ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

21 U.S.C. § 467eNon-Federal jurisdiction of federally regulated matters; prohibition of additional or different requirements for establishments with inspection services and as to marking, labeling, packaging, and ingredients; recordkeeping and related requirements; concurrent jurisdiction over distribution for human food purposes of adulterated or misbranded and imported articles; other matters

submitted 58 years ago by Pub. L. 85-172 to r/title-21-FOOD-AND-DRUGS · 263 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

States can't impose extra or different rules than federal law on inspected poultry plants. States may add their own recordkeeping rules if those match federal ones. States can still act against adulterated or misbranded poultry sold outside such plants.

This section limits what states can require of poultry plants. The federal government already inspects these plants. States here include territories and the District of Columbia. A state cannot add extra rules for an "official establishment." These are the plant's premises, facilities, and operations. The state cannot go beyond what federal law already sets. There is one exception. A state may add its own recordkeeping rules. Those rules must match the federal rules in section 460(b). The same limit covers marking, labeling, packaging, and ingredient rules. It also covers storage and handling rules. This applies when the Secretary finds a rule would block the free flow of poultry products in commerce. States cannot add or change these rules for products from an official establishment. That establishment must already follow federal requirements. States still have some power, though. A state may act alongside the Secretary over inspected products. The purpose is to stop sales of adulterated or misbranded products as human food. This applies once a product leaves the official establishment. It also applies to imported products once they enter the United States. Finally, this chapter does not stop a state from regulating other poultry matters. The state's rules must stay consistent with this chapter.

facts

- Codified at 21 U.S.C. § 467e, part of the poultry products inspection chapter of Title 21. - Enacted as § 23 of Pub. L. 85–172, added by Pub. L. 90–492, § 17, on August 18, 1968 (82 Stat. 807). - The provision's text spans 263 words. - Source credit reflects a single statutory reference (Pub. L. 90–492 amending Pub. L. 85–172). - Metadata indicates 2 amendments have been made to this section since enactment.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

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.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 85–172, § 23, as added Pub. L. 90–492, § 17, Aug. 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 807.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1968Enacted · Pub. L. 85-172 · 82 Stat. 807
The record According to the source credit, this section was added to Public Law 85–172 (the original enacting act) by section 17 of Public Law 90–492, dated August 18, 1968, and codified at 82 Stat. 807. The source credit does not indicate that the provision has been separately amended since its addition in 1968; the amendment count reflects the layered structure of the original act and its 1968 addition rather than subsequent revision. Historical context Public Law 85–172 is the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and Public Law 90–492 is generally understood to be the 1968 legislation that substantially strengthened that Act's federal inspection framework, including provisions addressing the relationship between federal and state regulation of poultry products. The broader legislative period—coinciding with parallel reforms to meat inspection law in the late 1960s—is commonly associated with congressional concern that inconsistent or weaker state inspection standards could undermine a uniform national system of poultry safety and permit unevenly regulated products into interstate commerce. Within that general understanding, provisions of this kind are often described as intended to establish federal preemption over core inspection, facility, and labeling requirements at federally inspected establishments, while preserving limited state authority in specific areas such as recordkeeping and post-distribution enforcement against adulterated or misbranded products. Beyond this general historical understanding of the 1968 Act's purposes, the record does not establish the specific legislative reasoning behind this particular section's drafting, and no further detail should be inferred.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case