National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$27.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity (1992)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "5 Comparison and Analysis of Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements." Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1992.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
94
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity

California prohibits nonfunctional slack fill of containers unless it is (a) necessary to protect the contents of the package or (b) required by the machines used to pack the contents in such packages (Cal. Health & Safety Code §26437). A second California requirement for deceptive packaging which prohibits all nonfunctional slack fill packaging is discussed below (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §12606).

Connecticut requirements prohibit deceptive packaging or filling of the container by requiring that no commodity in package form shall be wrapped or in a container that is formed or filled to mislead the purchaser as to the quantity or the quality of the contents of the package (Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-115m). Furthermore, the contents of a container shall not fall below such reasonable standard of fill as may have been prescribed for the commodity in question by the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs.

Minnesota has established tolerances and variations from the quantity of contents marked on packages. The only allowable discrepancies are those owing to (1) unavoidable errors when weighing the product in compliance with good commercial practices, (2) differences in capacities of bottles and similar containers resulting from unavoidable manufacturing difficulties, or (3) atmospheric conditions (Minn. R. §1550.0480).

New Jersey has introduced a State bill which requires that consumers must receive clear and conspicuous label notice for at least six months in instances in which the net weight, measure, or quantity of food in a package has been reduced without a substantial change in packaging (N.J. Bill 4880, pending).

Washington requires that any slack filled container shall be conspicuously marked "slack filled" (Wash. Rev. Code §69.28.100).

The activities in California to regulate misleading packaging deserve further discussion because the State has chosen to implement FPLA requirements that go beyond FDA requirements. The California Attorney General interpreted the State's slack fill provision as not requiring proof that the slack fill is misleading or deceptive and prohibiting any unoccupied space in cases in which the immediate container is enclosed within an outer retail package (eg., a bottle in a cardboard carton). In Hobby Industry Association of America, Inc. v. Younger , 101 Cal. App. 3d 358,161 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1980), the court upheld the position of the California Attorney General.

Page
94
Front Matter (R1-R16)
1 Summary (1-26)
2 Background of the Study (27-34)
3 Contextual Factors Affecting the Regulation of Misbranded Food (35-62)
4 Criteria for Determining Adequate Implementation of the Federal Statute (63-84)
5 Comparison and Analysis of Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements (85-140)
6 Issues Raised By States, Consumers, and Industry (141-162)
Appendixes (163-164)
A Provision for the State Food Labeling Study Contained in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (165-166)
B Participants at the Public Meeting Held by the Committee on State Food Labeling, May 30, 1991 (167-168)
C Letter of Request Sent to State and Local Regulators and Consumer Groups by the Committee on State Food Labeling (169-172)
D States Providing Written Response to the Six Questions from the Committee on State Food Labeling (173-174)
E Individuals from States That Provided Information to the Committee on State Food Labeling (175-182)
F State and Local Laws, Regulations, and Other Materials Submitted to the Committee on State Food Labeling (183-194)
G Areas of Discrepancy Between Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements Identified by States and Consumer and Industry Groups (195-202)
H State Food Labeling Requirements and Relationship to the Misbranding Provisions of Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (203-208)
I Case Study: Requirements for Labeling Bottle Water (209-218)
J Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff (219-224)
Index (225-240)