OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

December 20,200l 

The Honorable David Cain 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Administration 

Texas State Senate 

P.O. Box 12068 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion No. JC-0445 

Re: Whether the Texas Department of Health has 

exceeded its authority in adopting a rule requiring 

certain dietary supplements sold in Texas to bear a 

label with a United States Food and Drug 

Administration toll-free telephone number for 

reporting adverse events (RQ-04 14-JC) 

Dear Senator Cain: 

You ask whether the Texas Department of Health (“TDH”) has exceeded its authority in 

adopting a rule requiring certain dietary supplements sold in Texas to bear a label with a United 

States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) toll-free telephone number for reporting adverse 

events. Specifically, in your letter to this office, you pose the following question: 

Does the Texas Department of Health exceed its statutory and 

regulatory authority in mandating the use of a federal reporting 

system, which system was not operationally designed or intended by 

[the] United States Congress or the Texas Legislature for use by or 

for state agencies, state purposes or state consumers?’ 

The rule you are concerned about requires the product labels of dietary supplements containing 

ephedrine to include the toll-free number of the FDA’s MedWatch medical product reporting 

program. See 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 0 229.462(f) (2001). For the reasons explained below, we 

conclude that the rule does not exceed the agency’s statutory authority. 

We begin with a brief review of the statutory framework. At the federal level, the safety of 

food and drugs is regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 

4 8 301-397 (1994 & Supp. V 1999). Congress has not entirely foreclosed state regulation of food and 

drug safety: “Regulation of the sale and labelling of food and drugs is a field traditionally occupied 

jointly by the states and the federal government.” Kellogg Co. v. Mattox, 763 F. Supp. 1369, 1379 

‘Letter from Honorable David Cain, Chair, Senate Committee on Administration, Texas State Senate, to 

Honorable John Comyn, Texas Attorney General (Aug. 14, 2001) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter 

Request Letter]. 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 2 (JC-0445) 

(N.D. Tex. 1991). Within the State of Texas, TDH regulates food and drug safety under the Texas 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ch. 43 1 (Vernon 2001). 

The rule at issue governs dietary supplements containing ephedrine, an alkaloid derived from 

the ephedra plant, also known as ma huang. See STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 58 1,1054 (26th 

ed. 1995) (defining “ephedrine,” “ ma huang”). Dietary supplements are regulated as food under 

federal and state law rather than as drugs. Under federal law prior to 1994, in order to make claims 

regarding a dietary supplement’s health benefits, the manufacturer had to obtain pre-market approval 

from the FDA by showing that the product was safe and effective. Compare 21 U.S.C. $5 321,343 

(1993) (prior to 1994 amendments), with 21 U.S.C. $5 321,343 (1994 & Supp. V 1999). In 1994, 

Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (“DSHEA”), 103 Pub. L. No. 

417,108 Stat. 4325 (1994) (codified throughout 21 U.S.C.), to increase the public’s access to dietary 

supplements. See generally DSHEA, 9 2, 21 U.S.C. 8 32 1 note (1994) (Congressional Findings 

Relating to Pub. L. 103-417). The new law stripped the FDA of its authority to approve most dietary 

supplements before they are marketed. See 21 U.S.C. 9 321(g)(l) (1994) (exempting “dietary 

supplement” from definition of “drug”), (s)(6) (1994) ( exempting “dietary supplement” from 

definition of “food additive”), (ff) (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (defining “dietary supplement”); id. $6 

33 1 (u) (1994); 342(f), (g) (1994); 343(r) (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (health claims regarding dietary 

supplements); 343(s) (1994); 343-2 (1994) (dietary supplement labeling exemptions); 350b (1994) 

(exception for dietary supplements containing new dietary ingredients). Furthermore, under the new 

law, once a product is marketed, the FDA has the burden of proving that a dietary supplement is 

unsafe before it can take action to restrict the product’s use or to remove the product from the 

marketplace, see 21 U.S.C. 4 342(f) (1994). As the FDA has explained, 

Under DSHEA, a firm is responsible for determining that the dietary 

supplements it manufactures or distributes are safe and that any 

representations or claims made about them are substantiated by 

adequate evidence to show that they are not false or misleading. This 

means that dietary supplements do not need approval from FDA 

before they are marketed. Except in the case of a new dietary 

ingredient, where pre-market review for safety data and other 

information is required by law, a firm does not have to provide FDA 

with the evidence it relies on to substantiate safety or effectiveness 

before or after it markets its products. . . . 

Under DSHEA, once the product is marketed, FDA has the 

responsibility for showing that a dietary supplement is “unsafe,” 

before it can take action to restrict the product’s use or removal from 

the marketplace. 

