In Voss v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 900, the plaintiffs claimed that a mandatory plum marketing order issued pursuant to the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA) (Food & Agr. Code, 58601 et seq.) was invalid because it failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Gov. Code, 11346 et seq.). However, the Food and Agricultural Code, section 14 provided that all such regulations should be adopted in accordance with the APA "to the extent that that chapter is not specifically in conflict with the express terms of the provisions of this code which authorize the adoption of such regulations. ..." On appeal, the issue was whether the word "conflict" in Food and Agricultural Code section 14 meant either (1) a variance in how something could be done, or (2) an irreconcilable conflict, because related provisions of the APA and the CMA could "vary" without being incompatible or irreconcilable. Using legislative history, the appellate court determined that the Legislature intended the "specific conflict" to be present only when a term of the APA is found to be irreconcilable with a provision of the CMA.