Meat and meat food products are an important source of the Nation’s total supply of food. They are consumed throughout the Nation and the major portion thereof moves in interstate or foreign commerce. It is essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that meat and meat food products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. Unwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded meat or meat food products impair the effective regulation of meat and meat food products in interstate or foreign commerce, are injurious to the public welfare, destroy markets for wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged meat and meat food products, and result in sundry losses to livestock producers and processors of meat and meat food products, as well as injury to consumers. The unwholesome, adulterated, mislabeled, or deceptively packaged articles can be sold at lower prices and compete unfairly with the wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged articles, to the detriment of consumers and the public generally. It is hereby found that all articles and animals which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce, and that regulation by the Secretary and cooperation by the States and other jurisdictions as contemplated by this chapter are appropriate to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce, to effectively regulate such commerce, and to protect the health and welfare of consumers.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Rudolph George Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “It is true that the statement of congressional findings at 21 U.S.C. § 602 includes concerns about the effects of unwholesome meat on competition and markets.”
Am. Meat Inst. v. Leeman, 180 Cal. App. 4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “4 ( 21 U.S.C. § 602 .) As Congress explained, the FMIA was enacted because “[i]t is essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that meat and meat food products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and…”
Chicago-Midwest Meat Ass'n v. City of Evanston, 589 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 3× “21 U.S.C. § 602 . Yet to promote the dual goals of consumer protection and localized regulation of meat purity, Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with the states in developing and administering state meat inspection programs with requirements that are…”
Munsell v. Dep't of Agric., 509 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
“” 21 U.S.C. § 602 . The Act directs USDA to inspect the sanitary conditions of meat processing plants and to “prescribe the rules and regulations of sanitation under which these establishments [are] maintained.”
Empacadora De Carnes De Fresnillo, S.A. De C v. v. Curry, 476 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2007).
“” 21 U.S.C. § 602 . Chapter 149 prohibits a certain type of meat from ever getting to consumers, but the slaughterhouses advance no argument *335 that it increases the risk of having adulterated or mislabeled meat reach consumers.”
Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003).
“Significantly, the very purpose of the FMIA and the FFDCA, the statutes which Baur alleges the USDA has violated, is to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply and to minimize the risk to public health from potentially dangerous food and drug products.”
Est. of Kriefall Ex Rel. Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2003 WI App 119 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “It is essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that meat and meat food products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.”
Moyer Packing Co. v. United States, 567 F. Supp. 2d 737 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 21 U.S.C. § 602 . Thus, Defendant argues that it did not engage in its inspection duties to benefit Plaintiff, but rather that its duty to inspect carcasses flowed only to the public.”
Nat'l Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Section 599f also isn’t an obstacle to accomplishing the purposes of the FMIA.”
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.