## Facts

- New York enacted N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 63 and regulations governing “cheese alternatives,” requiring many such products to be identified as “imitation.”
- The statute required the word “imitation” on product packaging for any cheese alternative that resembled or substituted for cheese, regardless of whether it was nutritionally inferior, equivalent, or superior.
- New York also required retail and food-service disclosures (signs, menu notations, and container markings) identifying when cheese alternatives were used.
- Federal law regulated “imitation” labeling under the FDCA and FDA regulations, defining “imitation” in terms of nutritional inferiority; nutritionally equivalent or superior substitutes could not be labeled “imitation” without being misbranded.
- Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) sued state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the state labeling regime was preempted and also violated the Commerce Clause, among other theories.
- The district court enjoined enforcement of § 63 on preemption and Commerce Clause grounds; New York appealed and GMA cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FDCA and FDA’s definition of “imitation” preempt New York’s requirement that all cheese substitutes be labeled “imitation” on product packaging.
2. Whether New York’s sign, menu, and container disclosure requirements impose an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court held the FDA’s “imitation” definition was valid and had preemptive effect.
- New York’s package-label requirement was preempted because it compelled “imitation” labeling for nutritionally equivalent or superior substitutes that federal law treated as misbranded if labeled “imitation.”
- The court reversed the district court’s Commerce Clause holding as to point-of-sale disclosures, upholding New York’s sign, menu, and container requirements as evenhanded and not unduly burdensome.
- Injunctive relief remained in place only to the extent it barred enforcement of the conflicting package-label provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Conflict preemption applies when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or when state law obstructs federal objectives.
- Federal food-labeling regulations issued under delegated authority can preempt contrary state labeling mandates.
- A state may not require package labeling that forces manufacturers to use terminology federal law forbids (or penalizes) for the same products.
- State point-of-sale disclosure rules that apply evenhandedly and impose modest burdens may survive Commerce Clause review when supported by legitimate consumer-information interests.

## Conclusion

The court held that federal “imitation” labeling rules preempted New York’s mandatory “imitation” package-label requirement for cheese substitutes, but New York could still require in-state, point-of-sale disclosures through signs, menus, and container markings because those provisions did not conflict with federal law and did not unduly burden interstate commerce.


Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Gerace, 755 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1985)