The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) impose requirements on meat producers with the goals of preventing adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products from being sold and ensuring that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. To promote uniformity of requirements across the country, each act contains an express preemption provision that prohibits states from imposing requirements that "are in addition to, or different than those" imposed by federal law.1

In Del Real, LLC v. Harris,2 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed an injunction that prevents the state of California from enforcing its statutory prohibition against "nonfunctional slack fill"—i.e., empty space between a product and its packaging that does not serve any statutorily specified purpose.

The FMIA and PPIA prohibit "misleading" fill, but both acts leave it to the Secretary of Agriculture to decide whether and how to specifically regulate in this area. While other federal laws limit the use of nonfunctional slack fill in various products, the Secretary of Agriculture has not promulgated similar regulations for meat and poultry. California argued that its prohibition against nonfunctional slack fill was not "in addition to, or different than" the FMIA and PPIA's prohibition against "misleading" fill, relying on the other federal prohibitions against nonfunctional slack fill as support.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. First, the court concluded that California's specific regulation of slack fill undermined Congress's goal of national uniformity in packaging standards. Second, the court read the FMIA and PPIA's grant of discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture on whether to regulate fill standards as evidence of Congress' intention to allow meat and poultry packaging to be subject to less specific regulation than other types of product packaging. Because California's specific prohibition conflicted with this intention, it was preempted.


1 21 U.S.C. §§ 467e, 678.
--- F. App'x. ----, 2016 WL 611630, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2016).

Originally published on February 26, 2016

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2016. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.