WASHINGTON — A recent settlement involving the Restaurant Law Center, four state associations, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has provided clarifications and new regulations to Massachusetts Question 3 (Q3).

The settlement, which was filed on Aug. 4, stipulates that the pork sale rules will not apply to whole pork meat that is already in the supply chain as of Aug. 23. Additionally, the rules would not apply to whole pork meat in Massachusetts that was raised and sold to a consumer out-of-state. When whole pork meat is destined for restaurants in another state but goes to distribution centers in Massachusetts, it will not be subject to Q3 even if a sale occurs in the state.

“This settlement is a significant, positive outcome for restaurant operators, pork producers, the Restaurant Law Center and for consumers in Massachusetts and its surrounding states because it gives restaurant owners and their suppliers the time they need to avoid significant supply disruptions, so they don’t disappoint diners,” said Angelo I. Amador, executive director of the Restaurant Law Center.

Q3 was brought into law in 2016. The pork industry was given two years to adapt to the new regulations, which ban the sale of pork that was sourced from an establishment not meeting the state’s confinement standards. The effective date for Q3 was pushed to August 2022 due to amendments to the law.

The associations, the Restaurant Law Center and NPPC originally filed their complaint against the attorney general’s office in August 2022, questioning the constitutionality of Q3.

The parties moved to stay the case until 30 days after California’s Proposition 12 — a similar animal confinement state law — was addressed by the US Supreme Court. When the verdict was reached in May, validating the constitutionality of Prop 12, the Massachusetts District Court approved an extension of the stay period to Aug. 23.

The only remaining issue not addressed by the Supreme Court decision, the Restaurant Law Center noted, was transshipment through Massachusetts, which the recent settlement resolves.

“Regardless of whether some sellers could have complied with the requirements and some consumers support the spirit of the pork rules, the precedent of allowing a state to pick products that can be sold or consumed in another state would have had staggering national implications for the supply chain,” Amador said. “These barriers to trade based on unique value judgments would have fragmented and hindered the growth of the national economy.”

The parties have asked a federal court judge to approve their settlement agreement.