Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter 62 Cases More or Less Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v…

The Government would have us hold that when the Administrator standardizes the ingredients of a food, no imitation of that food can be marketed which contains an ingredient of the original and serves a similar purpose. If Congress wishes to say that nothing shall be marked in likeness to a food as defined by the Administrator, though it is accurately labeled, entirely wholesome, and perhaps more within the reach of the meager purse, our decisions indicate that Congress may well do so.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter 62 Cases More or Less Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v…

We sustained the regulations, holding that Congress had constitutionally empowered the Administrator to define a food and had thereby precluded manufacturers-or courts-from determining for themselves whether some other ingredients would not produce as nutritious a product. 'The statutory purpose to fix a definition of identity of an article of food sold under its common or usual name would be defeated if producers were free to add ingredients, however wholesome, which are not within the definition.' 318 U.S. at page 232, 63 S.Ct.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter 62 Cases More or Less Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v…

It directs that a food shall be deemed 'misbranded' if it 'is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word 'imitation' and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated.' The other, subsection (g) , was added to the enlargement of the statute in 1938. It condemns as 'misbranded' a product which 'purports to be or is represented as a food', the ingredients of which the Administrator has standardized, if the product does not conform in all respects to the standards prescribed.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature