O.C.G.A. § 26-2-4 (2019)
Labeling, sale, or advertising of spring water
(a) As used in this Code section, the term “spring water” means water which is: (1) derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth; (2) not derived from a municipal system or public water supply; and (3) collected only at the spring or through a bore hole into the same underground water-bearing zone; provided, however, that water collected with the assistance of external force to protect the water shall retain all the physical properties of and be of the same chemical composition and quality as the water that flows naturally to the surface.
(b) Any water which meets the definition of “spring water” as specified in subsection (a) of this Code section may lawfully be labeled, sold, advertised, and otherwise represented as “spring water” or “natural spring water,” notwithstanding any other contrary provision of any law or regulation of this state. No law or regulation of this state shall:
(1) require or be construed to require any disclaimer in connection with such labeling, sale, advertisement, or representation; or (2) require or be construed to require such water to be additionally identified as any other type of water.
History
Code 1981, § 26-2-4, enacted by Ga. L.
1992, p. 1016, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 5, § 26/HB 90.
ARTICLE 2 ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF FOOD
Annotations
Cross references. Authority of Commissioner of Agriculture to impose penalty in lieu of other action, § 2-2-10.
Powers and duties of Commissioners with regard to use, and advertisement of weights and measures pertaining to commodities generally, § 10-2-1 et seq.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose of Georgia Food Act. - The “Georgia Food Act” (O.C.G.A. § 26-2-20 et seq.), is a consumer protection Act, designed not to render the workplace a safe environment, but to prevent the sale and distribution of adulterated or misbranded foods to consumers. While safety in the workplace and compensation for injuries arising out of work activities are indeed matters of contemporary concern, they are the subject of other legislative enactments on both the state and federal level. Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co., 165 Ga. App. 546, 301 S.E.2d 903, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1942 (1983). Determining if violation is negligence per se. - In determining whether the violation of a statute or ordinance, such as O.C.G.A. § 26-2-20 et seq., is negligence per se as to a particular person, it is necessary to examine the purposes of the legislation and decide: (1) whether the injured person falls within
the class of persons the statute was intended to protect; and (2) whether the harm complained of was the harm the statute was intended to guard against. Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co., 165 Ga. App. 546, 301 S.E.2d 903, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1942 (1983). Injuries sustained other than in consumption of food not actionable under Georgia Food Act. - When the plaintiff brought an action to recover for personal injuries which the plaintiff allegedly sustained when bitten by a spider while unloading bananas from a truck and the incident occurred during the course of the plaintiff’s employment because the alleged injuries did not arise incident to the plaintiff’s consumption of the bananas, the trial court was correct in concluding that O.C.G.A. § 26-2-20 et seq. affords the plaintiff no basis for recovery. Potts v. Fidelity Fruit & Produce Co., 165 Ga. App. 546, 301 S.E.2d 903, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1942 (1983).