Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/519
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 01:08:44
Document Index: 267017453

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 678', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 1451', '§ 403', '§ 1', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 12211', 'Art. 5', '§ 1453', '§ 1460', '§ 1', '§ 1453', '§ 1461', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1461', '§ 1454']

Joseph W. JONES, as Director of the County of Riverside, California, Department of Weights and Measures, Petitioner, v. The RATH PACKING COMPANY et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews Joseph W. JONES, as Director of the County of Riverside, California, Department of Weights and Measures, Petitioner, v. The RATH PACKING COMPANY et al.
430 U.S. 519 (97 S.Ct. 1305, 51 L.Ed.2d 604)
Argued: Dec. 6-7, 1976.
Decided: March 29, 1977.*
[HTML] conc_diss, REHNQUIST, STEWART
[HTML] See 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2201.
2. Although 15 U.S.C. 1461 does not pre-empt § 12211 as implemented by Art. 5, since it appears that the California law is not 'less stringent than' and does not 'require information different from' the FPLA and implementing regulations, nevertheless, with regard to respondent millers' flour, enforcement of § 12211, as implemented by Art. 5, would prevent 'the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581, in passing the FPLA, an impermissible result under the Constitution, and hence the state law must yield to the federal. The goal of the FPLA to facilitate value comparisons among similar products cannot be accomplished unless packages that bear the same indicated weight in fact contain the same quantity of the product for which the consumer is paying. Here packages of flour that meet the federal labeling requirements and that have the same stated quantity of contents can be expected to contain the same amount of flour solids, since variations from stated weight caused by loss of moisture are permitted, whereas as a result of the application of the California standard, which does not permit such variations, consumers who attempt to compare the value of identically labeled packages of flour would not be comparing packages that contain identical amounts of flour solids and hence would be misled. Pp. 532-543.
Petition Jones is Director of the Department of Weights and Measures in Riverside County, Cal.
In that capacity he ordered removed from sale bacon packaged by respondent Rath Packing Co. and flour packaged by three millers, respondents General Mills, Inc., Pillsbury Co., and Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. (hereafter millers). Jones acted after determining, by means of procedures set forth in 4 Cal.Admin.Code c. 8, Art. 5, that the packages were contained inlots
whose average net weight was less than the net weight stated on the packages. The removal orders were authorized by Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 12211 (West Supp. 1977).
They sought both declarations that § 12211 and Art. 5 are preempted by federal laws regulating netweight labeling and injunctions prohibiting Jones from enforcing those provisions. The District Court granted the requested relief
We granted Jones' petition for certiorari, 425 U.S. 933, 96 S.Ct. 1663, 48 L.Ed.2d 174 (1976),
* In its present posture, this litigation contains no claim that the Constitution alone denies California power to enact the challenged provisions.
We are required to decide only whether the federal laws which govern respondents' packing operations preclude California from enforcing § 12211, as implemented by Art. 5.
That procedure requires the inspector to identify a lot of identical packages of a commodity and determine the number of packages in that lot. He then determines, from tables in the regulation, the number of packages necessary to provide a suitable sample of the lot, and a smaller number of packages which is used to determine the average tare.
in the sample and the replacements weighed. Finally, the deviations from the stated weight are totaled algebraically and compared with tables which indicate the magnitude of the total error necessary to conclude that the lot's average weight is or not less than the stated weight.
The federal labeling requirement is imposed by § 7(b) of the FMIA, 81 Stat. 588, 21 U.S.C. 607(b), which commands:
Section 1(n) of the FMIA, 21 U.S.C. 601(n), defines the term 'misbranded.' As relevant here, it provides that meat or a meat product is misbranded
Other sections of the FMIA prohibit dealing in misbranded products, as defined by § 1(n).
Thus, the FMIA, as implemented by statutorily authorized regulations, requires the label of a meat product accurately to indicate the net weight of the contents unless the difference between stated and actual weights is reasonable and results from the specified causes.
