Live Debat e: State vs. Federal Rights as to Food Claims – The State of Preemption in Food Marketing and Advertising Compliance
Recently the “Food Court” (N.D.Cal.) rejected a food company’s
primary jurisdiction argument based on preemption in a class
action involving claims that the company deceptively labeled
its product as natural. The court stated that the FDA has
declined several requests to promulgate regulations or issue a
policy statement regarding the use of the word “natural” on food
product labeling. Therefore, the federal law did not preempt
the plaintiff from bringing the suit under California state law.
Come witness this live debate as to whether the federal
government should issues hard rules as to these types of marketing
claims, or whether the states should decide to what sort of food
claims their citizens should be subjected. An age old debate –
State vs. Federal Rights.
- Pro State’s Rights – States should protect the health and safety of their citizens, including food, beverages, and dietary supplements
- Pro Federal Rights – Since there are federal agencies (enabled by federal law) that regulate food (FDA, USDA), their laws preempt the states from making and enforcing laws in this arena