In June 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s finding that federal law preempts California law to the extent California law prohibits de-pollinated honey from being labeled and sold as “honey.”
Plaintiffs brought a claim against Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Sioux Honey”) alleging that Sioux Honey violated California law by selling See Bee Clover Honey, which is de-pollinated, as “honey.” The Northern District of California dismissed the action as preempted by federal law.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, preempts state food labeling laws that impose requirements that are “not identical” to federal labeling regulations. 21. U.S.C. § 343-1(a)(3). Under federal law, de-pollinated honey must be labeled with the “common or usual name of the food, if any . . .” because de-pollinated honey is not “a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 341” of title 21 of the U.S. Code.The district court decided that the “common or usual name” of de-pollinated honey is “honey,” and the Ninth Circuit agreed. In reaching its conclusion, the district court considered dictionary definitions, state standards of identity, and voluntary U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations.
Thus, the court explained that California law prohibits manufacturers from labeling and selling de-pollinated honey as “honey,” while federal law requires manufacturers to label de-pollinated honey as “honey.” Given the conflict, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding that California’s law is preempted.
Read more significant court decisions affecting the food industry in Food for Thought: 2015 Litigation Annual Review.
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
