Opinion ID: 606336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ppia section 451

Text: 71 In describing the statutory structure in which Congress placed same in section 466(d), the majority ignores an argument that contravenes its decision. In 21 U.S.C. § 451, Congress bases the entire PPIA on its finding that [u]nwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded poultry products hurt people and destroy markets for poultry. In my Part II analysis of the policy implications of section 466(d), I explain that the Secretary's interpretation of same to mean equivalent results in wholesomeness, absence-of-adulteration, and proper-marking qualities which meet or better the results of an identicality standard. See Part II.B., infra. 11 In fact, the only result of substituting an identicality standard for the Secretary's equivalence standard is to erect a trade barrier, as the majority recognizes. See Maj. Op. at 1365. 72 While the majority claims to strictly adhere to the principle that words take their purport from the setting in which they are used, see id. Maj. Op. at 1363 (quoting King v. St. Vincent's Hosp., --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 570, 574, 116 L.Ed.2d 578 (1991)), it ignores the fact that section 466(d) appears in a poultry-inspection act which is expressly based upon Congress' exclusive finding that unwholesome, adulterated, and misbranded poultry must be eliminated to protect people and poultry markets. 21 U.S.C. § 451. Where is the majority's explanation of how an identicality standard is consistent with section 451? 73 My analysis of the extant structural arguments shows that the ones relied upon by the majority are inconclusive, and the section 451 argument indicates that Congress did not choose identicality. Thus, even under the majority's understanding of make[s] some sense, the Secretary's interpretation of same is entitled to deference under Boston & Maine. See --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1402. And although Boston & Me. renders analysis of the legislative history and policy of section 466(d) unnecessary, these considerations confirm that Congress did not choose between identicality and equivalence in enacting section 466(d). So I do not stop with statutory text.