|
''62 Cases of Jam v. United States'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "imitation jam," so labeled, was not a "misbranded" product under § 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 343, even though it did not meet federal regulations for being fruit jam. == Background == The case arose on a libel, that is, an in rem condemnation action filed by the government to seize the jam for being in violation of federal law. The jam, a product called "Delicious Brand Imitation Jam," had been manufactured in Colorado and shipped to New Mexico, where the government libeled it.〔''62 Cases of Jam v. United States'', 340 U.S. 593, 594 (1951).〕 The jars were assorted flavors of grape, strawberry, apricot, plum, peach and blackberry, and "contained 55% sugar, 25% fruit and 20% of a water solution of pectin."〔''United States v. 62 Cases, More or Less, Containing Six Jars of Jam, Etc.'', 183 F.2d 1014, 1016 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1950).〕 Federal jam regulations, however, as promulgated by the Federal Security Administrator, required that fruit jams contain a higher proportion of fruit to sugars.〔21 C.F.R. § 29.0 (1949).〕 And although the jars themselves were labeled "Imitation (of flavor ) Jam," the parties stipulated that these jams were served by hotel dining rooms, restaurants and other public eating places to their patrons as fruit jam, without disclosure that the containers from which the food was taken were labeled 'Imitation Jam'; that retail grocery stores advertised such jams as fruit jams, and in response to telephone calls from housewives, asking for the advertised jams, filled such orders with the product here involved; that ranches and logging camps served such jams to their employees as jam and such employees consumed it, believing it to be fruit jam, and that such jams looked like and tasted like fruit jam, and that such jams are wholesome and have food value.〔''62 Cases'', 183 F.2d at 1016.〕 Under the FDCA, as it read at the time, a food was to be considered "misbranded," and therefore subject to condemnation, if "it purports to be or is represented as a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations . . . unless . . . it conforms to such definition and standard . . . ."〔23 U.S.C. § 343(g) (1938).〕 On the other hand, the statute also provided that "()f it is an imitation of another food" a food would not be deemed misbranded if "its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word 'imitation' and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated."〔23 U.S.C. § 343(c) (1938). This provision originated in the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768, 770-771, § 8.〕 Although the federal trial court in New Mexico, where the libel had been brought in 1949, had found the jams to be properly identified imitations and thus not mislabeled,〔''United States v. 62 Cases of Jam'', 87 F. Supp. 735 (D.N.M. 1949).〕 on appeal a two-judge majority of the Tenth Circuit (Phillips, Chief Judge, joined by Huxman, Judge) disagreed. "They are a sub-standard jam," the court said. "They are not imitation fruit jam."〔''62 Cases'', 183 F.2d at 1016.〕 In construing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the court considered the legislative history of the FDCA, and determined that "its purpose was not confined to a requirement of truthful and informative labeling," but rather that Congress intended to forbid deviation, labels notwithstanding, where the Administrator had prescribed "a definition and standard of identity" for a food.〔''62 Cases'', 183 F.2d at 1017.〕 Thus, the court held, ()hether a food purports to be, or is represented to be, a food for which a definition and a standard of identity has been prescribed by regulation, is not to be determined solely from obscure disclosures on the label. If it is sold under a name of a food for which a definition and standard has been prescribed, if it looks and tastes like such a food, if it is bought, sold and ordered as such a food, and if it is served to customers as such a food, then it purports to be, and is represented to be, such a food.〔''62 Cases'', 183 F.2d at 1017.〕 Because these jams "purported to be, and were represented to be" something whose definition and identity had been prescribed, the court concluded manufacturer "could not escape the impact" of the FDCA merely by labeling them "imitation" and "truthfully setting forth on the label" the jams' contents and their proportions. Judge Pickett dissented, finding in the FDCA a Congressional intent "to permit on the market a wholesome and nutritious food which is within the means of a great mass of our people who are unable to purchase the standard products," so long as such an imitation is properly labeled under § 343(c). "If the section is not given this construction it is meaningless."〔''62 Cases'', 183 F.2d at 1019 (Pickett, J., dissenting).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「62 Cases of Jam v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|