throbber

`
`
`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

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