Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling

According to, http://www.toxicology.org/gp/fda.asp, the Society of Toxicology website, in 1937 the Massengill pharmaceutical company dispersed Elixir Sulfanilamide. This drug was prescribed generally to anyone who had symptoms of strep throat. Elixir Sulfanilamide contains diethylene glycol, which is a chemical equivalent of antifreeze. There were 107 documented deaths, involving many children, because of the lack in regulations. The Pure Food and Drug Act was deemed to insufficient to protect the public. This tragedy was the critical motivation for the creation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act mandated that manufacturers of drugs had to provide labels on their drugs. These labels provided the consumer with information about what certain drugs contained and specific directions about how to take them. This action prevented false claims about drugs and allowed consumers to know that certain drugs were safe. As a result, the scrutiny of drugs ensured the selling of safe drugs in the United States.

The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) is a federal statute that was enacted in 1976. Under the TSCA, chemicals must meet regulations set by the administering body, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Toxic Substance Control Act also requires testing of new chemicals to determine how they affect both the environment and humans. If the chemicals do not meet the regulations, the EPA is allowed to limit or prohibit their manufacturing and sales (Cheeseman, Page 523). While the Toxic Substance Control Act has been around since 1976, it has been amended or expanded 29 times in the last three years alone (EPA.gov). Violating this federal statute can result in hefty fines, and in serious cases, jail time. Like many federal statutes, the Toxic Substance Control Act has some opposition, especially as more changes continue to be made, but overall it has been well-received as a vital protection law that is generally well-enforced.

The first Pure Food and Drug Act was put into action by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. The act was passed to prevent the manufacture, sale, or transportation of misbranded or harmful food, drugs, medicines, and liquors. Due to this act the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came to be. The FDA is now responsible for the testing of all foods and drugs for human consumption and the label warnings on them as well.

As one of the primary federal consumer-protection laws in existence today, The Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906 was a law that had two primary goals for food and drugs: (a) forbid harmful ingredients and additions and (b) demand labeling of ingredients to inform consumers. According to Janssen (1981), it was hoped that the enactment of this law would eliminate adulterations and poisons sometimes found in foods, sometimes in drugs and often in both. The foundation of food and drug protection came from the development of scientific methods of analysis by the Federal Bureau of Chemistry,

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938: Sulfonamide tested for flavor and fragrance but not safety, children died and 350 more were poisoned. This act made it so the sale of unsafe drugs could be stopped, that toxic drugs could be seized, and the burden of proof was given to the manufactures to show data of safety experiments.

2. Safety symbols: Safety symbols are used to successfully keep everyone safe from dangerous and harmful materials especially chemicals, these symbols are a valuable asset to everyone’s wellbeing and safety.

This act, under the direct administration of the Bureau of Chemistry, forbade the interstate transport of illegal food and drugs, and exposed any responsible parties, that dare to violate the law, to penalty of seizure of the questionable products and/or prosecution. In fact, the foundation of the law relies on the regulation of product labeling rather than pre-market approval. The selling of Drugs, which are defined according to the standards of strength, quality, and purity in the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary, is denied under any other condition except that the specific variations from the applicable standards were clearly stated on the label. However, there were different standards that defined foods, but the law outlawed the addition of any ingredients that would alternate for the food, hide damage, generate a health danger, or constitute a filthy or decomposed substance. The controversial interpretations of the food provisions in the law engendered many, sometimes prolonged, court battles. In case the manufacturer decided to list the weight or measure of a food, this had to be done accurately. Also, the food or drug label could not be false or misleading in any particular, and the presence and amount of eleven dangerous ingredients, including alcohol, heroin, and cocaine, had to be listed (Nash 276-77).

Government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) handles setting the safety standards. According to Halbert & Ingulli (2012) parties can allocate risks with some constraints under the Uniform Commercial Code (p.282). For example, Toyotas was having acceleration problems with their vehicles. However, individuals “injured may now turn to the courts to hold manufacturers and sellers liable. In recent decades class action suits of injured Plaintiffs have been brought against entire industries found to have hidden the known risks of their products: asbestos, tobacco, and lead” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.282).

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed by Congress – along with the Meat Inspection Act – on June 30, 1906, then took effect on January 7, 1907 (Lerner 670). This act prevented manufacturers from selling mislabeled products, contaminated food with unsafe ingredients, and fixes dirty conditions in the food industry that was brought to the attention by journalists and authors (Lerner 670; “Pure Food” 1081). This regulation strongly enforces how food and drug products “were packaged, labeled, sold…in the United States” (“Pure Food”

In today’s society there are regulations in place for everything- from the safety of children’s toys to road construction to food processing and packaging. “Regulations consist of requirements the government imposes on private firms and individuals to achieve government’s purposes” (Litan, 2008). Regulations are in place to protect businesses, producers, consumers, individuals, animals, and even the environment. For example, the packaging and labelling regulations in Canada protects the consumers and producers of the many food products produced in Canada, one of which is honey. This paper will focus on the packaging and labelling requirements of Canadian honey through discussion of the regulations, stakeholders and the opposition of stakeholders

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA or Act), enacted in 1967, directs the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to issue regulations requiring that all "consumer commodities" be labeled to disclose net contents, identity of commodity, and name and place of business of the product's manufacturer, packer, or distributor. The Act authorizes additional regulations where necessary to prevent consumer deception (or to facilitate value comparisons) with respect to descriptions of ingredients, slack fill of packages, use of "cents-off" or lower price labeling, or characterization of package sizes. The Office of Weights and Measures of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, is

1) “Preventive Control”, this is the first time the FDA have a legislative mandate to require comprehensive, science-based preventive controls across the food supply. This mandate includes: mandatory preventive controls for food facilities, mandatory produce safety standards, and authority to prevent intentional contamination. Mandatory preventive controls for food facilities means food facilities are required to implement a written preventive

Hazardous chemicals include flammable liquids, acids, gases and solvents. This should all be included in the Production Risk Assessment for each performance and should state each substance that is to be used. The substances should be used in accordance with requirements set out in the Safety Data Sheet included in the risk assessments.

Turpentine and its alternatives, such as mineral spirits, are essentials used by oil painters, but they are resources many experienced painters advise against using. These products, though very popular amongst inexperienced painters, have been linked to brain and respiratory damage among those who experience prolonged exposure to them. Minors are still experiencing significant brain development, and any exposure to damaging inhalants such as turpentine can impair brain growth. Many people are unaware of the unintended health effects from the use of turpentine and minerals spirits, despite the warning labels present on the products. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for the regulation of any goods that may be harmful to consumers, including mineral spirits. Turpentine and mineral spirits should be regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by making it illegal for minors to purchase it and its harmful substitutes, limiting the amount that can be purchased by adults, and providing more prominent labeling on the products advertising the negative effects of using these harsh paint thinners.