UNITED STATES CANE SUGAR REFINERS'ASS'N v. McNutt, No. 307.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit |
| Citation | 138 F.2d 116 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES CANE SUGAR REFINERS' ASS'N et al. v. McNUTT. |
| Docket Number | No. 307. |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1943 |
138 F.2d 116 (1943)
UNITED STATES CANE SUGAR REFINERS' ASS'N et al.
v.
McNUTT.
No. 307.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
August 27, 1943.
Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City (L. A. Crosby and Philip L. Miller, both of New York City, of counsel), for petitioners.
Wendell Berge, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Oscar A. Provost and Edward G. Jennings, Sp. Assts. to Atty Gen. (Edward B. Williams, of Washington, D. C., Atty., Federal Security Agency, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
After extensive hearings held in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, of 1938, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-392, the Federal Security Administrator promulgated amended regulations which established definitions and standards of identity for canned apricots, cherries, peaches and pears. In so doing he undertook to act pursuant to § 401 of the above statute which provides as follows:
"Sec. 401 § 341. Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator1 such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, and/or reasonable standards of fill of container. * * * In prescribing a definition and standard of identity for any food or class of food in which optional ingredients are permitted, the Administrator shall, for the purpose of promoting honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, designate the optional ingredients which shall be named on the label. * * *"
Sec. 403 provides (a) that a food shall be deemed misbranded if in any particular its label is false or misleading; or, inter alia, if it purports to be, or is represented to be, a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been promulgated as provided in § 401 unless "its label bears the name of the food specified in the definition and standard, and, insofar as may be required by such regulations, the common names of optional ingredients * * * present in such food." § 403(g) (2).
By virtue of § 701(e) the administrator may act upon his own motion or upon the application setting forth reasonable grounds for action, of all, or a substantial portion of any interested industry. When he does take such action he is required to hold a public hearing upon any proposal to issue,
Sec. 701(f) (1) provides that: "In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of any order under subsection (e), any person who will be adversely affected by such order if placed in effect may * * * file a petition with the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such order. * * *"
Sec. 701(f) (3) confers jurisdiction upon such Circuit Court of Appeals, (so far as now invoked) to affirm the order, or to set it aside in whole or in part temporarily or permanently. It provides that the findings of the Administrator as to the facts shall be conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Following the above mentioned hearings, at which all these petitioners were represented, the Administrator duly promulgated, with regulations, the order which the petitioners are now seeking to have reviewed. Insofar as we are presently concerned the regulations dealt with the sweetening ingredients of the canned fruits previously mentioned and in respect to canned peaches, which may be taken as typical for all, provided in substance that all sugar might be used for sweetening though, as optional saccharine ingredients, dextrose might be used in stated proportions in combination with sugar and so might corn sirup. For the purposes of the regulations sugar was defined as "refined sucrose or invert sugar sirup. The term `invert sugar sirup' means an acqueous solution of inverted or partly inverted, refined or partly refined sucrose, the solids of which contain not more than 0.3 percent of weight of ash, and which is colorless, odorless, and flavorless except for sweetness." Dextrose was defined as "the hydrated or anhydrous, refined monosaccharide obtained from hydrolized starch." Corn sirup was defined as "an aqueous solution obtained by the incomplete hydrolysis of cornstarch, and includes dried corn sirup; the solids of corn sirup and of dried corn sirup contain not less than 58 percent by weight of reducing sugars."
It was further provided that the optional packing media which contained an added sweetener, that might be sucrose or sucrose in combination with dextrose or with dextrose and corn sirup, should be designated as (3) slightly sweetened water or (4) light sirup; or (5) heavy sirup; or (6) extra heavy sirup; or (7) slightly sweetened peach juice; or (8) light peach juice sirup; or (9) heavy peach juice sirup; or (10) extra heavy peach juice sirup as the case might be. And when a sweetened packing media was used it was made a sufficient compliance with labeling requirements in that respect to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schroepfer v. AS Abell Co., No. 5097.
...involved here. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 38 S.Ct. 438, 62 L.Ed. 1006, 1 A.L.R. 1278, held merely that the interstate 138 F.2d 116 character of stock reports sent by telegraph did not end until the reports were received in the offices of the brokers where it was origina......
-
A. B. & C. Motor Transp. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...Communications Commission, 326 U.S. 327, 66 S.Ct. 148, 90 L.Ed. 108; United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 116, 119; People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 195 N.Y. 157, 166, 88 N.E. 261; People ex rel. New York Edison C......
-
Philco Corporation v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COM'N, No. 14166.
...Ickes, 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 6946 National Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., supra, and United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Ass'n v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 116. See, also, City of Pittsburgh v. F.P.C., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 237 F.2d We should suppose, to illustrate by an analogy, that if a department ......
-
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, No. 12837
...It may be doubted that Congress contemplated any such result. United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Ass'n v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 116, 15 The Commission took that course. Cf. note 13 supra, and the exact language of the order, infra. 16 The Commission has since instituted investigati......
-
Schroepfer v. AS Abell Co., No. 5097.
...involved here. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 38 S.Ct. 438, 62 L.Ed. 1006, 1 A.L.R. 1278, held merely that the interstate 138 F.2d 116 character of stock reports sent by telegraph did not end until the reports were received in the offices of the brokers where it was origina......
-
A. B. & C. Motor Transp. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...Communications Commission, 326 U.S. 327, 66 S.Ct. 148, 90 L.Ed. 108; United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 116, 119; People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 195 N.Y. 157, 166, 88 N.E. 261; People ex rel. New York Edison C......
-
Philco Corporation v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COM'N, No. 14166.
...Ickes, 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 6946 National Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., supra, and United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Ass'n v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 116. See, also, City of Pittsburgh v. F.P.C., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 237 F.2d We should suppose, to illustrate by an analogy, that if a department ......
-
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, No. 12837
...It may be doubted that Congress contemplated any such result. United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Ass'n v. McNutt, 2 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 116, 15 The Commission took that course. Cf. note 13 supra, and the exact language of the order, infra. 16 The Commission has since instituted investigati......