A. Rath's bacon is produced at U.S.C. § 678, prohibits the imposition of '(m) arking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under' the Act.
This explicit pre-emption provision dictates the result in the controversy between Jones and Rath. California's use of a statistical sampling process to determine the average net weight of a lot implicitly allows for variations from stated weight caused by unavoidable deviations in the manufacturing process.
Thus, the state law's requirement that the label accurately state the net weight, with implicit allowance only for reasonable manufacturing variations is 'different than' the federal requirement, which permits manufacturing deviations and variations caused by moisture loss during good distribution practice.
Petitioner Jones seeks to avoid this result by arguing that the FMIA's provisions governing the accuracy of the required netquantity statements are not 'labeling requirements' within the meaning of § 408. He contends that 'labeling' refers only to the format and placement of information, not to its content.
Requirements relating to accuracy, according to Jones, deal with the problem of misbranding, and § 408 grants the States concurrent jurisdiction over that subject.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that this argument is 'strained.' 530 F.2d, at 1314 n. 25. Nothing in the Act suggests the restrictive meaning petitioner ascribes to the phrase 'labeling requirements.' To the contrary, § 7(b) requires that the product bear specified information, see supra, at 528-529, and § 1(p) of the FMIA, 21 U.S.C. 601(p),
makes clear that any material bearing that information is part of the product's labeling. It twists the language beyond the breaking point to say that a law mandating that labeling contain certain information is not a 'labeling requirement.'
A. The federal law governing netweight labeling of the millers' flour is contained in two statutes, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), 80 Stat. 1296, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the federal weight-labeling standard for flour is the same as that for meat.
The FDCA prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food
that is misbranded. 21 U.S.C. 331. A food is misbranded under the FDCA,
This provision is identical to the parallel provision in the FMIA, see supra, at 529, except that the FDCA mandates rather than allows the promulgation of implementing regulations.
The regulation issued in response to this statutory mandate is also substantially identical to its counterpart under the FMIA:
Since flour is a food under the FDCA, its manufacture is also subject to the provisions of the FPLA. See 15 U.S.C. 1452, 1459(a). That statute states a congressional policy that '(p)ackages and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons.' § 1451. To accomplish those goals, insofar as is relevant here, the FPLA bans the distribution in commerce of any packaged commodity unless it complies with regulations
The States' argument that the FDCA standard makes no allowance for reasonable variations is based on this Court's opinion in United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 53 S.Ct. 42, 77 L.Ed. 175 (1932). Shreveport decided an appeal by the Government in a criminal case involving shortweighting in violation of the predecessor of the FDCA, the Food and Drugs Act, 34 Stat. 768, as amended, c. 117, 37 Stat. 732. The trial court had dismissed the indictment under that statute, which was essentially identical to the net-weight labeling requirement of the FDCA,
on the ground that the prohibition of unreasonable variations from the marked weight was too indefinite to state a criminal offense. We reversed, holding that the statute's substantive standard was created by the 'accurate statement' language which preceded the proviso allowing reasonable variations, and that the proviso merely granted administrative authority to promulgate regulations permitting variations 'from the hard and fast rule of the act.' 287 U.S., at 81-82, 53 S.Ct., at 43. Since Congress re-enacted the language interpreted by the Shreveport Court, FDCA, c. 675, § 403(e), 52 Stat. 1047, Amici conclude that the standard under the FDCA is also a 'hard and fast rule.'
We need not decide whether the rationale as well as the result of Shreveport remains good law.
It is clear that 21 CFR § 1.8b(q) (1976), insofar as it is based on the FDCA, has the force of law
and allows reasonable variations. Thus, whether the statutory standard is viewed as strict, with the regulation considered a restriction on the power to prosecute, or whether the standard is itself viewed as incorporating the flexibility of the proviso and its implementing regulation,
the result is the same. Under the FDCA, reasonable variations from the stated net weight do not subject a miller to prosecution, whether civil or criminal, if the variations arise from the permitted causes. The question raised by the arguments of amici is whether by enacting the FPLA, Congress intended to eliminate the area of freedom from prosecution created by the FDCA and its implementing regulation.
