In addition to the First Amendment challenges Prop 37 that we covered yesterday, the opponents of the measure will seek to invalidate the law on the grounds that it is preempted by federal food labeling requirements. Preemption is the constitutional principle that federal law trumps state law. State laws may not conflict with federal laws. Specifically with regard to food labeling, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”) all contain provisions expressly stating that they preempt conflicting state laws.
Opponents of Prop 37 have a strong argument that the law would be preempted by FMIA and PPIA to the extent it would regulate the labeling of meat and poultry products. That is because FMIA and PPIA prohibit state labeling requirements for meat and poultry products “in addition to, or different than” federal requirements. Prop 37 would impose requirements “in addition to [and] different” from federal requirements because it would require labeling of genetically-engineered meat or poultry products whereas no such requirement exists in federal law. In addition, Prop 37 would impose different requirements in direct conflict with federal law in that it would prohibit “natural” claims on minimally-processed meat and poultry products that would be permitted—and could even be pre-approved by USDA—under federal law.
In contrast, Prop 37’s requirements for labeling foods within the ambit of FDCA (nearly everything other than meat and poultry) probably are not preempted. FDCA’s preemption language prohibits state labeling requirements that are “not identical to” federal requirements. In interpreting this provision, courts have held that states may impose labeling requirements addressing issues not regulated by FDA. Because FDA has not regulated the use of “natural” claims, many courts have held that states are free to do so. The same analysis should apply to regulation of genetically-engineered food labels. Because FDA policy does not require nor prohibit disclosures that foods are genetically engineered, Prop 37’s disclosure requirement (with respect to foods other than meat and poultry) should not be preempted.
Nevertheless, challengers may argue that Prop 37 is preempted because it would conflict with FDA ingredient labeling requirements. A recent decision of a federal court in California held that state requirements to disclose of genetically-engineered ingredients are preempted by FDA’s exhaustive regulation of ingredient listings. That decision, however, does not apply to Prop 37 because Prop 37 would not require manufacturers to identify ingredients that were genetically engineered. Rather, Prop 37 would require only a statement on the front or back of a package stating that a food is genetically engineered or has been produced with genetic engineering.
A somewhat better argument for preemption might be that, in requiring manufacturers to identify products as genetically engineered, Prop 37 would cause them to violate FDCA’s prohibition against making misleading claims. The argument would be that a “genetically-engineered” label would mislead consumers into believing that the food is materially different than (and inferior to) a comparable product containing traditional ingredients. While this argument may have some appeal in light of FDA’s position that genetically-engineered foods are no different than their traditional counterparts, FDA has stated (albeit in a draft guidance document) that simple, factual statements of the type Prop 37 would require—that a food is genetically engineered or contains genetically-engineered ingredients—are not likely to be misleading. Although FDA’s guidance on this issue would not be binding on a court, it is some evidence that the agency would not consider the disclosure claims required by Prop 37 to run afoul of FDCA’s prohibitions against misleading claims.
