Protecting Food Safety Following the Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference Decision

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Chevron’s deference marks a crucial shift in how federal agencies interpret and enforce laws. Located in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Chevron deference allowed courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This principle provided crucial regulatory oversight in sectors such as food safety, providing clarity and expertise in enforcement.

Growing out of environmental regulations, Chevron’s respect extended to authorizing other agencies – impacting the FDA and USDA in defining and implementing food safety standards. For decades, it has facilitated streamlined regulatory processes, enabling rapid adaptation to emerging threats such as foodborne diseases and new food technologies. This doctrine supported rapid responses by interpreting laws to enforce safety protocols, coordinate stakeholder efforts, and protect public health during outbreaks.

On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled Runner Bright Enterprises against Raimondo And Ruthless against Ministry of Commerceended Chevron’s deference and ushered in heightened legal scrutiny of agency interpretations of laws. This decision ends the automatic deference previously granted to agencies such as the FDA, which necessitated rigorous justification of regulatory actions in court.

Examples from USDA

Improved regulatory standards, preventative measures (such as HACCP), and consumer education and safe handling practices are often cited as key reasons for the decline in E. coli outbreaks associated with USDA-regulated foods.

The USDA’s 1994 declaration that E. coli is an illegal adulterant in ground beef illustrates the impact of Chevron’s deference. This regulatory action followed the historic 1993 Jack in the Box E.coli outbreak, increasing food safety by quickly addressing risks associated with contaminated beef. Without Chevron’s respect, increased legal challenges and lengthy regulatory processes could have delayed these critical measures, potentially jeopardizing consumer safety.

Likewise, the USDA’s mandated instructions for safe handling of raw meat and poultry inform consumers of proper practices, which are critical to preventing foodborne illness. For approximately thirty years, these instructions have played a crucial role in preventing foodborne illness caused by pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella, which can lead to serious health risks. These instructions, implemented one year after the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, benefited from Chevron’s deference in ensuring prompt enforcement and clarity amid potential legal challenges. Had there not been respect from Chevron, the USDA’s ability to impose and enforce labeling requirements might have been hampered for the same reasons, and ultimately through the implementation of critical food safety measures aimed at protecting consumers from food borne diseases.

Examples from FDA

Chevron’s deference has also facilitated the FDA’s adjustment of labeling requirements to reflect scientific advances, such as allergen labeling for major food allergens. This flexibility supported consistent implementation and consumer protections, which could face uncertainty without deference.

The passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 marked an important milestone in strengthening food safety standards and strengthening the FDA. However, Chevron’s lack of respect complicates FSMA’s ongoing implementation efforts, especially the Food Traceability Final Rule (FSMA Section 204(d)), critical to the FDA’s New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint. This could lead to legal challenges, regulatory uncertainties and delays in enforcing robust food safety standards, potentially compromising public health responses to outbreaks and contaminants.

Moving forward

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to end deference to Chevron, federal food agencies are facing a critical moment. They must now strengthen their legal justifications, increase regulatory transparency and urgently pursue regulatory clarity to effectively navigate this evolving landscape. Industry leaders must also rise to the occasion by not only complying with regulations, but also by proactively implementing safety measures that protect public health and uphold the integrity of our food systems.

Consumers play a critical role in this new era by staying informed about food safety practices and advocating for transparent industry standards. Together we can cultivate a culture of responsibility and innovation that puts food safety at the forefront, both nationally and globally.

Recalls and outbreaks take a heavy toll, both economically and, most importantly, in human lives. The wheels of justice move at a speed much slower than the speed that a proper proactive and reactive response to food safety requires. Even without Chevron’s deference, it is imperative that we prioritize efforts to maintain and strengthen the robust food safety culture cultivated post-1993. We must ensure that the progress made over the past thirty years is not eroded by the challenges and decisions of the next thirty years. .

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,Click here)