State-Federal Relations

June 29, 2007

The Honorable Collin Peterson, Chair
House Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member House Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Preemption Language Regarding USDA Inspection

Dear Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte:

On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), I am writing to express NCSL’s strong opposition to Section 123 in Title 1 of the Farm Bill reauthorization provisions passed by the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee. Section 123 is a sweeping preemption of state authority that would prevent states from regulating food safety, protecting public health, ensuring humane treatment of animals, and establishing agricultural policies beneficial to the environment.

The language in Section 123 reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has—inspected or passed; or determined to be of non-regulated status.

States officials are on the front line in responding to threats to public health, sometimes as the first observers of adverse effects from agricultural products. The federal government should continue to embrace and support this important function of state and local government. Particularly with so many recent event—from spinach contamination with salmonella to melamine-contaminated feed being fed to hogs to chickens—calling in to question the safety of our food, state officials, separate and in concert with federal officials must have the ability to protect the health and welfare of their constituents. NCSL asks that this language be stripped from the mark considered by the full Committee.

If this language becomes part of the enacted Farm Bill, it would prevent states from carrying out their responsibilities. For example, states that do their own surveillance of packaged USDA-approved meat and poultry products for listeria could be prevented from prohibiting the sale of any contaminated product, despite the known dangers of such contamination.

This language is so breathtakingly broad that it is possible to imagine scenarios that defy common sense. For example, if the USDA had inspected meat that was in a truck that broke down in the desert, and the meat spoiled, would a state be unable to prevent the sale of that meat since it had passed USDA inspection? It’s hard to believe that it would be the intent of such language, but that could be one way it could be interpreted. This language must be removed in its entirety from further consideration of the Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

Senator Steve Morris
President, Kansas Senate
Chair, NCSL Farm Bill Working Group