Bookshelf

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Food Labeling

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on State Food Labeling ; Editors: Donna V. Porter and Robert O. Earl .

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) changed the existing regulatory framework for food labeling requirements that was shared among federal, state, and local levels of government. In addition to creating a system of mandatory nutrition labeling for foods, NLEA provided a schedule for the preemption of state and local labeling requirements that were not identical to federal provisions. Six provisions were not to be preempted until a study on the adequacy of the federal implementation of those provisions was completed.

Food Labeling is the result of that study. It presents recommendations concerning the Food and Drug Administration's implementation of the six provisions that were studied, suggestions for the future disposition of relevant state and local food labeling requirements, and views on the continuing importance of the working relationship among the various levels of government in assuring that consumers are protected from misleading label information.

Contents

• COMMITTEE ON STATE FOOD LABELING
• FOOD AND NUTRITION BOARD
• Preface
• 1. Summary
  • Contextual Factors Affecting the Regulation of Misbranded Food
  • Criteria for Determining Adequate Implementation of the Federal Statute
  • Comparison and Analysis of Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements
  • Issues Raised By States, Consumers, And Industry
  • Committee Procedures
  • Reference
  • Developments Before 1900
  • Developments Between 1900 and 1940
  • Developments Between 1940 and 1970
  • Developments Between 1970 and 1990
  • Current Federal and State Roles in Food Regulation
  • Implications For FDCA Section 403
  • References
  • The Historical Approach of FDA in Implementing FDCA
  • Summary of State and Local Comments
  • Summary of Industry Comments
  • Summary of Consumer Interest Group Comments
  • Committee Deliberations
  • Developing the Committee's Criteria
  • References
  • Complexity of the Analysis and Coverage
  • Food Under the Name of Another Food-Section 403(b)
  • Container Fill and Deceptive Packaging—Section 403(d)
  • Placement of Required Information-Section 403(f)
  • Standards of Quality and of Fill of Container—Section 403(h)
  • Common or Usual Name—Section 403(i)(1)
  • Labeling of Artificial Colorings, Flavorings, and Chemical Preservatives—Section 403(k)
  • References
  • Enforcement as a Dimension of Implementation
  • State Action Under NLEA
  • Cooperative Relationships Between FDA and the States
  • Preemption and the Petition Process
  • Economic Impact of Nonuniformity
  • Committee Observations
  • References
  • A Provision for the State Food Labeling Study Contained in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990
  • B Participants at the Public Meeting Held by the Committee on State Food Labeling May 30, 1991
  • C Letter of Request Sent to State and Local Regulators and Consumer Groups by the Committee on State Food Labeling
  • D States Providing Written Response to the Six Questions from the Committee on State Food Labeling
  • E Individuals from States That Provided Information to the Committee on State Food Labeling
  • F State and Local Laws, Regulations, and Other Materials Submitted to the Committee on State Food Labeling
  • G Areas of Discrepancy Between Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements Identified by States and Consumer and Industry Groups
  • H State Food Labeling Requirements and Relationship to the Misbranding Provisions of Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
  • I Case Study: Requirements for Labeling Bottled Water
  • J Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff

  This study was supported by project no. 282-89-0022 from the Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

  NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

  This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

  The Institute of Medicine was chartered in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to enlist distinguished members of the appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. In this, the Institute acts under both the Academy's 1863 congressional charter responsibility to be an adviser to the federal government and its own initiative in identifying issues of medical care, research, and education.