Florida Statute 501.001 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 501
CONSUMER PROTECTION

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 501.001

501.001 Florida Anti-Tampering Act.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

(a) “Consumer product” includes:

1. “Food,” which means:

a. Any article used for food or drink for humans or other animals;

b. Chewing gum; or

c. Any article intended for use as a component of any article specified in sub-subparagraph a. or sub-subparagraph b.

2. “Drug,” which means:

a. Any agent or product recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement thereof;

b. Any agent or product intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, therapy, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals;

c. Any agent or product, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals; or

d. Any agent or product intended for use as a component of any agent or product specified in sub-subparagraph a., sub-subparagraph b., or sub-subparagraph c., but does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories.

3. “Device,” which means any instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is:

a. Recognized in the official National Formulary or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement thereof;

b. Intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, therapy, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals; or

c. Intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals,

and which does not achieve any of its principal intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of humans or other animals and is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its principal intended purposes.

4. “Cosmetic,” which means:

a. Any substance or product intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, but does not include soap; or

b. Any substance or product intended for use as a component of any substance or product specified in sub-subparagraph a.

(b) “Labeling” means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter upon any article, agent, product, or substance, or any of its containers or wrappers, or accompanying such article, agent, product, or substance.

1. A cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement;

2. Physical pain;

3. Illness;

4. Impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

5. Any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.

(2) TAMPERING; PENALTIES.—

(a) Whoever, with reckless disregard for the risk that another person will be placed in danger of death or bodily injury, tampers with, or conspires or attempts to tamper with, any consumer product or the labeling of, or container for, any such product is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) Whoever, with intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, tampers with any consumer product or renders materially false or misleading the labeling of, or container for, a consumer product is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(c)1. Whoever knowingly communicates false information that a consumer product has been tampered with, if such tampering, had it occurred, would create a risk of death or bodily injury to another person, is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. “Communicates false information” means to communicate information that is false, and that the communicator knows is false, under circumstances in which the information may reasonably be expected to be believed.

(d) Whoever knowingly threatens, under circumstances in which the threat may reasonably be expected to be believed, that he or she will commit or cause to be committed an act which would violate paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3)(a) In addition to any other agency which has authority to investigate and prosecute violations of this section, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, under chapter 500, shall initiate actions necessary to safeguard the public welfare by identifying and removing suspect foods from consumer channels and shall coordinate such actions with other interested agencies if food tampering is identified, alleged, or suspected.

(b) In addition to any other agency which has authority to investigate and prosecute violations of this section, the Department of Health, under chapter 499, shall initiate actions necessary to safeguard the public welfare by identifying and removing suspect drugs, devices, or cosmetics from consumer channels if drug, device, or cosmetic tampering is identified, alleged, or suspected.

History.—s. 2, ch. 87-57; s. 609, ch. 97-103; s. 244, ch. 99-8.

F.S. 501.001 on Google Scholar

F.S. 501.001 on CourtListener

Amendments to 501.001

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 501.001

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S501.001 2a - HEALTH-SAFETY - RECKLESS TAMPER W PRODUCT ETC RISK INJ DEATH - F: F

S501.001 2b - HEALTH-SAFETY - WIT SERIOUS INJ BUSN BY FALSE LABEL CONTAINER - F: S

S501.001 2b - HEALTH-SAFETY - WIT SERIOUSLY INJ BUSN BY TAMPER WITH PRODUCT - F: S

S501.001 2c - FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENT - INFORMATION REGARDING PRODUCT TAMPERING - F: S

S501.001 2d - INTIMIDATION - THREAT TO TAMPER W PRODUCT CAUSE DEATH INJURY - F: T

Cases Citing Statute 501.001

Total Results: 16

Westerheide v. State

831 So. 2d 93, 2002 WL 31319386

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2002 | Docket: 1722942

Cited 151 times | Published

justice. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1, at 275 (2001 ed.). The rules of exclusion that

United States v. Errol Ricardo Bizzard

674 F.2d 1382, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19491

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 6, 1982 | Docket: 221980

Cited 46 times | Published

(1980); 2 Weinstein’s Evidence § 501[01] et seq. (1980). These proposed rules

Marshall v. Anderson

459 So. 2d 384, 21 Educ. L. Rep. 1067

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 1984 | Docket: 1282609

Cited 10 times | Published

the United States Courts and for State Courts, § 501[01] (1982).

Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto

614 So. 2d 517

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1992 | Docket: 1509807

Cited 6 times | Published

administration of justice." Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (1992 Ed.). The privilege afforded to parties involved

Johnson v. State

595 So. 2d 132, 1992 WL 25819

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 1992 | Docket: 1709138

Cited 6 times | Published

1st DCA 1981); and Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d edition 1984). The only reasons given for barring

Fla. Sheriffs'self-Ins. Fund v. Escambia Cty.

585 So. 2d 461, 1991 WL 173053

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 1991 | Docket: 1688546

Cited 6 times | Published

privilege in question. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d Ed. 1984). The trial court granted Escambia

Nelson v. Womble

657 So. 2d 1221, 1995 WL 385385

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1995 | Docket: 463934

Cited 5 times | Published

condition. Charles Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (1995 ed). In Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So.2d 181, 182

Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation v. Charter Co. (In re Charter Co.)

876 F.2d 866

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 28, 1989 | Docket: 66245311

Cited 3 times | Published

individually, usually by a creditor. See 11 U.S.C. § 501.1 Of course, Section 501 does not operate in isolation

Borden Company v. Odham

121 So. 2d 625

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 1960 | Docket: 1318217

Cited 3 times | Published

constant supply of pure and wholesome milk. Section 501.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. To remedy this state

Styven Alexis Herrera v. U.S. Attorney General

811 F.3d 1298, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1738

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 2, 2016 | Docket: 3032877

Cited 2 times | Published

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 501.1(e)(3) (Nov. 2010). The Board reasonably concluded

Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo

54 So. 3d 612, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1966, 2011 WL 553707

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2011 | Docket: 2406384

Cited 2 times | Published

privileged).”); Charles W. Erhardt, Florida Evidence, § 501.1 at 340 (2007 ed.) (“The burden is upon the party

Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services, Inc.

739 So. 2d 142, 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2438, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9524, 1999 WL 548973

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1999 | Docket: 1688825

Cited 2 times | Published

Graham & Glazier, The Handbook of Florida Evidence, § 501.1, p. 308 (1996). Section 90.5015, Florida Statutes

Shiver v. Lee

89 So. 2d 318

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1956 | Docket: 1257427

Cited 2 times | Published

legislative findings, stated in section 1, now section 501.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., without being convinced

State, Department of Insurance v. Schuler

510 So. 2d 622, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1603, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1987 | Docket: 64628656

Published

fear of prosecution); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d ed. 1984) (“The burden is on the party asserting

Florida Dairy, Inc. v. Florida Milk Commission

149 So. 2d 867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1963 | Docket: 60210044

Published

Statutes, F.S.A. Among the legislative findings in Section 501.01 is that the milk industry is “a paramount industry

Adams v. Lee

89 So. 2d 217, 1956 Fla. LEXIS 4078

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 1956 | Docket: 64488379

Published

elicit a negative answer. Appellees relying on Section 501.01, declaring the policy of the legislature in