21 U.S.C. § 452
Congressional declaration of policy
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to provide for the inspection of poultry and poultry products and otherwise regulate the processing and distribution of such articles as hereinafter prescribed to prevent the movement or sale in interstate or foreign commerce of, or the burdening of such commerce by, poultry products which are adulterated or misbranded. It is the intent of Congress that when poultry and poultry products are condemned because of disease, the reason for condemnation in such instances shall be supported by scientific fact, information, or criteria, and such condemnation under this chapter shall be achieved through uniform inspection standards and uniform applications thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Animal Legal Def. Fund v. United States Dep't of Agric., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. United States Dep't of Agric., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (C.D. Cal. 2016). “There are several grounds on which a poultry product is considered “adulterated,” including “if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food.”
Ass'n Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Québec v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 451 ; see also 21 U.S.C. § 452 . The PPIA most directly regulates “official establishments,” where the “inspection of the slaughter of poultry, or the processing of poultry products,” occurs.”
Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (D. Ariz. 2018). “July 20, 2010) ; 21 U.S.C. § 452 . To that end, the PPIA regulates the processing, inspection, approval, and labeling of poultry for interstate sale, and expressly preempts state laws that: (1) impose requirements with respect to premises, facilities, operations, marking,…”
Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 230 F. Supp. 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). “The second section, 21 U.S.C. § 452 , declares it “to be the policy of Congress to provide for the inspection of poultry and poultry products by the inspection service as herein provided to prevent the movement in interstate or foreign commerce or in a designated major consuming…”
Garcia v. Kashi Co., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Compare 21 U.S.C. § 452 (providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products to prevent mis-branding and adulteration); and 21 U.”
Brower v. Campbell Soup Co., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “21 U.S.C. §§ 452 , 602. The statutes prohibit the sale of products with false or misleading labeling or marking.”
In Re Actimmune Mktg. Litig., 614 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Criminal Prosecution of InterMune In October 2006, after a two-year investigation, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) charged InterMune with misbranding under 21 U.S.C. § 452 (f)(1) for promoting Actimmune® for the treatment of IPF with the intent to defraud and mislead.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. United States Dep't of Agric., 632 F. App'x 905 (9th Cir. 2015). “See 21 U.S.C. §§ 452 , 453(g)(3), 460(d). Where, as here, there are judicially manageable standards, the discretion granted to the agency to render technical conclusions does not shield its decisions from judicial review; rather, it informs the highly deferential standard of…”
Astiana v. Kashi Co., 295 F.R.D. 490 (S.D. Cal. 2013). “Compare 21 U.S.C. § 452 (providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products to prevent misbranding and adulteration); and 21 U.”
Hormel Foods Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 808 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D.D.C. 2011). “21 U.S.C. § 452 . Like the FMIA, the PPIA forbids “any act .”
Nw. Selecta, Inc. v. Munoz, 106 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D.P.R. 2000). “Simply stated, defendant’s actions have created an undue burden without any support in the Act.”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. California, 851 F. Supp. 1453 (C.D. Cal. 1994). “” 21 U.S.C. § 452 . The PPIA contains an express pre-emption provision in a section entitled “Non-Federal jurisdiction of Federally regulated matters-” 21 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.