· 4/14/1919

Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy

Citations

249 U.S. 427
39 S. Ct. 325
63 L. Ed. 689
1919 U.S. LEXIS 2099

Syllabus

A state regulation respecting the labeling of syrup compounds, which does not discriminate against the manufacturer Or his product or against syrups as a class, held, not objectionable under the equal protection clause. P. 431. The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes is subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its ■ police power, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth. P. 432. Held: That a state regulation, requiring manufacturers of proprietary compound syrups to state definitely in conspicuous letters on the principal label the percentage of each ingredient, is consistent with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. It is the effect of a regulation as put in force by the State that determines whether it directly burdens interstate commerce, and not its characterization, pr its construction by the state court. Id. The proviso in § 8 of the Federal Puré Food Act, that nothing in the act shall be construed as requiring proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods which contain no unwholesome added ingredient to disclose their trade formulas, except in so far as the provisions of the act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or mis-branding, merely relates to the interpretation of the requirements of that act, and does not. enlarge its purview or establish a rule as to matters which lie outside its prohibitions. P. 439. A regulation adopted by a state board of health, and in effect upheld by the state court as authorized by the state pure food law, must be regarded as state legislation in ascertaining its relation to the federal food law. P. 437. Neither under the commerce clause directly nor through the Federal Pure Food Law, as amended, is a State forbidden to require that proprietary foods, imported into the State and sold in the original packages, shall bear labels stating the names and percentages of the ingredients co

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

\[I]t is too plain for argument that a manufacturer . . . has no constitutional right to sell goods without giving to the purchaser fair information of what it is that is being sold\
upholding required disclosure of ingredient lists to prevent consumer fraud
upholding required disclosure of ingredient lists to prevent consumer fraud
“The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes must be held subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its police power and in promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth”
“The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes must be held subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its police power and in promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pitney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.