Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Sullivan (332 U.S. 689…

I do not think Congress meant the phrase to be so disastrously limited. For the 'doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic' is prohibited by § 301 (k) only 'if such act * * * results in such article being misbranded.' And the statute provides, not a single common definition of misbranding for foods, drugs and cosmetics, but separate and differing sections on misbranded foods, misbranded drugs and devices, and misbranded cosmetics.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Sullivan (332 U.S. 689…

Obviously there must be many more instances where compliance with the labeling requirements for foods will be 'impracticable' than where compliance with the very different requirements for drugs will not be 'necessary for the protection of the public health.' That difference is obviously important for enforcement, particularly by criminal prosecution.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Sullivan (332 U.S. 689…

There is a suggestion here that, although alteration, mutilation, destruction, or obliteration of the bottle label would have been a 'misbranding,' transferring the pills to non-branded boxes would not have been, so long as the labeling on the empty bottle was not disturbed. Such an argument cannot be sustained. For the chief purpose of forbidding the destruction of the label is to keep it intact for the information and protection of the consumer.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature