Can the FD&amp;C conflict with the CFR? Page 77 of the textbook Vaccines states: The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Section 502[e][1][A][iii]) states that all inactive ingredients should be noted in labeling; it also states that this requirement is not necessary if trade secret information would be disclosed. The CFR additionally notes that an inactive ingredient should be listed in the labeling if the ingredient's presence is considered a safety factor (21 CFR 610.61[n]). In some cases, even in the absence of any evidence that a particular material might pose a safety factor, manufacturers have elected to disclose the presence of residual materials such as detergents, solvents, and chelating agents (see Table 6-2 for examples of manufacturing residuals). Here is the relevant quote from the FD&amp;C: (iii) the established name of each inactive ingredient listed in alphabetical order on the outside container of the retail package and, if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, on the immediate container, as prescribed in regulation promulgated by the Secretary, except that nothing in this subclause shall be deemed to require that any trade secret be divulged, and except that the requirements of this subclause with respect to alphabetical order shall apply only to nonprescription drugs that are not also cosmetics and that this subclause shall not apply to nonprescription drugs not intended for human use. And from Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations: The following items shall appear on the label affixed to each package containing a product: The preservative used and its concentration, or if no preservative is used and the absence of a preservative is a safety factor, the words &quot;no preservative&quot;; The type and calculated amount of antibiotics added during manufacture; The inactive ingredients when a safety factor, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; The adjuvant, if present; The source of the product when a factor in safe administration; The identity of each microorganism used in manufacture, and, where applicable, the production medium and the method of inactivation, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information; FD&amp;C allows keeping of trade secrets. CFR says the inactive ingredients must be disclosed when a safety factor. Let's say we have an inactive ingredient that is a trade secret that is also a safety factor. Which law has precedence? Why does the law that has precedence have precedence? How is it determined if an inactive ingredient is a safety factor? Does a trade secret ever have to be disclosed? When? As far as you can tell, is this a &quot;loophole&quot; in the law?
Neither law has precedence - manufacturers have to obey both. The FD&amp;C says that they don't need to list ingredients which are trade secrets; the CFR says they must. If they list the trade secrets they do not break either law. If they don't, they break the CFR. Conclusion: they must list the trade secret ingredients. If the FD&amp;C said it was forbidden to list trade secret ingredients, but the CFR required it, manufacturers would still have to obey both laws - which would mean they couldn't sell anything where one of the ingredients was a trade secret.
Congress imposed price controls on various agricultural and manufactured goods under several of the "New Deal" anti-depression measures, particularly the National Recovery Act, or NRA. There were constitutional challenges to these, and the were upheld under the Commerce power. I'd need to do some research to find the exact cases. (Update: Relevant cases include Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942 (Federal productioin quotas for wheat, even if consumed on the same farm where it is grown), Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) (Regulation of price of milk by NY state), Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941) (state regulation of commissions charged by private employment agencies), Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944) (wartime Federal rent control), and United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (Federal regulation of interstate milk shipment) See also the Hepburn Act of 1906 (Federal power given to the ICC to control railroad prices), this law review article on price control cases, and this article on Price Controls from the Legal information institute) Cases imposing minimum wage laws, both by Congress and by the States, were also challenged and upheld. Those are one from of wage control. I think that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) was the key case on that issue. By the 1970s this was probably regarded as settled, and so was not raised in the challenge to the laws of that date.
