21 U.S.C. § 458
Prohibited acts
1968—Pub. L. 90–492 made revisions in form and phraseology, added to the enumerated prohibited acts slaughtering poultry or processing any poultry products capable of use as human food, except in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, selling and transporting adulterated or misbranded poultry products or uninspected poultry products, adulterating or misbranding poultry products while they are being transported in commerce or held for sale after such transportation, treating carcasses not in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, possessing, without notifying the Secretary, any official device or any counterfeit, simulated, etc., official certificate, or any device or label bearing any counterfeit, simulated, etc., official mark, and making false representations and statements, and clarified application to brand manufacturers and printers of existing provisions prohibiting the counterfeiting of official marks, labels, or certificates.
Amendment by Pub. L. 90–492 effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Citicorp Indus. Credit, Inc. v. Brock, 483 U.S. 27 (1987).
Citicorp Indus. Credit, Inc. v. Brock, 483 U.S. 27 (1987). “§§ 331 (a)-(d) (adulterated or misbranded food, drugs, and cosmetics); 21 U. S. C. §§ 458 (a)(2)-(4) (adulterated, misbranded, or uninspected poultry products).”
Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Mountaire Farms Inc., 920 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2019). “The Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA") prohibits the sale of poultry that is "adulterated," see 21 U.S.C. § 458 (a)(2), and poultry is deemed "adulterated" under that statute "if it consists .”
United States v. Theodore Mantas & Helmos Food Prod., Inc., 274 F.3d 1127 (7th Cir. 2001). “2 All of this led to federal charges against Mantas and his company for improperly storing adulterated poultry and meat products held for sale in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 458 (a)(3), 461(a), 610(d), and 676(a).”
United States v. LaGrou Distrib. Sys., Inc., 466 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2006). “Based on severe rodent infestation and sanitary problems at a LaGrou Distribution Systems warehouse, LaGrou was con *587 victed of three felony counts: the knowing improper storage of poultry products, 21 U.S.C. §§ 458 (a)(3) and 461(a) (Count Three); the knowing improper .”
Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. McDonald's Corp., 187 Cal. App. 4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “” The Restaurants cited sections of the PPIA prohibiting any person from selling “adulterated” or “misbranded” poultry products ( 21 U.S.C. § 458 (a)(2)) and describing “ ‘misbranded’ ” products as including those with “false or misleading” labeling.”
William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Rusco Indus., Inc., 842 F.2d 270 (11th Cir. 1988). “It is indisputable that a company’s bankrupt status would not override Congress’s insistence on the inspection of poultry or the proper branding of hazardous substances. Because of its concern about public safety, Congress established the inspection and branding of these…”
Swift & Co., Inc., & Armour & Co. v. Don J. Wickham, Comm'r of Agric. & Markets of the State of Newyork, 364 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1966). “Since the federal authorities have rejected a label showing the multiple weights required by New York law, and since the state will not permit the sale of stuffed turkeys absent such a label, at least the seeds of conflict are present.”
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 589 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “, 21 U.S.C. §§ 458 (a), 1037(e); 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (g)(2).”
Hormel Foods Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 808 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 21 U.S.C. § 458 (a)(3). And, again, like the FMIA, the PPIA defines the term “misbranded” to include the three definitions listed above with respect to meat or meat products.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C. H. Cross D/B/A Cross Poultry Co., 346 F.2d 165 (4th Cir. 1965). “See 21 U.S.C.A. § 458 (a). It is conceded that no poultry products produced by the respondent were sold outside North Carolina during the above period.”
Nat'l Broiler Council v. Voss, 44 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 1994). “First, as noted above, it is inconsistent with the use of the term "requirements” in § 459 and elsewhere in § 467e.”
United States v. Helmos Food Prod., Inc. & Theodore Mantas, 407 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2005). “In 2001, we heard the direct appeal of Mantas and Helmos Food from their convictions and sentences for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 458 (a)(3), 461(a), and 676(a)— improperly storing adulterated poultry and meat products held for sale.”
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.