AUSTIN,~.TEXAU
November 25, 1959
J. E. Peavy, M. D. Opinion No. WW-747
Commissioner of Health
State Departmen,;of Health Re: Questions relating to
Austin, Texas the program of meat in-
spection under the pro-
visions of the Meat In-
spection Law, Article
4476-3, Vernon's Civil
Dear Dr. Peavy: Statutes.
You have requested an opinion of this office on
seven questions relative to the legality of a meat inspec-
tion program contemplated by your department. Each ques-
tion will be stated and answered individually.
Question No. 1: "Would a City pass-
ing an orc?lnanceas outlined in Sec-
tion 12 of the Meat Inspection Law
and providing the necessary facili-
ties for inspection be required to
include noultry and rabbits as a
of thei~rmeat inspection program?Fart
Section 3, Article 4476-3, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
as amended by Acts 55th Legislature 1957, chapter 32, page
68, provides in part as follows:
"(a) Meat Product: Any edible part
of the carcass of any cattle, calf, sheep,
swine, goat, poultry, or domestic rabbit which
is not manufactured, cured, smoked, processed,
or otherwise treated. As used in this Act,
the word 'poultry' means any slaughtered domes-
ticated bird or commercially-produced game bird.
"(b) Meat Food Product: Any article of
food or any article which enters into the compo-
sition of food for human consumption, which is
derived or prepared in whole or in part from
any portion of the carcass of any cattle, calf,
goat, poultry, or domestic rabbit,
sheep, swi~~ne,
if such portjon is all or a considerable and
definite portion of the article, except such
J. E. Peavy, M.D., page 2 (WW-747)
articles as organotherapeutic substance,
meat juice, meat extract, and the like,
which are only for medicinal purposes and
are advertised only to the medical profes-
sion.
"(c) Meat and Products: Carcass,
parts of carcass, meat, products, focd
products, meat products, and meat food
products, of or derived from cattle, calf
sheep, swine, goats, poultry, and domestic
rabbits, which $re capable of being used
as food by man.
Section 12, Article 4476-3, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
provides:
"The governing body of any city in the
State of Texas may make mandatory the pro-
visions of this Act and the inspection and
labeling of meat and meat food products pro-
duced, sold, or offered for sale within their
respective jurisdictions by adopting any ordi-
nance to that effect and by providing the neces-
sary facilities for inspection and for the en-
forcement of this Act.
"Any city adopting any specifications and
regulations as a basis for issuing any permit
for the use of the 'Texas State Approved Meat
for Human Food' label on meat and meat food pro-
ducts shall be governed by the specifications and
regulations promulgated by the State Board of
Health as herein authorized."
It is'the opinion of this Department that a city pass-
ing an ordinance as outlined in Section 12, Article 4476-3,
Vernon's Cfvll Statutes, would be required to include
poultry and domestic rabbits as a part of their meat inSpeC-
tion program, along with cattle, calves, sheep, swine and
as set out in Subsections (a), (b) and (c), Section
;ya%icle 4476-3, quoted above.
Question No. 2: "In the event of de-
velopment of the program as described
above, who (the municipality in question
or the State) would issue and revoke
J. E. Peavy, M.D., page 3 (W-747)
permits for the use of Texas State Ap-
proved labels?”
Section,5 of Article 4476-3, Vernon’s Civil Stat-
utes, provides:
“The meat inspection provided by
this Act shall be under the supervision of
the State Health Officer of the State of
Texas. ”
Section 13, Article 4476-3 of Vernon’s Civil Stat-
utes, reads as follows:
“Any person, firm, association,,or
corporation desjrfng to use the ‘Texas State
Approved ’ meat label In representing, pub-
lishi.ng,or advertising any meat, or meat
foor products offered for sale or to be sold
withIn this State for food for human consump-
tion shall make application to the State Board
of Health, prior to the use of such a label
for a permit to use any such label in adver-
tising, represent!ng, or labeling such meat
or meat food products.”
Section 14, ArtLcle 4476-3 of Vernon’s Civil Stat-
utes, reads as follows:
“The State Health Officer receiving
such applications as provided for in Sec-
tion 4 of this Act 3s hereby authorized and
empowered to award to such applicant a permit
to use the ‘Texas State A[~,proved’
meat label
according to the requirements of this Act.
