Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Relevant state law in the early 20th century: Adoption of California's place-name wine statute; California's Pure Foods Act and adoption of the food standards, including the wine standards; and corresponding labeling regulations

Text: Nothing in the 1906 federal Pure Food and Drugs Act implied that the existing and continuing state regulation of the misbranding of food and beverages was preempted by that federal legislation. Indeed, the act disclose[d] very clearly that it [was] not intended to trench upon the powers of the states in any respect. ( Cleveland Macaroni Co. v. State Board of Health (N.D.Cal.1919) 256 F. 376, 379; see also Savage, supra, 225 U.S. 501, 32 S.Ct. 715, 56 L.Ed. 1182 [upholding, against a claim of preemption, Indiana food and drug labeling regulations]; see generally Fisher, The Proposed Food and Drugs Act: A Legal Critique (1933) 1 Law & Contemp. Probs. 74, 75 & fn. 4 ( Proposed Food and Drugs Act ) [noting case law holding that states were permitted to prescribe additional standards and that [c]ompliance with federal standards does not secure the right to interstate transportation free from `reasonable' regulation by the state].) Soon after passage of the 1906 federal act, the California Legislature, in an apparent effort to combat the continuing problem of the labeling of California wines as foreign wines, adopted a statute requiring a uniform wine nomenclature that, for the first time, specifically regulated the use of place names on wine labels. The statute provided for pure California wines to be labeled with the prefix `Cal' or `Cala' . . . as for example, `Calclaret,' `Calburgundy,' `Calariesling,' etc., . . . . (Stats. 1907, ch. 104, § 1, pp. 127-128.) The statute further prohibited the use of any such label on wines other than pure California wines. It barred labeling any vessel, bottle, . . . or package containing any liquid other than pure wine of California manufacture, . . . or any paper or brand in similitude or resemblance thereof, or any paper or brand of such form and appearance as to be calculated to mislead or deceive any unwary person or cause him to suppose the contents thereof to be pure wine of California manufacture, origin or production . . . . ( Id., § 2, p. 128.) Following passage of the 1906 federal Pure Food and Drugs Act, states left in place or expanded (or in other instances enacted for the first time) their own statutes to address the problems of adulteration, misbranding, and mislabeling of food and beverages. (See generally American Pure Food and Drug Laws, supra, at pp. 260-1450; Proposed Food and Drugs Act, supra, 1 Law & Contemp. Probs. 74, 75 & fn. 4.) California, for its part, adopted such a general scheme in March 1907, addressing the problem of adulterated, mislabeled or misbranded food, or liquor. (Stats.1907, ch. 181, § 1, p. 208; 1907 Pure Foods Act or 1907 State Act.) That statute  like those of many other states  specifically adopted under state law the food standards (including the wine standards) that had been formulated by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, but which, as described above, were unenforceable under federal law. (Stats.1907, ch. 181, § 3, p. 209.) Further going beyond anything set forth in the federal law, the state statute also made it illegal to, among other things,  falsely brand [] any food or liquor concerning the  county, . . . city, town, [ or ] state . . . in which it is manufactured, or produced  ( id., § 5, p. 210, italics added), [31] and provided that [f]ood and liquor shall be deemed mislabeled or misbranded within the meaning of this act . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [i]f the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substance contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false or misleading in any particular. (Stats.1907, ch. 181, § 6, p. 210, italics added.) [32] Accordingly, as of March 1907 and continuing through the next three decades, California (like many other states) [33] had adopted specific and enforceable wine standards that exceeded federal law. During this same period  and indeed, until repeal of the 1906 federal Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1938  the Secretary of Agriculture's food standards remained unenforceable under federal law despite periodic attempts to provide otherwise. (See Interpretative Regulations, supra, 29 Georgetown L.J. 1, 6-17.) [34]