Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_23_issue_2?pg=44
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:48:28+00:00

Document:
93. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 770 (1976); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570 (2001).
94. Mateusz Perkowski, Dairy Challenges Oregon Raw Milk Ad Ban, CAPITAL PRESS (Nov. 20, 2013), http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131120/ARTICLE/131129989.
95. N. Y. State Rest. Assoc. v. N. Y. C. Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 134 (2d Cir. 2009).
96. U.S. CONST. art 1, § 9.
97. In the context of product bans, the Ex Post Facto clause is often subject to further argument. See, e.g., Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188, 193 (1925) (stating that during the Prohibition era the Court held that a state statute prohibiting the possession of alcohol did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because possession is a continuous act. The individual could not be punished for his behavior or possession of alcohol before the law changed, but could be punished for his continued possession thereafter).
98. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988).
99. 21 U.S. C. A. § 321(ff) (West, WestlawNext through Pub. L. No. 113-93 (excluding Pub. L. No. 113-79) approved Apr. 1, 2014).
100. See Nutraceutical Corp. v. Von Eschenbach, 459 F.3d 1033, 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that “Congress imposed a duty on the FDA to keep adulterated dietary supplements off the market” and that “FDA correctly followed the congressional directive to analyze the risks and benefits of EDS in determining that there is no dosage level of EDS acceptable for the market.”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art 1
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 § 321
 v.