The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Maine Wire TV: Gary Drinkwater and Heidi Sampson on School Vaccine Mandates and Education Reform
  • Question A Helps Fix the Mess Socialists Made in Portland
  • Pro-Life Group Thinks Mills’ Late-Term Abortion Bill Lacks Votes to Pass
  • House Dems Vote Against Letting Healthcare Workers Who Refused COVID-19 Jabs Return to Jobs
  • Portland Police Seize 67 Grams of Fentanyl in Arrest
  • NYC Mayor Says City Considering Housing Asylum Seekers in ‘Private Residences’
  • Notorious Cold War Spy Dies In Prison
  • Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows Claims Credible Threat Made Against Her Life on Social Media
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Wednesday, June 7
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » 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.

Related Posts

Question A Helps Fix the Mess Socialists Made in Portland

June 6, 2023

Flashback: BlackRock CEO Says Investment Firm Forces Companies to Change Behavior on Diversity with Threats of Impacts to Compensation

June 5, 2023

Democrats, Inequity, and Exclusion: Desjardin

June 5, 2023

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Maine Wire TV: Gary Drinkwater and Heidi Sampson on School Vaccine Mandates and Education Reform

June 6, 2023

Question A Helps Fix the Mess Socialists Made in Portland

June 6, 2023

Pro-Life Group Thinks Mills’ Late-Term Abortion Bill Lacks Votes to Pass

June 6, 2023

House Dems Vote Against Letting Healthcare Workers Who Refused COVID-19 Jabs Return to Jobs

June 6, 2023

Portland Police Seize 67 Grams of Fentanyl in Arrest

June 6, 2023
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.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.