## Facts

- A Tennessee statute required any meat that was the product of a foreign country and sold or offered for sale in Tennessee to be conspicuously identified to consumers as of foreign origin (e.g., “This meat is of foreign origin” or comparable country-of-origin disclosure).
- Tupman Thurlow Co., a New York importer and wholesaler of foreign frozen meat, sold such products to Tennessee customers and did not maintain its business in a way that made segregation and separate labeling commercially simple.
- After the statute took effect, the company alleged its Tennessee sales of imported meat dropped to about half, attributing the decline to customers’ reluctance to buy meat labeled as “foreign.”
- The state defended the law as consumer-protection legislation intended to prevent deception (including foreign frozen meat being sold as “fresh”) and to inform consumers about a characteristic relevant to purchasing decisions.
- Federal law and USDA regulations already governed inspection and safety standards for imported meat; the Tennessee law did not impose additional purity or sanitation standards.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee’s requirement that foreign-origin meat be conspicuously labeled imposes an unreasonable or discriminatory burden on interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the labeling requirement is a valid exercise of state police power for consumer protection despite its economic effects on interstate and foreign commerce.

## Decision

- The court denied the request to enjoin enforcement and upheld the Tennessee labeling statute.
- The court held the statute was a valid exercise of state police power aimed at preventing consumer deception and ensuring informed purchasing decisions.
- The court concluded any burden on interstate or foreign commerce was incidental and not an unconstitutional restraint or discrimination.
- The court found no incompatibility between the state labeling requirement and the federal regulatory scheme governing imported meat safety and inspection.

## Legal Principles

- A state may enact consumer-protection measures under its police power, including food labeling rules designed to prevent deception and provide material information to purchasers.
- The Commerce Clause bars state laws that unduly or unreasonably restrain or discriminate against interstate or foreign commerce, but it permits nondiscriminatory regulations serving legitimate local interests that impose only incidental burdens.
- A state labeling requirement that does not prohibit imported goods or impose additional substantive safety standards, and instead requires disclosure of origin, may be sustained when reasonably related to consumer information interests.
- Economic harm to an importer stemming from changed consumer preferences after truthful disclosure does not, by itself, establish unconstitutional discrimination against commerce.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tennessee’s foreign-meat origin labeling requirement as a permissible, nondiscriminatory consumer-information measure within state police power, imposing at most an incidental Commerce Clause burden and operating consistently with federal meat inspection regulation.


Tupman Thurlow Co. v. Moss, 252 F. Supp. 641 (M.D. Tenn. 1966)