The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • House GOP Calls on Dems to Release Proposed Budget as Maine’s Legislative Session Nears End
  • Linneus Man Becomes 20th Sentenced in Northern Maine Drug Trafficking Ring
  • “Student Wage” Proposal Rejected Along Nearly Partisan Lines in Augusta
  • Constitutional Amendment Targeting Maine’s Repeated Use of Special Legislative Sessions Fails
  • Democrat Judiciary Chairs Deny Bills to Repeal 72-hour Waiting Period for Gun Purchases Floor Votes or Debate
  • Heritage Foundation Sues Janet Mills For Allegedly Violating FOAA, Failing to Turn Over Docs on Her Position on Trans Sports Spat with Feds
  • MDEA and Washington County Sheriff Arrest 11 in Two Raids on Thursday that Net Fentanyl, Cocaine and Meth
  • Alleged Salvadoran Terrorist Wanted by Interpol for Murder Arrested in Maine
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Sunday, June 1
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Commentary » Maine’s food sovereignty law needs tweaking
Commentary

Maine’s food sovereignty law needs tweaking

Ben HartwellBy Ben HartwellSeptember 25, 2017Updated:September 25, 2017No Comments4 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

If you have been paying attention to the happenings in Augusta, you have probably heard about the food sovereignty bill that passed during the 128th Legislature. This bill allows municipalities to develop local food ordinances that permit food to be produced and sold in the same municipality without state oversight.

This fixed a dilemma that was caused by municipalities passing these types of ordinances without a state statute allowing them to do so. It’s important to understand that, like it or not, municipalities are essentially an arm of the State.  The food sovereignty ordinances that were previously passed really didn’t mean anything, they only had the right to make those decisions if the State of Maine allowed it. LD 725 fixed this conflict. As with most things done by legislation, we are now seeing unintended consequences of passage.

What was not foreseen in this bill was the consequences of the Federal and State relationship surrounding meat processing. There are essentially three types of meat inspection: Federal Inspection, State Inspection, and Custom Exempt.

Federally inspected meat has a USDA inspector present for the slaughter of the animal, inspects the facility and inspects the meat that has been processed. Federally inspected meat puts a USDA stamp on the carcass, a USDA seal on the label and then the meat can be sold anywhere; including over State lines (interstate commerce).

State inspected meat has a State inspector instead of a USDA inspector present for slaughter, inspects the facility and inspects the meat that has been processed. State inspected meat has a State of Maine stamp on the carcass and a State of Maine seal on the labels, State inspected meat is only allowed to be sold in Maine (intrastate commerce).

Custom Exempt facilities are inspected by the State of Maine, but an inspector is not present for slaughter and the processed meat itself is not inspected. Meat processed in a custom exempt facility is stamped on the package “Not For Resale.” Custom exempt is common when a person purchases a side of beef from a farmer, and then pays the butcher to process that meat to put in their own freezer. That meat is not allowed to be sold.

The food sovereignty bill, as currently written, would allow the meat processed in a custom exempt facility to be sold retail in the municipality it was produced in. This is why Governor LePage is calling for an amendment to LD 725. Because of this, the USDA is threatening to take control of all meat and poultry slaughter and processing in Maine. Most readers here likely realize that the federal government is too large and too involved in our lives, but case law has brought us to where we are today and all State and local laws involving meat processing are superseded by federal law and regulations.

If custom exempt meat and State inspected meat doesn’t involve interstate commerce, why can the USDA do this? The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the constitution has been broadly interpreted since Wickard v. Filburn to allow even things that substantially effect interstate commerce (even through unintentional aggregation) to be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the constitution enables the federal government to have power over meat inspection through federal law and regulations.

The Maine Meat and Poultry Inspection program operates under a “cooperative agreement” with the federal government. This means that we are allowed to have our own State inspection program as long as our rules are equal to or greater than the USDA rules and regulations. Another component of the cooperative agreement is funding The Maine Meat and Poultry Inspection program. The USDA requires a consistent set of rules throughout the State, local control does not satisfy this requirement.

What will happen if we take no action before LD 725 goes into effect? The USDA will take control of all facilities that are currently under State oversight. Many of these facilities will not be able to come into compliance. Products that are found to be improper during inspection will be seized. This would be an incredible step backwards for the local food movement that Maine has been working hard to build.

If LD 725 goes into effect this November without an amendment made during a special legislative session, it will be farmers who get caught in the crossfire.

agriculture Commentary Featured food sovereignty US Department of Agriculture
Previous ArticleUnlawful rental registries: Coming soon to a city near you
Next Article Is there a cure for spinal frailty in Republicans?
Ben Hartwell

Ben Hartwell is a 2019 graduate of the University of Maine School of Law and an associate at The Law Office of Bruce W. Helper. He raises grass-fed beef in Gorham, where he also serves as town councilor.

Subscribe to Substack

Related Posts

Maine Needs New Leadership for Immigration, Education, Safety, and Voter Integrity: Poliquin

May 30, 2025

‘Thinking About’ Running For Office In Maine? Either Do It Or Don’t, but Dithering Impresses No One

May 29, 2025

Why Are Maine’s New License Plates Being Made in Canada?

May 28, 2025

Leave A Reply

Subscribe to Substack
Recent News

House GOP Calls on Dems to Release Proposed Budget as Maine’s Legislative Session Nears End

June 1, 2025

Linneus Man Becomes 20th Sentenced in Northern Maine Drug Trafficking Ring

June 1, 2025

“Student Wage” Proposal Rejected Along Nearly Partisan Lines in Augusta

May 31, 2025

Constitutional Amendment Targeting Maine’s Repeated Use of Special Legislative Sessions Fails

May 31, 2025

Democrat Judiciary Chairs Deny Bills to Repeal 72-hour Waiting Period for Gun Purchases Floor Votes or Debate

May 31, 2025
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.