mother regardless of human or animal.”
`
`“Separating a calf after birth from the mom is totally unacceptable and inappropriate
`
`whatever living being it is.”
`
`“I believe that this management system is entirely unethical and cruel.”
`
`“The idea of separating a mother from their offspring is upsetting. Just because they’re
`
`animals and they can’t stand up for themselves, doesn’t mean they don’t feel the mother-
`
`child connection. It is devastating to hear that they are separated right after birth, an
`
`offspring needs their mother.”
`
`“The calf should be with the cow, when you separate them it affects them emotionally.”
`
`“[T]he calf is probably scared because [they have been] separated from [their] mother . .
`
`. On the flip side the mother is probably super depressed after being separated from her
`
`calf.”
`
`“It is inhumane to separate them and not allow natural bonding.”
`
`“I feel the calf should be with his mother cow to nurse as that is the most natural thing in
`
`nature to do.”
`
`“There is general awareness that cows and calves have an emotional life and the bond
`
`between cows and calves have an emotional life and the bond between cow and calf is a
`
`concern if separated because it ultimately ends in distress for the calf.”
`
`•
`
`“It is cruel to separate a mother and her calf and causes stress and anxiety.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“The calf needs a lot of immunity [they] only get[] from their cow’s (mother’s) milk. The
`
`calf wants to be healthy and free from diseases, [they] need[] cow milk.”
`
`“This method [not separating cow and calf] results in a healthier calf because the calf is
`
`able to receive the antibodies for the mother that is critical for good health.”
`
`“It seems a bit cruel to the calves that won’t get the benefits of their own mother’s
`
`antibodies before they are separated.”24
`
`Defendant’s Premature Separation of Mother Cows and Calves Inflicts Undue Suffering
`
`33.
`
`In more humane settings, mother cows and calves form strong emotional bonds
`
`9
`
`immediately after birth. Just as human mothers and their babies benefit from direct physical contact, cow
`
`10
`
`mothers bond with their babies by rubbing, sniffing, remaining close to, licking, and suckling their calves
`
`11
`
`after birth.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Jo-Anne McArthur / Animal Equality / We Animals Media
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Afterwards, mother cows and calves engage in what are referred to as “contact calls,” with
`
`calves as young as three to five weeks old able to recognize their mothers based on distinct vocal cues.
`
`Mother cows remain protective of their calves. For example, in one study, 99 percent of mother cows
`
`moved between an unfamiliar approaching vehicle and their calves to provide a protective barrier, despite
`
`24 Id. at 3261-64.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`the apparent risk.25 In another study, mothers who were separated from their calves after only five minutes
`
`2
`
`still recognized their own babies even after 12 hours of separation.26
`
`3
`
`35.
`
`There is also physiological evidence of these bonds. Cow mothers who are separated from
`
`4
`
`their calves display increased eye whites, which often indicates fear, stress, or frustration, in addition to
`
`5
`
`other behavioral signs of trauma. Cow mothers who are reunited with their calves display significantly
`
`6
`
`less eye whites, indicating a more positive, calm emotional state.
`
`
`
`7
`
`36. Mother-calf bonds can also take on unique, individualized characteristics. As referenced,
`
`8
`
`calves are able to selectively respond to their own mother’s calls even after a day of separation. Maternal
`
`9
`
`attention, including time spent nursing, is sensitive to individual differences in calf sex and weight. For
`
`10
`
`example, male calves tend to benefit from more frequent nursing and protective behavior compared with
`
`11
`
`female calves. Additionally, more maternal protection and more frequent nursing occurs when calves are
`
`12
`
`born with lower birth weights.
`
`13
`
`37.
`
`Nevertheless, Defendant’s common practice, despite its advertising indicating otherwise,
`
`14
`
`is to inhumanely separate cow mother and baby immediately after birth. Defendant disclosed to the
`
`15
`
`Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry-aligned third-party, that its calves are “[r]emoved shortly after
`
`16
`
`birth (standard practice).”27 Thus, within days or potentially even hours of the birth of a baby calf on
`
`17
`
`many of Defendant’s farms, each calf is ripped from his or her mother and never returned.
`
`18
`
`38.
`
`The pain and suffering this inflicts is as immense is it is needless. Mother cows separated
`
`19
`
`from their calves display various signs of acute distress, including pacing, increased urination, weight
`
`20
`
`loss, increase in stress hormone concentration, locomotor activity including searching behavior, and
`
`21
`
`vocalizing. These behaviors can continue for days. All mother cows in one study exhibited these signs of
`
`22
`
`distress after separation and chose to stay at one end of their paddock, vocalizing continuously.28 This
`
`23
`
`includes the