The State Board of Health shall have the pow-
er to revoke any permit issued, after notice
by registered mail to the affected permittee
and after a hearing to be held In accordance
with regulation~sissued covering th1.ssubject,
when upon examination,and hearing it is found
that any penal provision or Section of this
Act has been violated. The State Health Of-
ficer shall keep a record for public inspec-
tion of all reports received, and the issuance
or revocation of permits under this Act .‘I
J. E. Peavy, M. D., page IL (NW-71L7)
It is apparent under Section 5 that the entire
meat inspection program is to be supervised by the State
Health Officer, and that the language under Sections 13
and 14 indicates that permits to use the Texas State Ap-
proved label are to be issued on an individual basis by
the State Board of Health even though these individuals
operate under the inspection service provided by a city
ordinance in compliance with Section 12 of this Act.
In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that
where there is a local meat inspection ordinance, as pro-
vided under Section 12, this activity should not be by-pass-
ed, and any application for a permit to use the Texas State
Approved label in those cities should be channeled through
the local meat inspection department and should have the
approval of the local authority, as well as the State
Board of Health, before being issued.
Question No. 3. I'Canthe State
Health Department collect money,
from packers who receive a permit
to use the Texas State Approved
label, in order to defray the cost
of State supervision necessary to
determine the initial and continued
compliance with the State law and
State regulations promulgated under
the law.
Section 14a, Article 4476-3 of Vernon's Civil Sta-
tutes, reads as follows:
"Any person, firm, association, or cor-
poratio“ des!ring to use the 'Texas State AI-
proved' meat label in representing, publish-
ing, or advertising any meat or meat food pro-
ducts offered for sale or to be sold in this
State for human consumption shall pay for the
necessary inspection service, and the State
Board of Health shall adopt rules and regula-
tions relating to such inspection charges
which will, in effect, provide that the fees
ch?rged shall be fixed as nearly as possible
with reference to the cost of maintaining the
inspection service by the State Health De-
partment which is necessary to permit the use
of the 'Texas State Approved Meat for Human
Food' label. Any such moneys charged and
J. E. Heavy, M. D., page 5 (m-747)
and collected for such inspection service
shall be payable to the State Health De-
partment and shall be deposited in the
State Treasury in a special account to
the credit of the State Health Department
and used for the purpose of carrying out
the program of inspection which is neces-
sary before the issuing of permits for the
use of the 'Texas State Approved Meat for
Human Food' label."
Section 14a specifically authorizes the State Board
of Health to collect money from applicants who wish to use
the Texas State Approved label to defray the cost of super-
vision by the State Board of Health.
Question No. 4. 'Can monies already
collected under the State Meat In-
spection Program be utilized to de-
fray the cost of meat inspection
supervision, where this supervision
is performed by the State and the
activity supervised is a municipal
inspection service which has adopt-
ed the provisions of the State law
and the State rules and regulations
as provided for under Section 12,
Article 4476-31"
If, under Section 12, Article 4476-3, the govern-
ing body of any city in the State of Texas has adopted an
ordinance making the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act
mandatory, the necessary facilities for the enforcement of
this Act must be provided on the local level. However,
under Section 5 of this Act, the responsibility of the State
to supervise the local activity remains.
The language ,under Section 14a gives the State the
authority to use moneys already collected ,underthe State
Meat Inspection Program to defray the cost of meat inspec-
tion supervision, generally, and there is nothing in the
language of Section 14, which would prohibit the money col-
lected from being used to supervise a municipal inspection
service activity where the municipality has adopted an OP-
dinance as provided under Section 12, Article 4476-3.
J. E. Peavy, M. D., Page 6 (WlJ-747)
Q,uestionNo. 5. "Would meat stamps,
labels and other identifying markings
on meat products come within the pro-
vlslons of the Meat Inspection Law if
such legends, labels and stamps carried
the wording 'Insp. & Psd. City of
Est.&. Texas State
Approved'."
Section 7, Article 4476-3, reads in part, as fol-
lows:
"The State Health Officer is hereby
authorized and empowered to have designed
a distinctive inspection mark, stamp, tag,
or label which shall state 'Texas State Ag-
proved Establishment No. . . .
