Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 240

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 120 (2000)

165

Breyer, J., dissenting

over “slenderizing” products such as “antifat remedies,”
ibid., they were aware that, in doing so, they had created
what was “admittedly an inclusive, a wide deﬁnition,” id., at
107. And that broad language was included deliberately, so
that jurisdiction could be had over “all substances and prep-
arations, other than food, and all devices intended to affect
the structure or any function of the body . . . .”
Ibid. (em-
phasis added); see also Hearings on S. 2800 before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 516 (1934),
reprinted in 2 Leg. Hist. 519 (statement of then-FDA Chief
Walter Campbell acknowledging that “[t]his deﬁnition of
‘drugs’ is all-inclusive”).

After studying the FDCA’s history, experts have written
that the statute “is a purposefully broad delegation of discre-
tionary powers by Congress,” 1 J. O’Reilly, Food and Drug
Administration § 6.01, p. 6–1 (2d ed. 1995)
(hereinafter
O’Reilly), and that, in a sense, the FDCA “must be regarded
as a constitution” that “establish[es] general principles” and
“permit[s] implementation within broad parameters” so that
the FDA can “implement these objectives through the most
effective and efﬁcient controls that can be devised.” Hutt,
Philosophy of Regulation Under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, 28 Food Drug Cosm. L. J. 177, 178–179 (1973)
(emphasis added). This Court, too, has said that the

“historical expansion of the deﬁnition of drug, and the
creation of a parallel concept of devices, clearly show . . .
that Congress fully intended that the Act’s coverage be
as broad as its literal language indicates—and equally
clearly, broader than any strict medical deﬁnition might
otherwise allow.” Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U. S., at 798.

That Congress would grant the FDA such broad jurisdic-
tional authority should surprise no one.
In 1938, the Presi-
dent and much of Congress believed that federal administra-
tive agencies needed broad authority and would exercise that
authority wisely—a view embodied in much Second New