Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if:
However, under division (ii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as to small packages shall be established by regulations prescribed by the Commissioner; and a food shall not be deemed misbranded because of omission of the information required by division (i) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph where such omission is authorized in writing by the Commissioner.
(Ga. L. 1956, p. 195, § 11; Ga. L. 1966, p. 180, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 26.)
- For comment on Aeration Processes v. Commissioner, 194 N.E.2d 838 (Mass. 1963), and Coffee-Rich v. Kansas State Bd. of Health, 192 Kan. 431, 388 P.2d 582 (1964), discussing imitation foods and misbranding statutes, see 13 J. Pub. L. 536 (1964).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1910, §§ 2104, 2115 and 2117, are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Purpose of the law against adulteration or misbranding is to protect consumers from deception or injury, and it is to be conclusively presumed that it was adopted to prevent injury to the public health by the sale and transportation in intrastate commerce of misbranded and adulterated foods. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101).
Jurisdiction of federal court to enjoin wrongful confiscation of food products and prosecutions for violating former Code 1910, § 2103, see Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2117).
Word "imitation" as used in former Code 1910, § 2104 indicated something intentional rather than incidental, and imported more than mere resemblance or similitude. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2104).
- "Southern nut product" held a "distinctive" name, not an imitation of creamery butter and not adulterated. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2104).
Product sometimes used as a substitute for creamery butter without being declared to be such was not banned. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2104).
Products made wholly from vegetable oils, water, salt, and harmless coloring matter are not prohibited from being sold by former Code 1910, § 2115. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2115).
Substitute must not be sold so misbranded as to deceive or so adulterated as to injure. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101).
Former Code 1910, § 2101 did not prohibit the use of adulterated or misbranded foods. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2101).
Former Code 1910, § 2104 dealt with articles sold in commerce. Baltimore Butterine Co. v. Talmadge, 32 F.2d 904 (S.D. Ga. 1929), aff'd, 37 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1930) (decided under former Code 1910, § 2104).
Provisions of Ga. L. 1956, p. 195 (see now O.C.G.A. § 26-2-28) apply to bottled soft drinks. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 7.
Label on a package of meat, in order to comply with Ga. L. 1956, p. 195 (see now O.C.G.A. § 26-2-28), must contain the name and place of business of the specific establishment where the food is packaged; merely placing the name of a retail food chain and the home office city on a label would not comply with these provisions. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-98.
- 35A Am. Jur. 2d, Food, § 24 et seq.
- 36A C.J.S., Food, §§ 19, 21, 41, 46, 47.
- Constitutionality of statutes requiring notice by label or otherwise, of the fact that product is imported, or as to the place of production, 83 A.L.R. 1409; 124 A.L.R. 572.
Provisions of statutes against misbranding or false labeling of food, drug or cosmetic products as applicable to literature other than that attached to product itself, 143 A.L.R. 1453.
No results found for Georgia Code 26-2-28.