Holk v. Snapple Bev. Corp.

Holk v. Snapple Bev. Corp.

Opinion

 [*331]  SMITH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents three issues related to the federal preemption of state causes of action. Plaintiff-appellant Stacy Holk brought several state law claims against defendant-appellee the Snapple Beverage Corporation in the Superior Court of New Jersey. After removing Holk's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Snapple sought to dismiss Holk's complaint on, inter alia, the grounds of express preemption, implied field preemption, and implied conflict preemption. The District  [**2] Court granted Snapple's motion on the basis of implied preemption. For the reasons discussed below, we will reverse.

Congress has regulated food and beverage labeling for more than 100 years. In 1906, it passed legislation commonly known as the "Wiley Act" that established labeling standards. Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, Pub. L. No. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768,, repealed by Act of June 25, 1938, 1938, ch. 675, § 902(a), 52 Stat. 1059. At the time, the Wiley Act was considered a substantial reform because it prohibited the adulteration and misbranding of food sold and distributed in interstate commerce. Pub. L. No. 59-384, §§ 7-8. By today's standards, however, the Wiley Act offered only modest reforms: it "enabled the Government to go to court against illegal products but lacked affirmative requirements to guide compliance. Labels were not even required to state the weight or measure--only that a contents statement, if used, must be truthful." U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The Story of the Laws Behind the Labels, Part II (1981).

Congress replaced the Wiley Act in 1938 with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938). Mounting public concern  [**3] over unsafe food and drug products and marketing prompted its passage. United States v. Bhutani, 266 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2001). ] The FDCA authorized the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to regulate food safety and labeling. Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., 539 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2008). Specifically, under the FDCA, the FDA could "promulgate food definitions and standards of food quality;" "set tolerance levels for poisonous substances in food;" and take enforcement action on adulterated and misbranded foods. Id. The FDCA had its shortcomings, however. Neither the FDCA nor FDA regulations required detailed nutritional information on all food labels. Emily J. Schaffer, Is the Fox Guarding the Henhouse? Who Makes the Rules in American Nutrition Policy?, 57 Food & Drug L.J. 371, 404  [*332]  (2002). In fact, nutrition labeling was required only if the manufacturer made a nutrition claim about the product such as "low-fat" or "high in fiber." Id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.