18

Which part of the US constitution delegates the US federal government the power to establish the agency "Food and Drug Administration"?

xuhdev
  • 1,124
  • 9
  • 21

2 Answers2

42

The long title of the 1906 act that established the FDA is "To prohibit the movement in interstate commerce of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, and for other purposes."

The reader may note the phrase "interstate commerce", which is a power granted Congress to regulate in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

user662852
  • 1,758
  • 14
  • 13
4

On a related note since the FDA get its authority from the commerce clause they do not have any authority in non-interstate food issues. Specifically since I was researching sausage, meat products must meet all FDA rules to be transported across state lines for sale, and all facilities involved in the handling of such meat must be inspected by the FDA. On the other hand custom processors (those who butcher meat from hunting) and farmer's market butchers may refuse inspection and have the FDA inspectors arrested for trespassing if they try to inspect anyway. In the case of the custom processor this is because although the meat may have crossed state lines and may again, it never is sold and in the case of farmer's markets although the meat is sold it never crosses state lines.

Shazamo Morebucks
  • 6,179
  • 1
  • 22
  • 44
hildred
  • 157
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • 19
    The caveat to this statement is Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court ruled that regulating interstate commerce can be interpreted rather broadly. That is, the US government can regulate production and sale of items if said production/sale affects interstate commerce, even if those items themselves are never actually sold across state lines. (Note "can" - whether the government actually does regulate them or not is another question.) – R.M. Aug 22 '17 at 19:24
  • 10
    Yeah pretty sure none of this is even close to remotely true. It isn't really Wickard v. Filburn that's the problem, but Gonzales v. Raich. To quote the supreme court regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity – Shane Aug 22 '17 at 21:39
  • 7
    If you raise your own crops or livestock, you aren't buying any/as much on the markets. Therefore, you are affecting the supply and demand on the interstate markets. Therefore, whenever you are not engaged in buying things or selling things, not engaged in doing any commerce at all, you are obviously engaging in interstate commerce. Laws r dum. – Shane Aug 22 '17 at 21:43
  • 1
    I suspect that trying to "have the FDA inspectors arrested for trespassing" would end rather poorly. – Zach Lipton Aug 23 '17 at 07:32
  • 2
    @Shane WIckard v. Filburn set the precedent that by not participating in interstate commerce, one was "affecting" it indirectly (supply/demand) and therefore Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce applied where no such commerce existed to be regulated. Gonzales v. Raich stood upon Wickard's mighty shoulders. – Monty Harder Aug 23 '17 at 21:42
  • Judicial interpretations and twists aside, it is instructive to read the plain language of the basic law of the United States: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" and the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Of course, in modern interpretations, anything which may have an impact on interstate commerce may be deemed subject to Federal regulation. – Wildcard Aug 24 '17 at 01:30
  • @Wildcard The controlling law is Wickard v. Fillburn. A case law interpretation of a statute or constitution by a court with jurisdiction over the court making a decision always prevails over a plain reading of the text in a common law system like that found in the United States. – ohwilleke Aug 24 '17 at 05:03
  • 2
    @hildred This answer is squarely in conflict with U.S. law and completely inaccurate. Your interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is simply wrong. There would be a good case for sanctioning you if you made that argument in court. – ohwilleke Aug 24 '17 at 05:06
  • @ohwilleke, interesting...and yet, is this rule of precedence of judicial interpretations over the plain text of the Constitution itself described in the Constitution? Or is it the result of a judicial interpretation? ("My word is law—that's the law.") – Wildcard Aug 24 '17 at 05:36
  • 1
    @Wildcard It is the way that common law legal systems have operated ever since the Norman Conquest in 1066 CE. – ohwilleke Aug 24 '17 at 05:46
  • @ohwilleke Are you sure the answer is entirely wrong? The statute in question mentions "introduction into interstate commerce," (21 U.S.C. § 374(a)(1) etc) defined interstate as "(1) commerce between any State or Territory and any place outside thereof, and (2) commerce within the District of Columbia or within any other Territory not organized with a legislative body." (21 U.S.C. § 321(b)) It looks to me like, while Congress has the power under the interstate commerce clause to delegate to the FDA the authority to inspect the entities listed in the answer, in this case it chose not to do so. – Jean Luc Picard Aug 24 '17 at 23:57
  • @JeanLucPicard That kind of language when used as constitutional jurisdiction for a statute has been interpreted to be much more expansive than it seems on its face. A recent SCOTUS case involving home invasions with an intent to steal marijuana held that interstate commerce was always conclusively present as a matter of law even if there was no marijuana there or it was all made locally under substantially same statutory language without having to have a jury find this element beyond a reasonable doubt like all other elements of crimes relying on Wickard. – ohwilleke Aug 25 '17 at 00:01
  • 1
    @JeanLucPicard The case is Taylor v. U.S. (U.S. 2016) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf – ohwilleke Aug 25 '17 at 00:04