Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Food Safety

Treatment of Custom-Processed Meat
in Minnesota

Emilie H. Leibovitch
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Minnesota v. Hartmann, 700 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2005), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that Minnesota farmers who custom-processed their meat were exempt from the state's sales license requirement, but were not exempt from more substantive regulations such as the prohibition from selling custom-processed meat to customers other than the farmers, their family and employees.

The farmers raised cattle and hogs in Minnesota. They had the meat processed by a custom processor, and eventually sold the meat directly to consumers from their own van. Hartmann, 700 N.W.2d at 451. The farmers were convicted for state law by selling their meat products without a license. See id. at 452. The farmers argued they were exempt from the license requirement under the Minnesota statutory provisions and under the Minnesota Constitution because both had similar provisions exempting from the license requirement any person who sold "the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him." Id. (citation omitted). To determine exactly what this provision meant, the Minnesota Supreme Court looked at the ordinary meaning of the words and thus, "construed them 'in the light of the social, economic, and political situation of the people at the time of [the constitutional provision's] adoption, as well as subsequent changes in such conditions.'" Id. at 453 (citation omitted). The court determined that the provision meant that "people [could] sell without a license the product of a farm or garden so long as the farm or garden [was] occupied and cultivated by the seller." Id. Next, the court decided that, based on definitions from various dictionaries and an opinion of the attorney general dating from the time of the adoption of the constitutional provision, the term "product" referred to both unprocessed and processed things, and so included processed meat. See id. at 454.

Nevertheless, the court pointed out that exemption from the license requirement did not permit a producer to sell products otherwise not allowed for sale even with a sale license. See id. at 456. The producer is still subject to the "regulations related to the production or sale of [his/her] farm products." Id. In particular, state law prohibits the sale of custom-processed meat, meaning the meat is processed by "someone other than the owner, with all of the product returned to the owner." Id. at 458 (citing Minn. Stat. § 31A.10(4). Since the farmers were not the ones who actually processed the meat and the meat was sold to people other than the farmer's family or employees, the farmers did not qualify for an exemption. See id. In addition, the court noted that the exemptions were only exemptions from inspection provisions and not total exemptions from the prohibition against sale of custom-processed meat. See id.

The dissent argued that the court's finding that the famers did not qualify under the exemption from substantive regulations of custom-processed meat was unconstitutional as applied to the farmers. See id. at 462. The dissent noted that if the interest of the substantive regulations of custom-processed meat were to protect the public health, making a distinction between customers who were the farmers and their families and employees, and customers who were complete strangers did not promote public health. See id. at 461.

The case was decided on July 28, 2005; this summary was posted Feb. 21, 2006.