Legal Document

340 U.S. 593 71 Supreme Court Reporter 515 95 L.Ed. 566 62 CASES, MORE OR LESS, EACH CONTAINING SIX JARSOF JAM et al.v.UNITED STATES. Number 363. Argued March 5—6, 1951. Decided 26, Mr. Benjamin Federal KF105 F3 Stapleton, Jr., Denver, Colo., for petitioners. Robert L. Stern, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes United States to bring a libel against any article food which is 'misbranded' when using channels interstate commerce. June 25, 1938, § 304, 52 Statutes-at-Large 1040, 1044, 21 Code KF62 334, Annotated KF65 U5 334. defines in eleven paragraphs 403. 1047—1048, 343, 343. question before us raised by two apparently conflicting paragraphs. 2 One them, subsection (c), comes from original Pure Food Drugs 1906. 30, 1906, 34 768, 770—771, 8 (first paragraph concerning 'food,' second proviso). It directs that shall be deemed if it 'is an imitation another food, unless its label bears, type uniform size prominence, word 'imitation' and, immediately thereafter, name imitated.' other, (g), was added enlargement statute 1938. condemns as product 'purports or represented food', ingredients Administrator has standardized, does not conform all respects standards prescribed. authority promulgate his judgment 'such action will promote honesty fair dealing interest consumers'. 401, 1046, 341, 341. 3 proceeding commenced 1949 District New Mexico. By seeks condemn cases 'Delicious Brand Imitation Jam,' manufactured Colorado shipped Government claims this 'purports' fruit jam, Security promulgated 'definition standard identity.' regulation specifies jam must contain 'not less than 45 parts weight' ingredient. Regulations (1949 ed.) 29.0. composed 55% sugar, 25% fruit, 20% pectin, small amounts citric acid soda. These specifications show gelatinized solution consisting largely water, been substituted substantial proportion required. contends therefore under 403(g). 4 On basis stipulated testimony Judge found although seized did meet prescribed 'wholesome' 'in every way fit human consumption.' have appearance taste standardized used expensive substitute product. In some instances, products similar those were sold at retail public response telephone orders jams, served patrons restaurants, ranches establishments, who had no opportunity learn quality what they received. But there suggestion misrepresentation. judge labels on jars substantially accurate; he concluded since purported only preserve complied with (c) 403 Act, could 'misbranded.' 87 F.Supp. 735. 5 Appeals Tenth Circuit, one dissenting, reversed judgment. 183 Reporter, 2nd Series 1014. held closely resembled taste, 'purported' notwithstanding duly labeled 'imitation.' court remanded cause instructions enter condemnation. We granted certiorari, 890, 207, because importance administration Act. 6 1. successively strengthened, Congress exerted power keep impure adulterated foods drugs out purposes legislation, we said, 'touch phases lives health people which, circumstances modern industrialism, are beyond self-protection. Regard these should infuse construction legislation treated working instrument government merely collection English words.' versus Dotterweich, 320 277, 280, 64 134, 136, 88 48. This attitude approach problem statutory now presented. our construe written. After all, expresses purpose words. ascertain—neither add nor subtract, neither delete distort. 7 2. Misbranding chief evils sought stop. both within right wisdom trust colloquial dictionary meaning misbranding, but write own. Concededly here misbranding crude manifestations, would colloquially false representation. Compare 403(a), (b), (d), 1047, 343(a), 343(a, b, d). Our concern whether Jam' 'deemed misbranded' according 403(c) (g) 3. controlling provisions follows: 9 'Sec. 304. (a) (as amended 24, 1948, 582) Any drug, device, cosmetic misbranded introduced into while commerce sale (whether first sale) after shipment commerce, * liable proceeded time information condemned district jurisdiction found: *. 10 401. Whenever (Administrator) such consumers, regulations fixing establishing common usual so far practicable, reasonable definition identity, quality, and/or fill container: prescribing identity class optional permitted, shall, promoting designate named label. 11 A 12 '(c) If imitated. 13 '(g) purports provided section (1) conforms standard, (2) bears specified insofar may required regulations, names (other spices, flavoring, coloring) present food.' 14 4. §§ 401 403(g), vested far-reaching species 'a identity'. Quaker Oats Co., 318 218, 63 589, 724, means may, regulation, fix thereafter commodity cannot as' thus defined ingredients. different food—'farina' 'enriched farina.' former exclusively milled wheat product; latter included certain additional ingredients, optionally vitamin D. Company marketed called 'Quaker Farina Wheat Cereal Enriched Vitamin D,' either standard. Because contained 'farina'; lacked essential concededly wholesome product, accurately labeled; Administrator's sold. sustained holding constitutionally empowered define thereby precluded manufacturers—or courts—from determining themselves other produce nutritious 'The defeated producers free however wholesome, definition.' page 232, 597. 15 5. decision case touch us. conceded food. consider legality marketing properly 'imitation That comparable here. 16 According nothing can legally 'jam' 1940, Fed.Reg. 3554, 29.0, contains proportion. Hence controversy 'jam.' lawfully do 'represent' specifications. 17 concerned 'imitationjam.' dealt give esoteric left understanding ordinary speech. And directed imitated 'unless 18 speech doubt jam. looks tastes like jam; unequivocally jam.' argue falls short requirements 403(c). Its distribution clearly seem authorized section. hold practice impliedly prohibited 19 see justification distort statute. Nothing text history points reading wrote. 403(g) words 'purport' 'represent'—terms suggesting idea counterfeit. jam' once connotes precisely is: different, inferior preserve, meeting Section designed protect resembling distinctive names. See S.Rep.No. 361, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 8—11. well supposed confusion result candidly flagrantly described precise accuracy. neithers conveys ambiguity emanates untrue innuendo, 'Bred Spred' considered deliberation H.R.Rep.No. 2139, 75th 3d 5; House Hearings H.R. 6906, 8805, 8941 S. 5, 46—47. is—an imitation. purport represent not—the genuine 20 anxiety effectuate congressional protecting public, take care extend scope point where indicated standardizes ingredient serves purpose. wishes say marked likeness Administrator, though labeled, entirely perhaps more reach meager purse, decisions indicate so. said contrary. Indeed, contemporaneous contrary contends. assume misconception results misreading written case. Reversed. 22 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 23 reached sound legislative standards. legal govern make process reaching tortuous least. petitioner's read Yet petitioner claim press objection raise.

Classification Label: 7