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
95
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

As so interpreted, this California provision (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §12606) is clearly "of the type" covered by Section 403(d), because both address slack fill. The interpretation of Section 12606 appears not to be identical to the Federal interpretation, however, because it prohibits all "nonfunctional slack fill packaging whether or not there is other proof of deception or fraud." The language of FPLA was adopted as the standard by California in developing its State statute.

By prohibiting what it considers to be inherently misleading slack fill, California has been particularly aggressive in adopting a unique approach that differs from that of FDA and other States. It may be that other States have not identified this issue as a problem worthy of independent legislative action (GMA, 1991). As the Assistant Director of the Consumer Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Agriculture stated, "We have not encountered problems with container fill and deceptive packaging. If we do, we feel the FDCA is more than adequate if enforced. Sections 101.18 and 101.105 of Title 21 CFR adequately deal with this, but again, lack enforcement" (Niles, 1991a).

However, in the view of the State Attorneys General and many other State officials, until such time as FDA promulgates regulations to interpret this section of FDCA, statutes such as California Business and Professions Code Section 12606 and any State statutes dealing with downsizing should prevail (State Attorneys General, 1991).

Industry Perspective

GMA supports the decision of FDA not to promulgate regulations pertaining to FDCA Section 403(d). The Association's comment to the Committee was that "that determination should stand as the national approach to the matter" (GMA, 1991).

A representative of the National Frozen Pizza Institute (NFPI) indicated that, despite FDA's failure to establish violations of FDCA Section 403(d) through litigation, the Institute also believes that FDA has adequately implemented this provision. Support for this argument comes from the fact that the Act requires the net weight statement to appear on every package and, in many cases, FDA has established specific product standards of fin (NFPI, 1991). This same view was held by a representative speaking on behalf of the Quaker Oats Company and Schreiber Foods, Inc. (Quaker Oats and Schreiber Foods, 1991).

Page
95
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)