CTR. FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., OVERVIEW OF 

DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS (2001), available at www.cfsan.fda.nov/-dmslds-oview.html. 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 3 (JC-0445) 

In 1999, citing concerns regarding “the misuse of certain products containing ephedrine and 

marketed as stimulants, appetite suppressants, and muscle enhancers,“2 the Texas Legislature 

amended the Texas Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of products containing 

ephedrine to persons 17 years of age or younger. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 8 43 1.022 

(Vernon 2001). This statute also requires that products containing ephedrine “must be labeled in 

accordance with rules adopted by the Texas Department of Health to indicate that sale to persons 17 

years of age or younger is prohibited.” Id. 8 43 1.022(c). In 1999 and 2000, TDH promulgated 

several rules regulating dietary supplements containing ephedrine. See 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 

229.461, .462, .463, .464 (2001). Section 229.462 of title 25 of the Texas Administrative Code 

contains various labeling requirements for dietary supplements containing ephedrine, including a 

warning statement that indicates the sale to persons 17 years of age or younger is prohibited. See id. 

5 229.462(h). . 

Section 229.462 also contains the labeling requirement at issue in your request in subsection 

After September 1, 2001, the product label must include a 

toll-free number to permit consumers to report adverse effects. This 

toll-free number shall be l-800-332-1 088, which is the Food and Drug 

Administration’s MedWatch medical product reporting program. 

Id. 5 229.462(f). Subsection (f) was adopted in July 2000, but TDH delayed its effective date until 

September 1,2001, to give manufacturers time to comply. See 25 Tex. Reg. 673 (2000), adopted 

25 Tex. REG. 65 14,65 15 (2000) (codified as an amendment to 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 8 229.462). 

Again, you ask whether TDH has exceeded its authority in adopting this rule. In reviewing 

the rule, we are guided by the maxim that “[a]n agency can adopt only such rules as are authorized 

by and consistent with its statutory authority.” R.R. Comm ‘n v. Arco Oil & Gas Co., 876 S.W.2d 473, 

481 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, writ denied). The critical factor in determining whether an 

administrative agency has exceeded its rule-making authority is whether the rule’s provisions are in 

harmony with the general objectives ofthe statute involved. See Edgewoodlndep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, 

917 S.W.2d 717,750 (Tex. 1995); R.R. Comm ‘n v. Lone Star Gas Co., 844 S.W.2d 679,685 (Tex. 

1992). An agency rule may not impose additional burdens, conditions, or restrictions in excess of or 

inconsistent with the relevant statutory provisions. See R.R. Comm ‘n, 876 S.W.2d at 48 1. Applying 

this standard, we conclude that the TDH rule does not exceed the agency’s statutory authority. 

TDH and the Texas Board of Health, its governing body, “are established to better protect and 

promote the health of the people of this state.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 5 11.002 (Vernon 

2001). The board “has general supervision and control over all matters relating to the health of the 

citizens of this state,” id. 8 12.001(a), and is vested with general rule-making authority, see id. 0 

*SENATE COMM. ON HEALTH SERVICES, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. S.B. 656,76th Leg., R.S. (1999). 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 4 (JC-0445) 

12.001 (b)( 1) (the board shall “adopt rules . . . for the performance of each duty imposed by law on 

the board, the department”). 

The Texas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, chapter 431 of the Health and Safety Code, 

provides for extensive state regulation of foods and drugs by the Texas Department of Health. 

Chapter 43 1 expressly authorizes TDH to enact rules “for the efficient enforcement of this chapter,” 

id. 5 43 1.24 1 (a), and provides that a violation of a rule adopted under chapter 43 1 “is a violation of 

this chapter,” id. 8 43 1.046. The chapter expressly references and incorporates certain provisions of 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and federal rules adopted under that Act and, in addition, 

grants TDH the general authority to conform its rules with federal rules and to adopt, reject, or modify 

others, see, e.g., id. $0 431.241(b), (c), (d), .244, .245. 

TDH regulates dietary supplements, such as those containing ephedrine, as food.3 Provisions 

of chapter 43 1 clearly contemplate that TDH may promulgate state food labeling rules under the 

chapter. For example, section 43 1.021 expressly prohibits “the distribution in commerce of a 

consumer commodity, if such commodity is contained in a package, or if there is afjxed to that 

commodity a label that does not conform to the provisions of this chapter and of rules adopted under 

the authority ofthis chapter.” Id. 8 43 1.02 1 (d) (emphasis added). The term “consumer commodity” 

as used in chapter 431 expressly includes foods. See id. 0 431.002(8) (defining “consumer 

commodity” to include “any food, drug, device, or cosmetic”). Another provision, section 43 1.082, 

provides that food shall be deemed misbranded if “any word, statement, or other information 

required by or under the authority of this chapter to appear on the label or labeling is not 

prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness . . . and in such terms as to render it likely to 

be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.” 

