O.C.G.A. § 26-2-27 (2019)
Poisonous or deleterious substances in food; exception for required substances
(a) Any poisonous or deleterious substance added to any food, except where such substance is required in the production thereof or cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice, shall be deemed to be unsafe for purposes of the application of paragraph (2) of Code Section 26-2-26.
(b) When a poisonous or deleterious substance is required in the production of food or cannot be avoided by good manufacturing process, the Commissioner shall promulgate regulations limiting the quantity therein or thereon to such extent as the Commissioner finds necessary for the protection of public health; and any quantity exceeding the limits so fixed shall also be deemed to be unsafe for purposes of the application of paragraph (2) of Code Section 26-2-26. While such a regulation is in effect limiting the quantity of any such substance in the case of any food, such food shall not, by reason of bearing or containing any added amount of such substance, be considered to be adulterated within the meaning of paragraph (1) of Code Section 26-2-26.
(c) In determining the quantity of added poisonous or deleterious substances to be tolerated in or on different articles of food, the Commissioner shall take into account the extent to which the use of such substance is required or cannot be avoided in the production of each such article and the other ways in which the consumer may be affected by the same or other poisonous or deleterious substances.
History
Ga. L. 1956, p. 195, § 13.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Code 1910, § 2103 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Manufacturer not liable under section if substance not added. - Former Code 1910, § 2103 (see now O.C.G.A. § 26-2-26(1) and (2)) was not applicable when the contention was not that the
defendant had adulterated the product by adding some deleterious foreign substance to the normal constituency of the product in order to sell it as a part of the product itself, but when the charge only contended that the defendant was negligent in allowing the normal ingredients of the product to become putrid and unwholesome. Armour & Co. v. Miller, 39 Ga. App. 228, 147 S.E. 184, 1929 Ga. App.
LEXIS 271, aff’d, 169 Ga. 201, 149 S.E. 698, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 314 (1929) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2103). RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Food, § 20. C.J.S. 36A C.J.S., Food, § 23. ALR. Preservative as adulterant within statute in relation of food, 50 A.L.R. 76. Statutory provisions relating to purity of food products as applicable to foreign substances which get into product as result of accident or negligence, and not by purpose or design, 98 A.L.R. 1496.
Constitutionality of statutes, ordinances or other regulations against adulteration of food products as applied to substances used for preservative purposes, 114 A.L.R. 1214. Liability of manufacturer or packer of defective article for injury to person or property of ultimate consumer who purchased from middleman, 140 A.L.R. 191; 142 A.L.R. 1490.