Skip to main content

Food Labeling Toward National Uniformity (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

2 Background of the Study
Pages 27-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 27...
... Evidence of this perspective abounds in the growing interest in good nutrition practices and related health promotion behaviors. Efforts to protect health and provide accurate information about foods being purchased led to the early local and subsequent State food laws in the United States.
Read the entire page →
From page 28...
... The law required mandator nutrition labeling on most packaged foods and voluntary nutrition information for produce and seafood; specified the nutrient content information that must appear on the label; provided for certain descriptive terms to be defined and claims to be allowed; established a petition mechanism for additional nutrient and healthrelated claims; required that consumer education be undertaken; provided for State enforcement of Federal requirements where the Federal government has not acted; revised certain requirements for ingredient listings and standards of identity; and specified the effective dates for implementation of various provisions of the Act. In addition, and of central significance to this study, enactment of NLEA established for the first time specific statutory provisions for achieving national uniformity of labeling requirements for foods subject to the provisions of FDC~ The purpose of Congress in this action is reflected in the title of NLEA Section 6, "national uniform nutrition labeling." The Act preempted State and local statutes and regulations whose coverage overlapped with and were different from certain FDCA provisions.
Read the entire page →
From page 29...
... In accordance with the NLEA provisions, FDA contracted with the Institute of Medicine to conduct the mandated study of the six provisions of FDCA Section 403 in the third preemption category noted above. The study was to determine whether the Federal law was adequately implemented and examine those State and local laws and regulations slated for preemption in
Read the entire page →
From page 30...
... At that meeting, eight individuals representing State and local governments, the food industry, and consumer groups presented testimony regarding the adequacy of Federal implementation (Appendix By; they also provided supporting information about State/local food labeling statutes and regulations concerned with the six provisions of the FDCA Section 403 under study following the meeting. To obtain further infonnation on the six pertinent sections beyond that supplied through the public hearing process, the Committee convened several panels which included individuals knowledgeable about the Congressional intent underlying the NLEA provision for the study and the concerns of consumers, industry, and State and local regulators about the impact of Federal preemption.
Read the entire page →
From page 31...
... to all State governors and principal food regulatory officials, selected local jurisdictions, approximately 25 consumer groups, and several national associations of food regulatory officials/professionals. The letter requested information concerning the views of the addressee on the adequacy of Federal implementation in the areas under study and conflicting State or local requirements that might be preempted.
Read the entire page →
From page 32...
... These searches yielded only a small number of reported decisions involving Federal or State provisions in these areas (Chapter 5~. The Committee thus depended on the voluntary assistance of States, consumer and industry groups in isolating those areas in which they believed the States had been taking regulatory action, or maintaining regulatory standards, that were different from Federal requirements and consequently subject to preemption after FLEA (Appendixes G and H)
Read the entire page →
From page 33...
... Chapter 6 also presents the Committee's findings on economic costs and provides the available information on State legislation related to misbranding that has been introduced in recent years, which serves as an additional indicator of nonuniformity. Following completion of the study, the Committee has planned for all the materials collected from States, localities, and other interested parties to be provided to FDN This transfer of materials will allow FDA to promulgate the required proposed Federal regulation concerning adequate implementation of the six provisions of FDCA Section 403.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • food labeling
  • six provisions
  • nutrition labeling
  • local requirements
  • national uniformity

  • federal implementation
  • local laws
  • labeling requirements
  • state food
  • adequate implementation

  • food laws
  • selected local
  • local jurisdictions
  • drug officials
  • fdca provisions

  • electronic mail
  • food regulatory
  • individual state
  • state requirements
  • adequately implemented

  • proposed regulations
  • accurate information
  • food safety
  • state enforcement
  • legal data

  • food industry
  • federal requirements
  • central significance
  • achieving national
  • national associations


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.