Conclusions The high cost of wild rice makes this product prone to consumer deception through substitution and blending regardless of its relative market position compared with other rice products. Therefore, the Committee suggests that FDA issue a formal advisory opinion or establish a common or usual name regulation defining wild rice in terms of its botanical name(s). Current State requirements should not be candidates for exemption from preemption until a formal FDA requirement is in place.
FDCA Section 403(k) provides that a food is misbranded
if it bears or contains any artificial flavoring, artificial coloring, or chemical preservative, unless it bears labeling stating that fact: Provided, That to the extent that compliance with the requirements of this paragraph is impracticable, exemptions shall be established by regulation promulgated by the Secretary. The provisions of this paragraph and paragraphs (g) and (i) with respect to artificial coloring shall not apply in the caw of butter, cheese, or ice cream. The provisions of this paragraph with respect to chemical preservatives shall not apply to a pesticide chemical when used in or on a raw agricultural commodity which is the produce of the soil.
The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 first laid the statutory framework for regulation of artificial colorings, flavorings, and chemical preservatives. Section 7(4) of the 1906 Act declared that food was adulterated *if it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed." Section 7(5) deemed adulteration to include "any added poisonous or added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health." Preservatives were allowed as long as they could be removed prior to consumption. The 1906 Act did not require labeling of artificial coloring, flavorings, and chemical preservatives in foods.
FDCA, however, declared a food misbranded if its label did not declare the presence of artificial flavors, colors, and chemical preservatives. Congress acted further in this regard by twice amending the 1938 Act: in 1958, with the Food Additives Amendment (P.L. 85–929), and in 1960, with the Color Additive Amendments (P.L. 86–618). The former prohibited approval of any food additive if "the proposed use of the additive would promote deception of the consumer in violation of this chapter or would otherwise result in adulteration or in misbranding of food within the