Pure Foods and Drugs Act
of 1906
Food Law
FSC-421
“Lawdoc”
Pure Food and Drug Act
“for preventing the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of adulterated or misbranded
or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs,
medicines, and liquors, and for regulating
traffic therein, and for other purposes.”
Pure Foods and Drugs Act of 1906
• Did not apply to intrastate commerce
• Jurisdiction was based on adulterated or
misbranded articles in interstate commerce
• Dealt with interstate and foreign commerce in
adulterated or misbranded foods…
• Exempted items intended for export that were
prepared according to foreign manufacturers
specifications
Food
• Pure Foods and Drugs Act of 1906 defined
food as:
– “all articles used for food, drink,
confectionery or condiment by man or
other animal, whether simple, mixed
or compound
Food Adulterated if:
• Any substance mixed with so as to lower or
injuriously affect its quality
• Any substituted substance wholly or in part
• Any valuable component extracted
• Treated so as to conceal damage or inferiority
• Contains any added ingredient which may render
it injurious to health
• Any putrid, diseased substance or unfit for food
Misbranded if:
• Imitation offered for sale under name of another
article
• Falsely labeled so as to confuse or mislead
purchaser
• Contents in terms of “weights and measures” not
plainly or correctly stated on outside of package
• Label contains false or misleading statements or
design concerning the ingredients of the food
Remedies
• Seizure
– Under direction of court
• Disposal
– Of adulterated of misbranded articles
• Imprisonment and/or $500 fine
– Violation considered a misdemeanor
criminal offense
– Stiffer penalties for repeat offenses
“Safe Harbor”
• Dealer protected from prosecution under
the 1906 Act if had “guarantee” signed
by supplier/vendor /jobber/wholesaler
attesting that articles not misbranded or
adulterated when purchased
Problems with the First Act:
• Food industry resisted passage of the 1906 Act
– Not accustomed to regulation
• Failed to provide clear-cut definitions and
standards
– Could not determine imitation if no std for the original
• Appropriations bills to fund enforcement and to
establish food standards were not passed
• Expert opinions successfully challenged as “arbitrary
b/c no “legal stds”
Problems with the First Act:
• “no set of authorities can equitably execute
a food law without a set of standards of
purity for their guide” Harvey Wiley
• Requirement of Intent:
– First Act required not only proof of adulteration
or misbranding, but also Gov had to prove
offender “intended” to adulterate or misbrand
• Gov never won a case / defendant plead ignorance
Problems with the First Act:
• Harvey Wiley “hell-raising”
– Poison squad determined preservatives as a group
were bad. (Reported in Bulletin 13, Foods and Food
Adulterants)
• Responsibilities of Secretary of Agriculture not
clearly stated
– Defenders could argue Secretary “exceeding
authority”
• Attention diverted from first Act by WWI
Amendments to the First Act:
• Sherley Amendment (1912)
• Gould Amendment (1913)
– “net weights”
• Kenyon Amendment (1920)
– “wrapped meat in paper = in packaged form”
• Butter Amendment
– Defined butter (oleomargarine)
• McNary-Mapes Amendment (1930)
– Standards of quality for canned foods (Birdseye)
• Sea Food Inspection Amendments (1934)
Other factors:
• Consumers demonstrating for stricter laws
• “Guinea Pigs” Kallet & Schlink 1933
– Exposed dangers in everyday foods, and drugs
– Similar to Upton Sinclair book
– Same year Roosevelt became President
• Draft of a new bill introduced as the “Copeland
Bill” on Jan 4, 1934
• Passed by 75th Congress 1937 and
• Signed by President Roosevelt on June 25, 1938
Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
1938
“Next Time”