Id. 8 43 1.082(g) (emphasis added). 

Given TDH’s general authority to protect public health and, moreover, that chapter 431 

expressly contemplates state food labeling rules, we conclude that the TDH rule requiring dietary 

supplements containing ephedrine to bear a label with a telephone number for reporting adverse 

events is authorized by and consistent with TDH’s statutory authority. Furthermore, given that 

chapter 431 contemplates state food labeling rules, the rule cannot be said to impose additional 

burdens, conditions, or restrictions in excess of or inconsistent with the relevant statutory provisions. 

The argument has been made that this particular labeling requirement exceeds TDH’s 

authority because, as your query suggests, it “mandat[es] the use of a federal reporting system,” the 

FDA MedWatch program, which your query asserts “was not operationally designed or intended by 

[the] United States Congress or the Texas Legislature for use by or for state agencies, state purposes 

or state consumers.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. Other comments we have received suggest 

3Brief from Susan K. Steeg, General Counsel, Texas Department of Health, to Susan D. Gusky, Chair, Opinion 

Committee at 4 (Oct. 4,200l) (on file with Opinion Committee). 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 5 (JC-0445) 

that the rule is problematic because it attempts to “commandeer” a federal system of reporting,4 or 

,“dictate” the operation of the system? 

The required label does not mandate use of the federal reporting system but rather requires 

that the program’s toll-free number be provided to consumers on product labels. Consumers have 

the choice to report a suspected adverse event to the FDA at this number. Although this office does 

not find facts in the opinion proces$j information we have received from the FDA indicates that the 

MedWatch program is intended for use by the general public and the TDH rule is consistent with the 

goals of the MedWatch program. First, we have received a letter from the FDA indicating that the 

MedWatch program is intended for both medical professionals and consumers to use to report adverse 

events. See Letter from Bernard A. Schwetz, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, 

United States Food and Drug Administration, to Honorable John Comyn, Texas Attorney General 

(Oct. 5, 2001) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter FDA Letter] (“The FDA MedWatch 

system is intended to collect information related to adverse events associated with FDA regulated 

products. While the system was originally designed to accept reports from healthcare professionals, 

it has since been expanded to accept calls from consumers and other interested parties.“). The FDA’s 

website also states that consumers may report adverse events relating to dietary supplements to the 

FDA by calling the MedWatch number. See www.cfsan.fda. gov/dms/ds-repthtml (“Consumers may 

also report an adverse event or illness they believe to be related to use of a dietary supplement by 

calling FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.“). Furthermore, the FDA letter indicates that the federal agency 

welcomes the exposure it would receive as a result of the TDH labeling requirement. See FDA Letter, 

supra (“TDH consulted with us on several occasions, during the Rule 229.462 development and 

subsequent to its adoption, concerning the capabilities of the MedWatch system and our interest in 

receiving this data. We advised TDH that we encourage the reporting of adverse events by consumers 

and other interested parties, that the MedWatch System has the capacity to handle these reports, and 

that Rule 229.462 could assist us in capturing valuable data associated with ephedra alkaloid adverse 

events.“). 

Based on the FDA’s assertions, we see no basis for concluding that the TDH rule exceeds 

TDH’s authority because the MedWatch number is not intended for consumers. Furthermore, we do 

not believe that a state rule that provides publicity for a federal program open to the general public 

with the consent of the federal agency may be fairly characterized as commandeering the program 

or dictating its operation. Finally, we do not believe that the Texas Legislature must expressly 

4Letter from Nancy A. Bukar, Director of State Government Relations, Consumer Heal&are Products 

Association, to Susan D. Gusky, Chair, Opinion Committee at 4 (Oct. 10,200l) (on file with Opinion Committee). 

‘Letter Brief from A. Wes Siegner, Jr., Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., to Susan D. Gusky, Chair, Opinion 

Committee (Oct. 5, 2001) (submitted on behalf of American Herbal Products Association) (on file with Opinion 

Committee) [hereinafter AHPA BriefJ. 