Over 60 years ago, Congress concluded that variations must be allowed because of the nature of certain foods and the impossibility of developing completely accurate means of packing. H.R.Rep.No.850, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1912); S.Rep.No.1216, 62d Cong., 3d Sess., 2-3 (1913).
Since 1914, regulations under the food and drug laws have permitted reasonable variations from stated net weight resulting from packing deviations or gain or loss of moisture occurring despite good commercial practice. See United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., supra, 287 U.S., at 84, 53 S.Ct., at 44. If Congress had intended to overrule this longstanding administrative practice, founded on a legislative statement of necessity, we would expect it to have done so clearly. Instead, it explicitly preserved existing law, with 'no changes.' 15 U.S.C. 1460; S.Rep.No.1186, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 20 (1966). The legislative history of the FPLA contains some indication that the saving clause was understood to preserve the reasonable-variation regulation under the FDLA contains some indication that the saving clause was understood to perserve the reasonable-variation regulation under the FDCA,
and no evidence that Congress affirmatively intended to overrule that regulation.
We can only conclude that under the FPLA, as under the FDCA, a manufacturer of food is not subject to enforcement action for violation of the net-weight labeling requirements if the label accurately states the net weight, with allowance for the specified reasonable variations.
'it is the express intent of Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political subdvisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide for the labeling of the net qua(nt)ity of contents of the package of any consumer commodity covered by this chapter which are less stringent than or require information different from the requirements of section 1453 of this title or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.' 15 U.S.C. 1461.
We have some doubt that by pre-empting less stringent state laws, Congress intended to compel the States to expend scarce enforcement resources to prevent the sale of packages which contain more than the stated net weight. We do not have to reach that question, however, because in this respect California law apparently differs not at all from federal law, as applied. The inspectors responsible for enforcing the netweight labeling provisions of the Federal acts are officially informed that '(f)ield weighing for net weight is primarily to determine the likelihood of short weight units in the lots.' Moreover, they are not required to submit samples to headquarters 'if the average net is not below the amount declared on the label.' Food and Drug Administration, Inspection Operations Manual 448.1, 448.13 (1976). These instructions undercut the argument that there is a federal interest in preventing packages from being overfilled.
Since neither jurisdiction is concerned with overweighting in the administration of its weights and measures laws, we cannot say that California's statutory lack of concern for that 'problem'
makes its laws less stringent than the federal.
Respondents argue that California's law is pre-empted because it requires information different from that required by federal law. The meaning of the statutory pre-emption of laws that require 'information different from' the federal net-weight labeling provisions, like the meaning of the phrase 'less stringent,' is unclear. Respondents attribute to the ban on requiring different information a broad meaning, similar in scope to the pre-emption provision of the FMIA. They contend that since California law requires the label to state the minimum net weight, it requires 'information different from' the federal laws, which demand an accurate statement with allowance for the specified reasonable variations. Brief for Respondents 31-32. The legislative history, however, suggests that the statute expressly pre-empts as requiring 'different information' only state laws governing net quantity labeling which impose requirements inconsistent with those imposed by federal law.
Since it would be possible to comply with the state law without triggering federal enforcement action we conclude that the state requirement is not inconsistent with federal law. We therefore hold that 15 U.S.C. 1461 does not pre-empt California's § 12211 as implemented by Art. 5.
Flour is composed of flour solids and moisture. The average water content of wheat kernels used to make flour is 12.5% by weight, with a range from 10% to 14.5%. Efficient milling practice requires adding water to raise the moisture content to 15% to 16%; if the wheat is too wet or too dry, milling will be hindered. During milling, the moisture content is reduced to 13% to 14%. App. 28-29.
The moisture content of flour does not remain constant after milling is completed. If the relative humidity of the atmosphere in which it is stored is greater than 60%, flour will gain moisture, and if the humidity is less than 60%, it will lose moisture.
