In the News

California Appeals Court Rules FMIA Preempts Proposition 65

Jan 21, 2010

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District in California affirmed that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) explicitly preempts point of sales warning requirements imposed by the state's Proposition 65 law with respect to meat products. The American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association originally filed the suit in 2005, seeking a declaration that the consumer warnings required under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly called Proposition 65, are preempted by the FMIA. The suit was filed against Whitney Leeman, in response to a citizen suit she filed against eight meat processors and retailers under Proposition 65. California's Attorney General did not take any action against the meat processors or retailers, but did file an amicus brief in support of Leeman's appeal.

In its opinion in American Meat Institute, et al v. Whitney Leeman, the appeals court referred to the FMIA preemption provision, "Marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any State or Territory or the District of Columbia…" (21 U.S. Code, § 678). Leeman had argued that Proposition 65 point of sale warnings did not constitute labeling. However, the court noted that the purpose of the FMIA is to protect the "health and welfare of consumers…by assuring that meat and meat food product distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled and packaged."

The court reasoned that, "Common sense established that the goal of protecting the health and welfare of consumers is advanced by ensuring that the meat is properly labeled at all points in it travel from the slaughterhouse to the kitchen, including during the period that it is offered for sale by a retailer." Therefore, the court found that point of sale warnings required by Proposition 65 are "labeling" within the meaning of the FMIA and are "in addition to, or different than" the labeling required by the FMIA.

The appeals court also noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has explained that providing Proposition 65 warnings for inspected and approved meat "would only confuse the public as to the wholesomeness of the meat." A copy of the court's decision can be found here.