Learning Targets Case: Food and Essay

Part 3) What does the Court conclude in the case and why? The Court concluded that the FDA did not, under the current set of legal standards, have the power to enact and enforce the regulations and could not "regulate" tobacco. The Court had the legal responsibility, under a previous precedent Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council (467 U.S. 837), whether Congress had already spoken to the issue at hand., and if so, must give deference to Congress' decision. In this case, Congress had, under several occasions, spoken to the rule of law, and therefore, the Court could not expand or contract said authority.

Part 4) if regulation of tobacco is to occur, what has to happen first? Two things, which have actually happened. 1) Congress must rule that tobacco products are drugs and that the FDA may regulate drugs, and 2) Congress must expressly grant the DFA the power to regulate the tobacco industry.This they did under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (HR 1256), which was summarily signed into law on June 22, 2009. In addition to some packaging and marketing issues, the law was in direct response to the Brown and Williamson case, and now officially authorized the FDA with an oversight role on tobacco products.

SOURCES CONSULTED:

FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. (2000). 529 U.S. Supreme Court, 120.

Cited in: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1152.ZS.html

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (1935). Public Law 75-175. June 25, 1938.

"Tobacco Products," (2011). U.S. Food and drug Administration. Cited in: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/default.htm

Rogers, D. (June 8, 2009). Senate Vote a Sea Change for Tobacco. Politico. Cited in:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23509.html

See, "Tobacco Products," (2011). U.S. Food and drug Administration. Cited in: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/default.htm.....