21 U.S.C. § 455

Inspection in official establishments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Ante mortem inspection

For the purpose of preventing the entry into or flow or movement in commerce of, or the burdening of commerce by, any poultry product which is capable of use as human food and is adulterated, the Secretary shall, where and to the extent considered by him necessary, cause to be made by inspectors ante mortem inspection of poultry in each official establishment processing poultry or poultry products for commerce or otherwise subject to inspection under this chapter.

(b) Post mortem inspection; quarantine, segregation, and reinspection

The Secretary, whenever processing operations are being conducted, shall cause to be made by inspectors post mortem inspection of the carcass of each bird processed, and at any time such quarantine, segregation, and reinspection as he deems necessary of poultry and poultry products capable of use as human food in each official establishment processing such poultry or poultry products for commerce or otherwise subject to inspection under this chapter.

All poultry carcasses and parts thereof and other poultry products found to be adulterated shall be condemned and shall, if no appeal be taken from such determination of condemnation, be destroyed for human food purposes under the supervision of an inspector: Provided, That carcasses, parts, and products, which may by reprocessing be made not adulterated, need not be so condemned and destroyed if so reprocessed under the supervision of an inspector and thereafter found to be not adulterated. If an appeal be taken from such determination, the carcasses, parts, or products shall be appropriately marked and segregated pending completion of an appeal inspection, which appeal shall be at the cost of the appellant if the Secretary determines that the appeal is frivolous. If the determination of condemnation is sustained the carcasses, parts, and products shall be destroyed for human food purposes under the supervision of an inspector.

(Pub. L. 85–172, § 6, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 443; Pub. L. 90–492, § 6, Aug. 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 798.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1968—Par. (a). Pub. L. 90–492, § 6(a), substituted “of, or the burdening of commerce by, any poultry product which is capable of use as human food and is adulterated,” for “or a designated major consuming area of any poultry product which is unwholesome or adulterated,” “each official establishment” for “any official establishment”, and “otherwise subject to inspection under this chapter” for “in, or for marketing in a designated city or area”.

Par. (b). Pub. L. 90–492, § 6(b), substituted “segregation, and reinspection” for “segregation, reinspection”, and “otherwise subject to inspection under this chapter” for “in, or for marketing in a designated city or area”, and inserted “capable of use as human food” after “necessary of poultry and poultry products”.

Par. (c). Pub. L. 90–492, § 6(c), inserted “other” before “poultry products”, and substituted “to be adulterated” for “to be unwholesome or adulterated”, “made not adulterated” for “made not unwholesome and not adulterated”, and “to be not adulterated” for “to be not unwholesome and not adulterated”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–492 effective Aug. 18, 1968, see section 20 of Pub. L. 90–492, set out as a note under section 451 of this title.

Applicability of Chapter Requirements to Birds of the Order Ratitae

Pub. L. 106–387, § 1(a) [title VII, § 752], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–41, provided that: “Effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 2000] and continuing for the remainder of fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, establishments in the United States that slaughter or process birds of the order Ratitae, such as ostriches, emus and rheas, and squab, for distribution in commerce as human food shall be subject to the ante mortem and post mortem inspection, reinspection, and sanitation requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) rather than the voluntary poultry inspection program of the Department of Agriculture under section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622).”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Thomas Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Thomas Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “In this spirit, Plaintiffs alleged eight claims against Defendants: (1) violation of 21 U.S.C. § 455 (c) by allowing condemnation of young chicken and turkey carcasses by NPIS establishment personnel; (2) violation of 21 U.”

Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 79 F. Supp. 3d 174 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 5× “76(b); see also 21 U.S.C. § 455 (b). 3 Notably, under the traditional poultry inspection systems, online federal inspectors conduct “organoleptic” inspections of poultry carcasses and viscera, meaning that inspectors use sight, touch, and smell to examine the poultry carcasses,…”

Edward M. Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986). “§ 4303 ; 21 U.S.C. §§ 455 , 1034; 26 U.S.C. § 6673 ; 28 U.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Veneman, 284 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “§ 604 , and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”), 21 U.S.C. § 455 . While the case was on remand in the district court, the USDA modified its model program.”

Ass'n Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Québec v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017). “The PPIA accomplishes this' goal by, inter alia, authorizing the inspection of slaughterhouses and poultry-processing plants, 21 U.S.C. § 455 , setting proper sanitation requirements, id.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 127 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D.D.C. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 604 ; Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 455 (b). For most of the previous century, the USDA fulfilled its statutory duties by having inspectors from its Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) perform “or-ganoleptic” inspections on each individual animal carcass.”

Original Honey Baked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc. v. Glickman, 172 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “” See 21 U.S.C. § 455 (b). The Poultry Inspection Act’s definition of “processed” is almost identical to the Meat Inspection Act’s definition of “prepared.”

Mississippi Poultry Ass'n, Inc. v. Edward R. Madigan, Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Agric., 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994). “See 21 U.S.C. § 455 (inspection), § 456 (sanitation), & § 457 (labeling).”

Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988). “§ 4303 ; 21 U.S.C. §§ 455 , 1034; 26 U.S. C. § 6673; 28 U.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 604 , and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”), 21 U.S.C. § 455 , require inspectors appointed by the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to perform a “post-mortem inspection” of the carcasses and parts of all livestock and birds processed for human consumption.”

Am. Pub. Health Ass'n v. Earl Butz, Sec'y of Dep't of Agric., 511 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “21 U.S.C. §§ 455 , 603 — 605. In the case of meat, if the item is found to be not adulterated, Congress has further required inspectors appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to mark, stamp or label the item “Inspected and passed.”

Animal Welfare Inst. v. Perdue (W.D.N.Y. 2022). “21 U.S.C. § 455 (a)–(b). Nevertheless, as discussed above, the PPIA does not provide express statutory authority to mandate the “humane” treatment of animals, nor is poultry included in the definition of “livestock” under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.