There is a potentially infinite regress of questions regarding the constitutionality of restrictions imposed under these "emergency" circumstances. The basic legal principle is clearly established: laws restricting fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. The specific details of a particular law and surrounding circumstances have yet to be discovered by the courts. If it is necessary to the purpose of saving lives that meetings of more than 10 people be prohibited, then the "compelling interest" test probably has been satisfied. That is basically a medical question, and the courts have a limited interest in scientific controversies, instead they are interested in whether people who make legal decisions do so rationally (is it reasonable to think that such limits would accomplish that compelling government end). Is it reasonable to think that restrictions lasting two months are necessary? The Black Death lasted at least 4 years. In the current circumstances (very limited hard knowledge this disease), it's hard to say what government actions could not be excused based on necessity. Summary execution is, at least in the current knowledge context, probably not going to pass strict scrutiny. As already explained in other thread on the topic, there is no "churches are above the law" constitutional provision. The appropriate question in the Florida case is not about the First Amendment, it is about the Due Process clauses – is the arrest lawful? We will, no doubt, see. On the face of it, he violated the law, so he can be arrested. I understand that there is a team poking holes in the order.
The state health codes applicable to food are here esp. ch. V and here. The primary focus of those health codes is preventing the introduction of toxic substances or pathogens. There is obviously no law against serving meat, nor is there any law against half-and-half pizza. The only possible prospect for a health law addressing your interest would be via the allergy avenue (yes, you do not allege to be allergic to anything – my point is that even if you did, this would not help your cause). There are some provisions regarding training and informing when it comes to "major food allergens", which however is defined as Milk, EGG, FISH (such as bass, flounder, cod, and including crustacean shellfish such as crab, lobster, or shrimp), tree nuts (such as almonds, pecans, or walnuts), wheat, peanuts, and soybeans or proteins derived from the above. Note that mammal meat is not included (it may be an individual allergen, but it is not a statutory major food allergen). Even if you wanted to sue, you would have a very hard time establishing that you were damaged. First you would have to establish that they have a legal obligation to serve you "vegetarian food" (crucially undefined). You might be able to establish that they made such a promise. Now we have to determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that a pie with half-meat and half non-meat is clearly not vegetarian food. I do not believe that there is secular case law addressing this, so the courts would resolve this by determining whether there is a reasonable means for a vegetarian to eat part of such a pizza – obviously, yes, only eat the cheese part (leave wide margins). So there is no legal recourse for getting what you want: there are still ample political options.
No. Congress, in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, gave the the power to regulate drugs to the FDA, not the President. In addition to giving the FDA jurisdiction, Congress also set up requirements and procedures that the FDA must use to classify and reclassify drugs. (The FDA, acting under the APA and other statutes, has engaged in further procedural rule-making as well.) These procedures require the FDA to hold hearings, etc. before making decisions. Since the President can only execute laws passed by Congress, he cannot bypass the FDA or these procedures. To do so would violate the separation of powers. For example, the FDA could grant its Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ because a statute -- 21 USC § 360bbb-3 Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies -- gives it the power to do so. FWIW, interbranch conflicts over FDA decisions are quite common.
Why do you think Oracle have not been protecting their trade mark? Using a trade mark to describe the product (“Written in JavaScript”, “Seeking JavaScript developer”) is not an infringement and the trade mark owner is under no obligation to, indeed, cannot stop this. Where they are required to defend their trade mark is when it is being used in such a way that there is the risk of confusion that the goods or services could be confused with the trade mark owner’s goods or services. Further, they are not required to defend all breaches, only enough to show that they are actively doing so. Also it is not important that the trade mark be associated with the trade mark’s owner. Do you know who owns the trade mark “Ben &amp; Jerry’s”?
It is not required. The companies undoubtedly prefer that you include those designations, and they may even write to say that you should, but that is just them doing their due diligence in policing their brands. In the instances you cited, there is probably some agreement between those companies to include those markers. If you don't have such an agreement, there is no obligation to notify the users of your website that some third party has trademarked a name that you mention.
If an employee takes home information that his or her employer considers confidential, that would be a matter of company policy. The employer could discipline or fire the employee if it learned of the incident, and chose to act. If the information is considered to be a trade secret, or part of one, disclosing it or mishandling it so as to risk disclosure could be a crime under US law. However, only in unusual cases is criminal action taken on such matters, normally it is left to civil lawsuits or internal company action. I do not know if Canada has a similar law.