6See, e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0020 (1999) at 2 (stating that investigation and resolution of fact 

questions cannot be done in opinion process); M-l 87 (1968) at 3 (“[Tlhis office is without authority to make . . . factual 

determinations.“); O-291 1 (1940) at 2 (“[Tlhis . . . presents a fact question which we are unable to answer.“). 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 6 (JC-0445) 

authorize a state agency to adopt a rule that may increase use of a federal program that is available 

to the general public; TDH’s authority to impose labeling requirements under chapter 43 1 of the 

Health and Safety Code is sufficient. 

We have also been urged to conclude that the labeling requirement exceeds TDH’s statutory 

authority because it is not “reasonably necessary,” in a brief relying on Texas Department of Human 

Services v. Christian Care Centers, 826 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, writ denied). See 

AHPA Brief, supra note 5, at 40. The court in that case observed that 

[l]ack of express authority for a particular act of an agency does not 

mean the agency has no authority for that act. An agency may have 

implied authority to take an action or promulgate a rule even though 

such authority might not be expressly enumerated in its enabling 

statute. Indeed, under a general grant of authority, an agency has all 

the implied authority reasonably necessary to accomplish a delegated 

purpose. 

Christian Care Ctrs., 826 S.W.2d at 719 (emphasis added). Although Texas courts in some cases 

have required a state agency rule that is not expressly authorized by the legislature to be “reasonably 

necessary” to achieve an expressly delegated purpose, courts are also loath to substitute their 

judgment for the judgment of the agency. As the Texas Supreme Court has stated, courts must 

uphold administrative rules if they are reasonable: “The rules need not be, in the court’s opinion, 

wise, desirable, or even necessary. Such rules need only be based on some legitimate position by the 

administrative agency involved.” Bullockv. Hewlett-Packard Co., 628 S. W.2d 754,756 (Tex. 1982) 

(citations omitted); see also Graves v. Morales, 923 S.W.2d 754,757 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, writ 

denied) (citing Bullock v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 628 S.W.2d at 756; Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Tex. 

Motor Vehicle Comm ‘n, 846 S.W.2d 139, 142 (Tex. App.-Austin 1993, no writ)); McCarty v. Tex. 

Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 919 S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, no writ). The court in 

Christian Care Centers invalidated the rule at issue in that case because it determined not only that 

the rule was “not reasonable in light of the circumstances present” but also that the rule was 

inconsistent with the overall purpose of the governing statutes. See Christian Care Centers, 826 

S.W.2d at 721. 

The record suggests that TDH had a legitimate basis for determining that the labeling 

requirement at issue was reasonably necessary to further the agency’s express duty under chapter 43 1 

of the Health and Safety Code to protect public health. In adopting the labeling requirement, TDH 

stated: 

The purpose of this section is to allow consumers to report adverse 

events associated with the use of ephedrine-containing dietary 

supplements. Adverse events monitoring systems, such as the FDA 

MedWatch program, are designed to identify unanticipated or 

unintended safety problems with use of marketed products. Patterns 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 7 (JC-0445) 

of adverse events help the FDA identify the need for further 

investigation to determine whether public health actions are needed. 

The information will be collected by the FDA and will be available for 

review to all interested parties. 

25 Tex. Reg. 65 14 (2000). In response to the comments that it could not justify singling out dietary 

supplements products containing ephedrine for special treatment, TDH explained that 

[slince there are no established and recognized requirements relative 

to safe dosing intake or ingredient level, there is a strong likelihood of 

a lack of any uniformity among different products. Products suspected 

of causing adverse events can be more expeditiously identified if the 

consumer has access to a single point for reporting adverse events 

associated with product consumption. 

Id. at 65 14. TDH also observed that 

[a]mple justification has been provided to the department for the need 

for a toll free number for consumers to report adverse events. Neither 

the department, nor any other agency, currently has access to all 

complaints reported concerning dietary supplements. Collection of 

this information by an agency subject to freedom of information 

review will allow all interested parties to review the data. Since 1995, 

over 700 adverse events associated with the consumption of ephedrine 

have been reported to the department since the passage of the Dietary 

Supplement Health and Education Act. 

Id. at 65 15. We conclude that TDH has advanced a legitimate basis for adopting the rule; we believe 

a court would reach the same conclusion. Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Christian Care 

Centers, the TDH labeling rule is consistent with the purposes of chapter 43 1 of the Health and Safety 

Code. 
The Honorable David Cain - Page 8 (JC-0445) 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Department of Health did not exceed its statutory 

authority in promulgating a rule requiring dietary supplements 

containing ephedrine to bear a label with the United States Food and 

Drug Administration MedWatch program’s toll-free telephone number 

for reporting adverse events. 

Attorney General of Texas 

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY FULLER 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

SUSAN D. GUSKY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Mary R. Crouter 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee