I thoroughly enjoy butter and I have no idea what these criteria mean.

MattS,

1) I agree that whether a law is irrational or bad policy is not the only way of determining whether the legislature has overstepped its boundaries. It is, however, a start and something that should be looked at.

It should not be up to the people to prove that the legislature has overstepped its limits. The legislators themselves should have to prove that they have not overstepped the boundaries and are in the interest of the public.

“Because we can” is not a legal standard for the legislature. Furthermore, if the legislature wants to try and sell that standard, it is the place of the courts to slap them back into the lines.

In this case, the ratings serve no legitimate public interest and therefore the legislature has overstepped the lines.

3) In responses below, we see that the USDA standards are voluntary. They are not required in any state of the union. Wisconsin allows the USDA ratings but Wisconsin and only Wisconsin requires the testing and labeling of the butter. In other words, it is a burden between states and state lines as the rating has no value to consumers. None. Wisconsin is simply saying “if you want to sell butter here, you have to follow our arbitrary, burdensome rules that do not benefit anyone.”

Once again, “because we make the rules” is not a good standard for burdens placed on consumers and businesses.

Seems to me that the “grades” reflect adherence to a platonic ideal of “normal butter” rather than true quality. In other words, Wisconsin is saying that all butter sold in the state has to be rated based on its conformance to the platonic ideal. That’s nonsense on stilts.

That’s an interesting piece. It confirms that the federal standards are optional, while the Wisconsin ones are required, and that’s obviously important. And, according to their linked preliminary injunction motion, hiring a USDA grader is more expensive than hiring a Wisconsin one. If that’s the case, then it may indeed be more burdensome for out of state manufacturers (unless there’s a way for someone from Ohio to get a Wisconsin grader’s license and grade Ohio butter with it, in which case the problem is easily solved by having a random staff member get a license.)

I still think Cato’s mocking of Wisconsin was uncalled for; either they were ignorant of the federal standards, or decided to ignore them to get some cheap shots in.

https://pacificlegal.org/answering-the-minerva-dairy-questions-at-overlawyered/

MattS, not really all that relevant–those who forego USDA (in WIsconsin and without Wisconsin) are subject to a different (as a practical matter) scheme.

That’s really all that is necessary.

Note that in the beef market, there are two inspections systems.

The mandatory inspection is for wholesomeness, cleanliness and purity. This is paid for by general taxes.

There is the VOLUNTARY grading inspection paid for by the producer – it is the latter that gives the “prime”, “choice”, “select”, etc grades. A producer of superior product would willingly pay for the latter so as to be able to command the higher price that a “prime” grade would command, versus ungraded meat (as a consumer, would you pay more for, a prime rib roast, or a rib roast?)

As far as I’m concerned, the quality grading in butter should follow this model. If a producer feels its value added, so be it. Else, who cares? Let the consumer decide. So long as the butter in question is pure, clean and wholesome, and labeled truthfully as to grading or lack thereof, then it’s up to the person parting with the dollars to decide.

I think the point is that: the feds get to put artisans at a disadvantage, but the state does not get to do it in a manner that discriminates against out of state producers. Here–with respect to picking up those who don’t go through the USDA route, they are forced to submit to Wisconsin’s inspectors who, it appears, are there to retard out of state entrants into that market.

Remember the whole Obamacare mandatory insurance argument—it is plain that the states can require liability insurance as a condition of driving–far less clear that the federal government can require insurance simply because you breathe.