21 U.S.C. § 376

Examination of sea food on request of packer; marking food with results; fees; penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Secretary, upon application of any packer of any sea food for shipment or sale within the jurisdiction of this chapter, may, at his discretion, designate inspectors to examine and inspect such food and the production, packing, and labeling thereof. If on such examination and inspection compliance is found with the provisions of this chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder, the applicant shall be authorized or required to mark the food as provided by regulation to show such compliance. Services under this section shall be rendered only upon payment by the applicant of fees fixed by regulation in such amounts as may be necessary to provide, equip, and maintain an adequate and efficient inspection service. Receipts from such fees shall be covered into the Treasury and shall be available to the Secretary for expenditures incurred in carrying out the purposes of this section, including expenditures for salaries of additional inspectors when necessary to supplement the number of inspectors for whose salaries Congress has appropriated. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations governing the sanitary and other conditions under which the service herein provided shall be granted and maintained, and for otherwise carrying out the purposes of this section. Any person who forges, counterfeits, simulates, or falsely represents, or without proper authority uses any mark, stamp, tag, label, or other identification devices authorized or required by the provisions of this section or regulations thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction thereof be subject to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or both such imprisonment and fine.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases, 1945–1993 · leading case: Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc. (1967) scotus · cites it 6× “A color additive that does not meet the premarketing clearance procedure is declared to be "unsafe," § 706 (a), 21 U. S. C. § 376 (a), and hence "adulterated," § 601, 21 U.”

Certified Color Manufacturers Association v. F. David Mathews, Secretary of the Department of Hew (1976) cadc · cites it 8× “18 A petition for permanent listing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 376 has been under active consideration since late 1968, 19 but had not been acted on prior to the action here challenged.”

Wende McIlwain v. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (1982) cadc · cites it 6× “21 U.S.C. § 376 (a) (1976). 1 The burden rests with industry to test the color additive and establish its safety to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.”

Mimi Cutler, Stephen D. Annand and National Council of Senior Citizens v. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. (1987) cadc “(quoting 21 U.S.C. § 376 (1982)). 143 . Accord, Cutler v.”

McIlwain v. Hayes (1981) dcd · cites it 6× “21 U.S.C. § 376 . In these Amendments Congress established two systems under which the FDA could list color additives for general use.”

Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner (1967) scotus · cites it 3× “” § 706 (b) (1), 21 U. S. C. § 376 (b)(1). The Secretary is further authorized to provide “for the certification, with safe diluents or without diluents, of batches of color additives .”

Public Citizen v. Young (1987) cadc · cites it 6× “397 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 376 (1982)), part of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), establish an elaborate system for regulation of color additives in the interests of safety.”

National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and National Pharmaceutical Alliance v. Food and Drug Administratio (1981) ca2 · cites it 2× “397 (codified in part at 21 U.S.C. §§ 376 (b), (c)); Animal Drug Amendments of 1968, Pub.”

Glenn M.W. Scott v. Food and Drug Administration (1984) ca6 · cites it 2× “r animal, and (ii) shall be deemed unsafe, and shall not be listed, for any use which will not result in ingestion of any part of such additive, if, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of additives for such use, or after other relevant exposure of…”

Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner (1968) nysd · cites it 3× “1058 (1938), as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 376 (b) (1) (1964). FDA, however, has promulgated Regulation § 8.”

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Robert H. Finch, Secretar (1970) cadc “The anticancer clause covering color additives is codified at 21 U.S.C. § 376 (1964). 20 . Hearings on Color Additives Before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong.”

Lombardo v. Handler (1975) dcd “See Supplemental Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Issue, ¶ 53, filed November 8, 1974.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— 21 U.S.C. § 376(b) — 1 case

Lombardo v. Handler (1975) dcd “See Supplemental Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Issue, ¶ 53, filed November 8, 1974.”

— 21 U.S.C. § 376(c) — 1 case

Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner (1968) nysd “1058 (1938), as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 376 (b) (1) (1964). FDA, however, has promulgated Regulation § 8.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.