Another solution would be the adoption of state 

 grain standards. However, the adoption of any mandatory 

 standards for grain, other than the federal grain 

 standards, appears to be prohibited under both the 

 Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal 

 Grain Standards Act. On the other hand, the adoption of 

 "voluntary" or "non-regulatory" grain standards as 

 proposed under Option #6 may be permissible.'*^ Thus, ''' 

 Option #6 could provide Montana a means for addressing 

 the grain quality problem, which could give Montana 

 producers a marketing advantage. 



Similar Policies and Programs 



In 1985, the Kansas State Legislature considered 

 SB 23, a bill to establish a 100% Kansas finest quality 

 grain marketing program. Under the program, the state 

 Board of Agriculture would promote purchases of Kansas 

 quality-preserved grain. In addition, the board would 

 adopt state standards for each type of grain marketed 

 under the program. SB 23 was not enacted. ^^ 



During its 1986 regular session, the Nebraska State 

 Legislature debated LB 1216, which would have required 

 the inspection of all grain exported from the state to 

 ensure the removal of foreign material, including 

 "damaged and broken kernels of grain, dockage, broken 

 glass, gravel, animal filth, and any other unknown 

 substance which would degrade the quality of such 

 grain". ^^ LB 1216 died in committee. 



Prompted by concerns regarding the quality of U.S. 

 grain exports. Congress recently enacted the "Grain 

 Quality Improvement Act of 1986". This act amended the 



42 