The federal net-weight labeling standard permits variations from stated weight caused by this gain or loss of moisture.
Packages that meet the federal labeling requirements
and that have the same stated quantity of contents can be expected to contain the same amount of flour solids.
Manufacturers will produce flour with a moisture content fixed by the requirements of the milling process.
Since manufacturers have reason not to pack significantly more than is required and federal law prohibits underpacking, they will pack the same amount of this similarly composed flour into packages of any given size.
Despite any changes in weight resulting from changes in moisture content during distribution, the packages will contain the same amount of flour solids when they reach the consumer. This identity of contents facilitates consumer value comparisons.
The State's refusal to permit reasonable weight variations resulting from loss of moisture during distribution produces a different effect.
In order to be certain of meeting the California standard, a miller must ensure that loss of moisture during distribution will not bring the weight of the contents below the stated weight. Local millers, which serve a limited area, could do so by adjusting their packing practices to the specific humidity conditions of their region. For example, a miller in an area where the humidity is typically higher than 60% would not need to overpack at all. By contrast, a miller with a national marketing area would not know the destination of its flour when it was packaged and would therefore have to assume that the flour would lose weight during distribution. The national manufacturer, therefore, would have to overpack.
I agree that with respect to Rath's packaged bacon, § 12211 of the Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code and Art. 5 of 4 Cal. Admin. Code, c. 8, are pre-empted by the express pre-emptive provision of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 678. I also agree that with respect to General Mills' flour, § 12211 and Art. 5 are not pre-empted by the express pre-emptive provision of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), 15 U.S.C. 1461. I am unable to agree, however, with the implicit pre-emption the Court finds with respect to the flour. This latter pre-emption is founded in unwarranted speculations that hardly rise to that clear demonstration of conflict that must exist before the mere existence of a federal law may be said to pre-empt state law operating in the same field.
With respect to labeling requirements for flour under the scheme contemplated by the FPLA in conjunction with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Court determines that the state-law labeling requirements are neither 'less stringent than' nor inconsistent with those federal requirements. This conclusion quite properly dictates the Court's holding that Congress has not expressly prohibited state regulation in this field. The remaining inquiry, then, is whether the two statutory schemes are in utter conflict.
As this Court noted in Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S. 1, 10, 58 S.Ct. 87, 92, 82 L.Ed. 3 (1937):
The Court's opinion demonstrates that it is physically possible to comply with the state-law requirement 'without triggering federal enforcement action,' ante, at 540. This leads the Court to conclude that the 'state requirement is not inconsistent with federal law.' Ibid. It also must lead to the conclusion that this is not a case 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility for one engaged in interstate commerce.' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Pre-emption, then, if it is to exist at all in this case, must exist because the operation of the state Act inexorably conflicts with the purposes underlying the Federal Act. The Court relies on the fact that one of the purposes of the EPLA is to 'facilitate value comparisons' among consumers, 15 U.S.C. 1451. But merely identifying a purpose is not enough; it must also be shown that the state law inevitably frustrates that purpose. As we but recently noted:
The Court's reliance on supposition and inference fails in two respects to demonstrate that respondents have carried their burden of demonstrating pre-emption. First, on the Court's own premises, there should be no finding of pre-emption. We are told, ante, at 526, that the relevant inquiry is 'the relationship between state and federal laws as they are interpreted and applied, not merely as they are written,' while we are further told, ante, at 539, that there is, in fact, no 'federal interest in preventing packages from being overfilled,' since the Federal Government is not 'concerned with overweighting in the administration of its weights and measures laws . . ..' Under these premises, it is hard to accept the Court's conclusion that, because of the federal purpose to facilitate consumer value comparisons,
the state law is pre-empted because some packages might contain more than the minimum weight stated and more than another company's similarly marked package. For, we have been told that, should a manufacturer deliberately overpack, for whatever reason,
there will be no federal action taken against him even though value comparisons might then 'be misleading.' It is virtually impossible to say, as the Court does, that 'neither the State nor the Federal Government is concerned with over weighting,' ante, at 542 n. 41, and yet conclude that state-induced overweighting conflicts with a 'value comparison' purpose, while, presumably, other overweighting does not. In viewing such a purpose to be sufficient to require pre-emption while the very purpose is ignored in practice by the administering federal agency reverses the normal presumption against finding pre-emption. The reasoning process which leads the Court to conclude that there is no express pre-emption, ante, at 540, leads me to conclude that there is no implied pre-emption.
