Opinion ID: 1464694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Statutory Scheme: the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990

Text: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA), enacted in 1938, generally prohibits misbranding of food. Our discussion focuses on two sections of that act  (q) and (r)  which were added in 1990 through the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (the NLEA), Pub.L. No. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (1990). The NLEA sought to clarify and to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's legal authority to require nutrition labeling on foods, and to establish the circumstances under which claims may be made about nutrients in foods. H.R.Rep. No. 101-538, at 7 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3336, 3337. [1] Sections 343(q) and (r) and their related preemption provisions, Sections 343-1(a)(4) and (a)(5), are the statutory bases from which the preemption questions in this case stem. Section 343(q), entitled [n]utrition information, addresses mandatory information on nutrients, and requires that basic nutrition facts be disclosed for most foods. The general public is well-acquainted with this provision through the Nutrition Facts panel on packaged foods that informs buyers of the the total number of calories per serving, along with the quantities of various nutrients contained in the foods. 21 U.S.C. § 343(q). [2] Restaurants, NYSRA's membership, are exempt from Section 343(q)'s mandatory nutrition information labeling requirements; they do not have to attach a Nutrition Facts panel to food they serve. Id. § 343(q)(5)(A)(i). Section 343(r), entitled [n]utrition levels and health-related claims, addresses voluntary information, that is, those claims that a food purveyor may choose to add to its product label about the nutrient content (for example, low sodium) or health benefits (for example, fiber reduces cholesterol) of its product. See id. § 343(r). It prohibits the use of terms that characterize[ ] the level of any nutrient in a food unless they conform to definitions established by the FDA, and requires that claims about the relationship between nutrients and health conditions be supported by scientific consensus. [3] See id.; 21 C.F.R. § 101.14(c) (FDA will promulgate regulations authorizing a health claim only when it determines . . . that there is significant scientific agreement, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence.). Specifically, that section states that: A food shall be deemed misbranded [if it] (A) characterizes the level of any nutrient which is of the type required by [Section 343(q)(1) or (q)(2)] to be in the label or labeling of the food unless the claim is made in accordance with [Section 343(r)(2)], or (B) characterizes the relationship of any nutrient which is of the type required by [Section 343(q)(1) or (q)(2)] to be in the label or labeling of the food to a disease or a health-related condition unless the claim is made in accordance with [Section 343(r)(3) or (5)(D)]. 21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(1)(A)-(B). However, Section 343(r) adds that [a] statement of the type required by [Section 343(q)] that appears as part of the nutrition information required or permitted by such paragraph is not a claim which is subject to this paragraph. Id. § 343(r)(1). In contrast to Section 343(q), restaurants are not exempt from Section 343(r)'s regulation of claims. Thus, when a restaurant chooses to characterize[ ] the level of any nutrient which is of the type required by [Section 343(q)] to be in the label or labeling of the food, id. § 343(r)(1)(A), it must conform to Section 343(r)'s requirements. The NLEA contains two express preemption provisions relating to both Sections 343(q) and (r). Section 343-1(a)(4), which relates to Section 343(q), preempts any state or local requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement of [S]ection 343(q) . . ., except a requirement for nutrition labeling of food which is exempt under [Section 343(q)(5)(A)(i)], that is, the restaurant exception. Id. § 343-1(a)(4) (emphasis added). [4] Section 343-1(a)(5), which relates to Section 343(r), expressly preempts state or local governments from imposing any requirement on nutrient content claims made by a food purveyor in the label or labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement of [S]ection 343(r) . . ., except a requirement respecting a claim made in the label or labeling of food which is exempt under [S]ection 343(r)(5)(B). Id. § 343-1(a)(5) (emphasis added); [5] 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(q)(5)(A). Thus, states are not preempted from adopting nutrition information labeling laws as defined by Section 343(q), but are preempted from adopting nutrient claim laws as defined by Section 343(r). Though appearing complex, this scheme is simple when it comes to restaurant food  the NLEA does not regulate nutrition information labeling on restaurant food, and states and localities are free to adopt their own rules. The NLEA, however, does generally regulate nutrition content claims on restaurant foods, and states and localities may only adopt rules that are identical to those provided in the NLEA.