Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted largely on preemption grounds. The court reasoned that the United States Department of Agriculture pre-approved the “Products of USA” labels under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. § 601-695, which contains an express preemption provision, 21 U.S.C. § 678. The district court concluded that, since Plaintiffs sought to impose standards on defendants not identical to federal law, the claims were preempted.

Lucero v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 20-0106 (D.N.M., entered August 27, 2020).“Plaintiffs do not seek to impose equivalent requirements as those imposed by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] or to enforce the USDA’s labeling requirements,” the court stated. “Rather, they seek to impose different labeling requirements by asking this Court to declare USDA approved labels misleading. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of 21 USC § 678 would render the express presumption clause a nullity.” The court, holding that all of the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim as a matter of law, dismissed the case with prejudice.LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS & STANDARDSEFSA Sets Tolerable Intake of PFASThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released its assessment of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—a group of chemicals that can be found in food and food packaging—and their potential risks to human health.

The FMIA contains an express preemption clause specifically limiting the states in their ability to govern meat inspection and labeling requirements of any federally inspected establishment. 21 U.S.C. § 678. The preemption clause does not limit states from regulating what types of meat may be sold for human consumption.