National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$27.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity (1992)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "5 Comparison and Analysis of Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements." Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1992.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
125
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Food Labeling: Toward National Uniformity
Poi

Hawaiian Administrative Rule §11-29-6 defines poi (a paste made from taro root tubers) and provides standards for the percentage of solids in poi and in ready-mixed poi. Hawaii believes that this rule contributes to consumer protection through prevention of economic fraud and adulteration of this unique product.

Conclusions In view of the highly localized and culturally specific nature of poi, the Committee suggests that Hawaii petition FDA to exempt its poi provision from preemption.

Vidalia Onions

The State of Georgia has a regulation providing a common or usual name for the Vidalia onion in terms of its botanical identity and locality of production (Ga. Code Ann. §2-14-131 to 2-14-134). Its unique flavor has been credited to the low sulfur soil in the area in which it is grown (Harris, 1983).

Conclusions This State requirement appears to be predominantly protectionist in that no specific justification is provided for limiting the source to the defined producing locality. However, because of the widespread recognition of the Vidalia onion name, the Committee suggests that Georgia (or any other group or industry) consider submitting a petition to FDA to establish a common or usual name for the Vidalia onion based on measurable geographical, botanical, and/or quality criteria that justifiably differentiate it from other varieties or species of onion.

Wild Rice

Specific regulations concerning wild rice exist in only two States—Minnesota and Wisconsin (Minn. Stat. §30.49; Wis. Stat. §97.57). These requirements specify the nature of the product and the mode of harvest. Wild rice (botanically a grass) constitutes a minor part of the overall rice market, compared with polished rice, brown rice, and their derived products and is only a minor part of the American diet. The Minnesota and Wisconsin wild rice regulations may be viewed as mainly protecting State industry economic concerns. However, the high price of wild rice makes the possibility of consumer fraud an issue.

Page
125
Front Matter (R1-R16)
1 Summary (1-26)
2 Background of the Study (27-34)
3 Contextual Factors Affecting the Regulation of Misbranded Food (35-62)
4 Criteria for Determining Adequate Implementation of the Federal Statute (63-84)
5 Comparison and Analysis of Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements (85-140)
6 Issues Raised By States, Consumers, and Industry (141-162)
Appendixes (163-164)
A Provision for the State Food Labeling Study Contained in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (165-166)
B Participants at the Public Meeting Held by the Committee on State Food Labeling, May 30, 1991 (167-168)
C Letter of Request Sent to State and Local Regulators and Consumer Groups by the Committee on State Food Labeling (169-172)
D States Providing Written Response to the Six Questions from the Committee on State Food Labeling (173-174)
E Individuals from States That Provided Information to the Committee on State Food Labeling (175-182)
F State and Local Laws, Regulations, and Other Materials Submitted to the Committee on State Food Labeling (183-194)
G Areas of Discrepancy Between Federal and State Food Labeling Requirements Identified by States and Consumer and Industry Groups (195-202)
H State Food Labeling Requirements and Relationship to the Misbranding Provisions of Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (203-208)
I Case Study: Requirements for Labeling Bottle Water (209-218)
J Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff (219-224)
Index (225-240)