Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 246

529US1

Unit: $U36

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

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

171

Breyer, J., dissenting

question or if the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable.
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842–843 (1984). The companies, in an
effort to argue the former, point to language in the legisla-
tive history tying the word “intended” to a technical concept
called “intended use.” But nothing in Congress’ discussion
either of “intended” or “intended use” suggests that an ex-
press claim (which often shows intent) is always necessary.
Indeed, the primary statement to which the companies direct
our attention says only that a manufacturer can determine
what kind of regulation applies—“food” or “drug”—because,
“through his representations in connection with its sale, [the
manufacturer] can determine” whether an article is to be
used as a “food,” as a “drug,” or as “both.” S. Rep. No. 361,
74th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1935), reprinted in 3 Leg. Hist. 696.
Nor is the FDA’s “objective intent” interpretation unrea-
It falls well within the established scope of the
sonable.
ordinary meaning of the word “intended.” See Agnew v.
United States, 165 U. S. 36, 53 (1897) (intent encompasses the
known consequences of an act). And the companies ac-
knowledge that the FDA can regulate a drug-like substance
in the ordinary circumstance, i. e., where the manufacturer
makes an express claim, so it is not unreasonable to conclude
that the agency retains such power where a product’s effects
on the body are so well known (say, like those of aspirin or
calamine lotion), that there is no need for express represen-
tations because the product speaks for itself.

The companies also cannot deny that the evidence of their
intent is sufﬁcient to satisfy the statutory word “intended”
as the FDA long has interpreted it.
In the ﬁrst place, there
was once a time when they actually did make express ad-
vertising claims regarding tobacco’s mood-stabilizing and
weight-reducing properties—and historical representations
can portend present expectations.
In the late 1920’s, for
example, the American Tobacco Company urged weight-
conscious smokers to “ ‘Reach for a Lucky instead of a