Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 501.001 - Full Text and Legal Analysis Florida Statute 501.001 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Fla. Stat. § 501.001 (2026) Copy Cite Official Site Syfertize CourtListener Amendments
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.
(c) “Bodily injury” means:
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.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 501.001

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd
§501.001(2a)HEALTH-SAFETYRECKLESS TAMPER W PRODUCT ETC RISK INJ DEATHF · 1st
§501.001(2b)HEALTH-SAFETYWIT SERIOUS INJ BUSN BY FALSE LABEL CONTAINERF · 2nd
§501.001(2b)HEALTH-SAFETYWIT SERIOUSLY INJ BUSN BY TAMPER WITH PRODUCTF · 2nd
§501.001(2c)FRAUD-FALSE STATEMENTGIVE FALSE INFO RE CONSUMER PROD TAMPERINGF · 2nd
§501.001(2d)INTIMIDATIONTHREAT TO TAMPER W PRODUCT CAUSE DEATH INJURYF · 3rd

Cases Citing F.S. 501.001

Copy

·Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002).

Cited 151 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2002 WL 31319386

justice. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1, at 275 (2001 ed.). The rules of exclusion that
0 red0 yellow129 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityBurr v. GEO Group Inc. (2024)
Cited as authorityNewberg v. GEO Group Inc. (2024)
Copy

·United States v. Errol Ricardo Bizzard, 674 F.2d 1382 (11th Cir. 1982).

Cited 46 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19491

(1980); 2 Weinstein’s Evidence § 501[01] et seq. (1980). These proposed rules
0 red0 yellow60 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityUnited States v. Anthony Blair (2026)
Quote AuthorityUnited States v. Reginald Graham (2024)
Cited as authorityWright v. United States (2023)
Copy

·Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 21 Educ. L. Rep. 1067

the United States Courts and for State Courts, § 501[01] (1982).
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityIn Re: Grand Jury (1997)
Copy

·Johnson v. State, 595 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 25819

1st DCA 1981); and Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d edition 1984). The only reasons given for barring
0 red0 yellow9 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityBarr v. State (2004)
CitedPalazzolo v. State (2000)
phrase: "see"
CitedOakes v. State (1999)
phrase: "see"
Copy

·Fla. Sheriffs'self-Ins. Fund v. Escambia Cty., 585 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 173053

privilege in question. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d Ed. 1984). The trial court granted Escambia
0 red0 yellow7 green0 procedural
Cited as authoritySuccession of Sirgo (2014)
Cited as authorityKirsch v. Brightstar Corp. (2014)
Copy

·Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto, 614 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

administration of justice." Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (1992 Ed.). The privilege afforded to parties involved
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityHughes v. Foster Wheeler Co. (1997)
CitedJuneau Tanker Corp. v. Sims (1993)
phrase: "see"
Copy

·Nelson v. Womble, 657 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 385385

condition. Charles Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (1995 ed). In Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So.2d 181, 182
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityAislynn Thomas-McDonald v. Jorge E. Silva (2026)
phrase: "cf."
Cited (see also)Ireland v. Francis (2006)
phrase: "see also"
Copy

·Styven Alexis Herrera v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 811 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2016).

Cited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1738

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

·Ulrich v. Coast Dental Servs., Inc., 739 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2438, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9524, 1999 WL 548973

Graham & Glazier, The Handbook of Florida Evidence, § 501.1, p. 308 (1996). Section 90.5015, Florida Statutes
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityFlores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. (2008)
Cited as authorityWesterheide v. State (2002)
Copy

·Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1966, 2011 WL 553707

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

·Shiver v. Lee, 89 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

legislative findings, stated in section 1, now section 501.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., without being convinced
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityBorden Company v. Odham (1960)
Copy

Certified Class in the Charter Sec. Litig. v. Charter Co. (In re Charter Co.), 876 F.2d 866 (11th Cir. 1989).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

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

·Borden Co. v. Odham, 121 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1960).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

constant supply of pure and wholesome milk. Section 501.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. To remedy this state
0 red0 yellow0 green0 procedural
Copy

State, Dep't of Ins. v. Schuler, 510 So. 2d 622 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1603, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9065

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

·Adams v. Lee, 89 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1956).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1956 Fla. LEXIS 4078

elicit a negative answer. Appellees relying on Section 501.01, declaring the policy of the legislature in
0 red0 yellow0 green0 procedural
Copy

·Florida Dairy, Inc. v. Florida Milk Comm'n, 149 So. 2d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

Statutes, F.S.A. Among the legislative findings in Section 501.01 is that the milk industry is “a paramount industry
0 red0 yellow0 green0 procedural

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham Syfert, a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney (Florida Bar No. 39104). For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.