United States v. Tuente Livestock
1995 WL 348188, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7941, 888 F. Supp. 1416 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Chevron framework, an agency's long-standing, permissible interpretation of an ambiguous statute is entitled to deference; therefore, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's definition of 'food' can be interpreted to include live animals intended for slaughter.
Facts:
- Tuente Livestock, operated by Ronald and Roger Tuente, is a business that buys live hogs from producers (farmers) and sells them to slaughterhouses.
- In 1987, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notified the Tuentes that swine they sold had tested for illegal drug residues and recommended they implement safety procedures, such as obtaining guarantees from producers.
- FDA inspections in 1987, 1992, and 1993 revealed that the Tuentes had not implemented procedures to ensure the hogs were free from illegal drug residues, nor did they have an adequate system to identify the original producers.
- Between November 1988 and December 1993, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified the Tuentes on at least twelve occasions that swine they offered for slaughter were found to have above-tolerance sulfamethazine residues.
- Between July 1992 and December 1993, the USDA confirmed that at least nine hogs supplied by the Tuentes contained illegal residues of the animal drug sulfamethazine in their edible tissues after slaughter.
- The Tuentes themselves do not administer sulfamethazine or any other drugs to the hogs they purchase and sell.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States, on behalf of the FDA, sued Tuente Livestock and its owners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The government sought an injunction to prevent the Tuentes from operating their business unless they implemented measures to ensure their hogs were not adulterated.
- The Tuentes filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, arguing that live swine are not 'food' under the statute and that they do not 'introduce' them into interstate commerce.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, does the term 'food' include live swine intended for slaughter, and does the prohibition against the 'introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce' of adulterated food apply to middlemen who purchase animals from producers and sell them to slaughterhouses?
Opinions:
Majority - Rice, District Judge
Yes. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's definition of 'food' can include live swine intended for slaughter, and the Act's prohibitions can apply to middlemen. The court applied the two-step Chevron deference framework. First, it found the statutory definition of 'food'—'articles used for food'—to be circular and ambiguous, as Congress had not directly addressed whether live animals are included. Second, the court determined the FDA's interpretation was permissible and worthy of deference. The court found that this was not a mere litigating position but a long-standing agency practice, evidenced by congressional hearing testimony from 1971 showing the FDA had been taking enforcement actions against producers of live animals for decades. The interpretation is permissible because the Act's purpose is to stop adulteration at its source. Since contamination can occur on the farm before slaughter, it is reasonable for the FDA to regulate the live animal to fulfill the statute's intent. Regarding the 'introduction' into commerce, the court reasoned that the Act's 'guaranty defense' (21 U.S.C. § 333(c)), which protects a party who received an adulterated article from another, implies that middlemen, not just the original introducer, can be held liable under § 331(a).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the FDA's broad regulatory authority under the FDCA by applying Chevron deference to a long-standing agency interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term. It affirms that the agency's reach extends to the very beginning of the food supply chain, including live animals, not just processed products. This precedent empowers the FDA to hold intermediaries accountable for the safety of the products they handle, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The ruling emphasizes a preventative approach to food safety, focusing on responsibility throughout the entire chain of commerce rather than just at the point of origin or final sale.
