Requirements within the scope of this chapter with respect to premises, facilities and operations of any official establishment which are 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, except that any such jurisdiction may impose recordkeeping and other requirements within the scope of paragraph (b) of section 460 of this title, if consistent therewith, with respect to any such establishment. Marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements (or storage or handling requirements found by the Secretary to unduly interfere with the free flow of poultry products in commerce) 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 with respect to articles prepared at any official establishment in accordance with the requirements under this chapter, but any State or Territory or the District of Columbia may, consistent with the requirements under this chapter exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Secretary over articles required to be inspected under this chapter for the purpose of preventing the distribution for human food purposes of any such articles which are adulterated or misbranded and are outside of such an establishment, or, in the case of imported articles which are not at such an establishment, after their entry into the United States. This chapter shall not preclude any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from making requirement or taking other action, consistent with this chapter, with respect to any other matters regulated under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Christina Webb v. Trader Joe's Co., 999 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 6× “21 U.S.C. § 467e. The panel held that plaintiff’s state law claims were preempted because they sought to impose the requirements of plaintiff’s retained water protocol in addition to Trader Joe’s FSIS-required protocol.”
Ass'n Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Québec v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” 21 U.S.C. § 467e (emphasis added). At issue here is whether California’s ban on products made by force-feeding birds constitutes an “ingredient requirement” under the'PPIA’s'pre-emption clause.”
Robert Cohen v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 16 F.4th 1283 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “A plaintiff who brings a state law claim that the approved label is false or misleading is seeking to impose a requirement different from the federal requirements, and that state law claim is preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 467e, which bars plaintiffs from challenging the agency’s…”
La Vigne v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 284 F. Supp. 3d 496 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" Alternatively, if a product contains between 50% and 79% chicken and between 21% and 50% liquid, the product name must specify the percentage of liquid it contains. The PPIA contains a preemption clause that expressly preempts states from imposing "[m]arking, labeling,…”
Ass'n Des Eleveurs v. Rob Bonta, 33 F.4th 1107 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See 21 U.S.C. § 467e. Both questions turn on the sellers’ assertion that it is physically impossible to produce foie gras without force feeding.”
Timothy A. Rogers, Wendy A. Rogers, & Alan Westfall, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The district court denied the motion to remand, basing its decision on the PPIA’s preemption clause, 21 U.S.C. § 467e. Section 467e declares that “[mjarking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements (or storage or handling requirements found by the Secretary to unduly…”
Tyrrell v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2016 MT 126 (Mont. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” Seizing on the statute’s subsequent language that allows for “concurrent jurisdiction” with the several States, the Court persists that this language grants state courts personal jurisdiction.”
Phelps v. Hormel Foods Corp., 244 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 457 ; see also ConAgra, 2010 WL 2867393 , at *6. Both PPIA and FMIA contain a preemption clause that states in relevant part: “Marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements .”
Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. Sorrell, 102 F. Supp. 3d 583 (D. Vt. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 678 (FMIA); 21 U.S.C. § 467e (PPIA)). Specifically, the FMIA requires certain mandatory marking and labeling for “meat food products” and- provides: “Marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under this chapter may…”
Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (D. Ariz. 2018).
“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, labeling, packaging, or ingredients that…”
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.