The first sentence of Section 10, Article 4476-3,
reads as follows:
"No meat or meat products sold, produc-
ed, or offered for sale within this State by
any person, firm, association, or corporation
shall carry a label, device, or design marked ,
'Texas State Approved Establishment No.
. which does not conform to the definitio;
ini requirements of this Act.?
We think it is $learly the intention of the Legis-
lature that tie words Texas State Approved Establishment
NO. be prominently displayed on the inspection
mark, stamp, or label designated by the State Board of
Health as the official label of the Meat Inspection Act.
It is the opinion of this Department, however, that where,
under Section 12 of this Act a city ordinance has,,been
paased, the words "Insp. & Psd. City of may
be added and would not be inconsistent with this Act where
the inspection service is a joint effort between the city
and State.
Question No. 6. "Under this portended
program described above would compliance
with Section 12 by a municipality require
the Texas State Department of Health to
permit use of the 'Texas State Approved'
label by all plants under thatnmunicipal-
ity's inspection j,urisdiction.
As stated in our answer to question number 2, where
there is a local meat inspection activity operating under
Section 12, the local agency should not be by-passed and
J. E. Peavy, M.D., page 7 (m-747)
the application for a permit to use the Texas State Ap-
proved label by individuals should be channeled through
the local meat inspection department with the approval of
both the local and State agencies before being issued.
It is our opinion that compliance with Section 12
by a municipality, standing alone, would not require the
Texas State Department of Health to permit use of the Tex-
as State Approved label by all plants under that munici-
pality's inspection jurisdiction, but those plants or in-
dividuals approved by both the State Department of Health
and the local department would be issued such permits.
Question No. 7: "It is further de-
sired to know whether or not in cir-
cumstances where the health juris-
diction of a local health officer
extends by agreement beyond the geo-
graphic limits of a municipality com-
plying with Section 12 of the law, can
the meat inspection law be then ap-
plied by the said health officer to the
full geographic limits of the agreed
j,urisdiction."
Since there is no provision in Article 4476-3,
either express or implied, for a city adopting the pro-
visions of the Meat Inspection Act under Section 12 to
operate beyond the corporate limits of the municipality,
it is the opinion of this Department that supervision
of activities under the Meat Inspection Act by the cities
cannot extend beyond the territory of the municipality.
Artic!.e4476-3 was amended as late as 1957, and
the Legislature made no change in the language which could
in any way be interpreted as giving extra territorial jUriS-
diction to a city coming under this Act, which in our opinion
indicates that such grant of power was not intended.
SUMMARY
The inspection of poultry and domes-
tic rabbits is required under Article
4476-3 Vernon's Civil Statutes, in a
city passing an ordinance as outlined
J. E. Peavy, M.D., page 8 (W-747)
under this Act.
Any permits iss,uedfor the use of the Texas
State Approved label under the Meat Inspec-
tion Act in a city having passed an ordinance
to come under this Act, should be issued only
after inspection and approval on both the
State and local levels. The State Health De-
partment alone has the power to revoke any
permit issued when, after notice and hearing,
it is determined that a section of this Act
has been violated.
The State Health Department may collect fees
from individuals who desire to use the Texas
State Approved label to defray the cost of
State supervision.
Fees collectecrby the State Health Depart-
ment from individuals who desire to use
the State Approved label may be used to de-
fray the cost of supervision of both indi-
vidual packers and plants under the juris-
diction of a municipality complying with the
Meat Inspection Act.
The official legend, label or stamp adopt-
ed by the State Health Department for the
Meat Inspection Program must bear the words
"Texas Stat$ Approved Establishment No.
but where the permits are is-
sued in coop&ation with the local meat in-
spection service, it is not inconsistent
with this Act to add the wo;ds "Insp. &
Psd., City of
All plants under a municipality inspection
jurisdiction must have the approval of
both the local and State Health Department
before they can be issued the Texas State
Approved label.
A city may not go beyond its corporate
limits, in its program of supervision
under the Meat Inspection Act since extra
_ ..-.
J. E. Peavy, M.D., page 9 (WW-747)
territorial powers were not granted
by the Legislature under Article
4476-3, Vernon's Civil Statutes.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
Iola Wilcox
Assistant
1W:mg:ms
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
C. Dean Davis
Robert G. Scofield
Marietta Payne
iFVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
: Leonard Passmore