Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange Railroad…

Respondents do not direct us to any substantial contrary indication in the legislative history. Nor can the tolerance provisions be applied to coal-tar colors through some form of analogy. The command of the statute is plain: where a coal-tar color is not harmless, it is not to be certified; if it is not certified, it is not to be used at all. In this regard also, an approach in terms of the toxicity of the coloring ingredient, rather than of the food product as a whole was chosen by Congress.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange Railroad…

No one contends that it is impossible that ill effects will be experienced in human beings if unrestricted use of the substance is permitted in articles of food. On the other hand, no instance of a harmful use of Red 32 in a particular food was established in the record. [11] These questions present broad inquiries, difficult of proof, and doubtless apt to be more long-drawn-out in investigation than even the ones which the Secretary pursued. Yet it has been shown that the color of itself has poisonous properties.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange Railroad…

The language involved in Lexington Mill survived generally in the Act's broadest and most general test of food adulteration, § 402 (a) (1) . [10] Section 402 (c) provided a separate test: that a food should be deemed adulterated 'If it bears or contains a coal-tar color other than one from a batch that has been certified in accordance with regulations as provided by section 406 * * *.' Plainly Congress banned any addition to foods of coal-tar colors not certified by the Secretary.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature