STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6171

July 19, 1983

AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY:

Veal industry marketing program as marketing of an agricultural commodity

AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF:

Authority to pass on veal industry marketing program under Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act

BEEF INDUSTRY COMMISSION ACT:

Veal industry marketing program subject to Act

Veal producers are included within the Beef Industry Commission Act, 1972 PA 291, and may not seek approval of the Department of Agriculture as producers of an agricultural commodity subject to the Agricultural Commodities Market Act, 1965 PA 232.

Dean Pridgeon

Director

Department of Agriculture

4th Floor Ottawa North

Lansing, Michigan

You have asked whether a veal industry program currently being proposed would exempt such animals from the provisions of the Beef Industry Commission Act, 1972 PA 291; MCLA 287.601 et seq; MSA 12.481(51) et seq. In connection with your inquiry, you state that the Department of Agriculture has received a petition from 25 veal producers requesting that a hearing be held to consider the development of a veal industry program under the provisions of the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, 1965 PA 232, as amended; MCLA 290.651 et seq; MSA 12.94(21) et seq.

1965 PA 232, supra, is enabling legislation which authorizes the producers, in Michigan, of an agricultural commodity ⁽¹⁾ to adopt a marketing program, funded by producer assessments, to foster and promote consumption of such producers' product. Upon receipt of a petition signed by 25% of such producers in the state, or 200 producers, whichever is less, the director of the Department of Agriculture is required to give notice of a public hearing on the proposed program. 1965 PA 232, supra, Sec. 10(a). Following the hearing, the director is required to make a recommendation for the adoption of the program to the producers, subject to referendum. 1965 PA 232, supra, Sec. 10(c). If more than half of the number voting affirmatively produced more than 50% of the volume of the affected commodity produced in the state, the marketing program is adopted. 1965 PA 232, supra, Sec. 11.

1965 PA 232, supra, Sec. 20(a), further provides:

With respect to the production of veal animals, veal producers are currently obligated to pay assessments to the Beef Industry Commission pursuant to 1972 PA 291, supra. All producers of 'cattle' ⁽²⁾ are required to pay assessments on all such animals sold for slaughter in this state. 1972 PA 291, supra, Sec. 6(1).

The primary rule governing the interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent. State ex rel Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney v Levenburg, 406 Mich 455; 280 NW2d 810 (1979). When there are two acts, one general and one specific, the specific statute must be viewed as an exception. Ingram v McCastle, 97 Mich App 593; 296 NW2d 116 (1980), lv den, 410 Mich 904 (1981). Moreover, where two statutes are, or appear to be, in conflict, the specific statute enacted after the general statute prevails. People v McFadden, 73 Mich App 232; 251 NW2d 297 (1977).

The Beef Industry Commission Act, 1972 PA 291, supra, was enacted seven years after the passage of the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, 1965 PA 232, supra. While 1972 PA 291, supra, is a specific act, 1965 PA 232 is a general act. Therefore, 1972 PA 291, supra, controls over 1965 PA 232, supra.

1972 PA 291, Sec. 2(a), supra, contains a broad definition of the term 'cattle' which includes calves raised for veal.

It is my opinion, therefore, that veal producers may not avail themselves of the general act, 1965 PA 232, supra, to set up an agricultural marketing program unless the Legislature amends 1972 PA 291 so as to except such veal producers from 1972 PA 291, supra.

Frank J. Kelley