Similarly defective is the reasoning process by which the majority concludes that local millers could adjust their packaging practices to specific humidity conditions, while national millers could not, since the national millers 'would not know the destination of (their) flour when it was packaged and would therefore have to assume that the flour would lose weight during distribution.' Ante, at 543. This assumption, too, is unsupported by the record.
We simply have no basis for concluding that national distributors do not know, or could not know through the exertion of some modicum of effort, where their flour will end up. The possibility that a packer might have to incur some extra expense in meeting both systems simply does not mean that the 'purposes of the act cannot otherwise be accomplished,' Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S., at 533, 32 S.Ct., at 726, nor does it demonstrate that 'the two acts cannot 'be reconciled . . .," Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S., at 10,
58 S.Ct., at 92.
The Court today demonstrates only that there could be not that there must be a conflict between state and federal laws.
Because reliance on this test to find pre-emtion, absent an explicit pre-emptive clause, seriously misapprehends the carefully delimited nature of the doctrine of pre-emption, Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S., at 554, 93 S.Ct., at 2308. I dissent from the holding that § 12211 and Art. 5 are pre-empted with respect to General Mills' flour.
Rath's argument that 21 U.S.C. 607(b) limits enforcement of the accuracy requirement to the time meat or meat food products leave the processing plant was rejected by the District Court, 357 F.Supp., at 532, as were the millers' contentions that California's inspection laws unreasonably burden interstate commerce and deny manufacturers due process of law. See General Mills, Inc. v. Jones, supra, at 1322-1323.
21 U.S.C. 607(d), 610(b).
Flour is a food within the coverage of the Act. See 21 U.S.C. 321(f).
It is clear from reading the legislative history that Congress did not intend to alter the FDCA's standard of accuracy when it passed the FPLA's requirement that a separate and accurate statement of net quantity appear in a uniform location on package labels. 15 U.S.C. 1453(a)(2). See, e. g., H.R.Rep.No.2076, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 20 (1966) (chart indicating that only change from FDCA effected by provision which became § 1453 is imposition of location requirement).
Since we have held that 15 U.S.C. 1453, read in conjunction with § 1460 and the FDCA, permits reasonable variations, we conclude that 21 CFR § 1.8b(q) (1976) properly relies on § 1453 as authority for its promulgation. Thus, § 1461 pre-empts state laws which 'are less stringent than or require informationdifferent from' § 1.8b(q). We need not consider respondents' contention, Brief for Respondents 30, that § 1.8b(q) is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1454(b), nor need we decide whether § 1461 would affect state laws less stringent than or different from regulations authorized by § 1454.
The language of 15 U.S.C. 1461 was contained in the House bill. The Senate bill, by contrast, provided for pre-emption of state requirements which 'differ from' those in the FPLA. S.Rep.No.1186, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 38 n1966), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, p. 4069. The language accepted by the Hosue was adopted by the conference committee, along with the House committee's explanation that 'preemption would take place to the extent that 'State laws or State regulations with respect to the labeling of net quantity of contents of packages impose inconsistent or less stringent requirements than are imposed under section 4 of this legislation." H.R.Rep.No.2286, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 11 (1966).
This purposes is not the only purpose underlying the Federal Act. Title 15 U.S.C. 1451 also announces the congressional policy of labeling packages so as to 'enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents . . ..'
On its face, there is nothing inexorable about a conflict between a statute which, in effect, imposes a minimum weight requirement, and one whose purpose is to 'enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and (to) facilitate value comparisons.' 15 U.S.C. 1451.