17
As a consequence of that, the HSUS filed a lawsuit against Hallmark for deceiving the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The action was brought under the
qui tam (whistleblower) section of the False Claims Act. At issue was the liability of
Hallmark for represented falsely to the AMS that all cattle slaughtered were handled humanely, in accordance with federal regulations, and no ill animal was
included in the AMS purchases. Nevertheless, the core of the lawsuit was not based
on the bad animals’ treatment, but on the fact that the corporation committed fraud
by representing (contrary to the truth) that they treat cattle humanely. The whistleblower, by revealing the cruelty against the animals, presented evidence that the
corporation acted in direct violation of the contract with the USDA, whose
action was than based on the need to recuperate the taxpayers’ money spent on
recalled beef (Lovvorn and Perry 2009).
In the case of Hallmark the factors that helped in winning the claim were a successful allegation of fraud, made possible under the False Claim Act (FCA 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729 to 3733), the intervention of the government as plaintiff, the central
role played in the claim by the government’s interests in protecting the health of the
children.
Infact, in spite of the message that eating meat is necessary for a healthy diet,
meat industries (and Hallmark in this case) are well aware of the damages caused to
the health by the industrial livestock production.
In Hallmark, although the contract did not clearly involved the supply of healthy
food, it implicitly required the food to be safe, especially because it was food that
would have been eaten by young children going to school. It was on these assumptions that the USDA rescinded the contract and condemned Hallmark to pay for
damages.
Some scholars (Winalski 2013) have drawn a parallel with the Tobacco Litigation
cases, underlying the subtle contradiction between a policy oriented, on the one hand,
at warning about the dangers of smoking but encouraging, on the other, the consumption of milk, dairy, beef etc. that may be harmful to health. In the case of the
Tobacco Litigation, as it is well known, the problems for plaintiff was to meet the
burdens of proof on causation, injury, and damages.
The identification of the proximate cause of injury required relevant expertises
and the need of engaging in a legal battle, that only deep-pockets subjects could
afford. The problems in proving the foreseeability of the damage, as well as the
defense represented by the “voluntary conduct of the consumer”, at first, led the
courts to rule in favor of the tobacco companies (Gifford 2010). But if in U.S. v.
Phillip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2000) the judges were still not
convinced of the plaintiffs’ position, some years later they changed their opinion
and, in U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 920–21 (D.D.C. 2006),
the court held the defendants was even liable for racketeering. Finally, in 2009, the
government with the adoption of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act (FSMTCA 2009), imposed restrictions on the advertising and promoting of the cigarettes.
The Tobacco Litigation offers an instructive example of how making the animalbased food industries liable for the harms they cause by supplying foods that—as
supported by medical literature and science—are detrimental to the public health.
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change
As a consequence of that, the HSUS filed a lawsuit against Hallmark for deceiving the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The action was brought under the
qui tam (whistleblower) section of the False Claims Act. At issue was the liability of
Hallmark for represented falsely to the AMS that all cattle slaughtered were handled humanely, in accordance with federal regulations, and no ill animal was
included in the AMS purchases. Nevertheless, the core of the lawsuit was not based
on the bad animals’ treatment, but on the fact that the corporation committed fraud
by representing (contrary to the truth) that they treat cattle humanely. The whistleblower, by revealing the cruelty against the animals, presented evidence that the
corporation acted in direct violation of the contract with the USDA, whose
action was than based on the need to recuperate the taxpayers’ money spent on
recalled beef (Lovvorn and Perry 2009).
In the case of Hallmark the factors that helped in winning the claim were a successful allegation of fraud, made possible under the False Claim Act (FCA 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729 to 3733), the intervention of the government as plaintiff, the central
role played in the claim by the government’s interests in protecting the health of the
children.
Infact, in spite of the message that eating meat is necessary for a healthy diet,
meat industries (and Hallmark in this case) are well aware of the damages caused to
the health by the industrial livestock production.
In Hallmark, although the contract did not clearly involved the supply of healthy
food, it implicitly required the food to be safe, especially because it was food that
would have been eaten by young children going to school. It was on these assumptions that the USDA rescinded the contract and condemned Hallmark to pay for
damages.
Some scholars (Winalski 2013) have drawn a parallel with the Tobacco Litigation
cases, underlying the subtle contradiction between a policy oriented, on the one hand,
at warning about the dangers of smoking but encouraging, on the other, the consumption of milk, dairy, beef etc. that may be harmful to health. In the case of the
Tobacco Litigation, as it is well known, the problems for plaintiff was to meet the
burdens of proof on causation, injury, and damages.
The identification of the proximate cause of injury required relevant expertises
and the need of engaging in a legal battle, that only deep-pockets subjects could
afford. The problems in proving the foreseeability of the damage, as well as the
defense represented by the “voluntary conduct of the consumer”, at first, led the
courts to rule in favor of the tobacco companies (Gifford 2010). But if in U.S. v.
Phillip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2000) the judges were still not
convinced of the plaintiffs’ position, some years later they changed their opinion
and, in U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 920–21 (D.D.C. 2006),
the court held the defendants was even liable for racketeering. Finally, in 2009, the
government with the adoption of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act (FSMTCA 2009), imposed restrictions on the advertising and promoting of the cigarettes.
The Tobacco Litigation offers an instructive example of how making the animalbased food industries liable for the harms they cause by supplying foods that—as
supported by medical literature and science—are detrimental to the public health.
Animal Based Industries and Climate Change