Search

Recent modeling developments have created tradeoffs between attribution-based models, models that rely on causal relationships, and "pure prediction models" such as neural networks. While forecasters have historically favored one technology or the other based on comfort or loyalty to a particular paradigm, in domains with many observations and predictors such as textual analysis, the tradeoffs between attribution and prediction have become too large to ignore. We document these tradeoffs in the context of relabeling 27 million Thomson Reuters news articles published between 1996 and 2021 as debt-related or non-debt related. Articles in our dataset were labeled by journalists at the time of publication, but these labels may be inconsistent as labeling standards and the relation between text and label has changed over time. We propose a method for identifying and correcting inconsistent labeling that combines attribution and pure prediction methods and is applicable to any domain with human-labeled data. Implementing our proposed labeling solution returns a debt-related news dataset with 54% more observations than if the original journalist labels had been used and 31% more observation than if our solution had been implemented using attribution-based methods only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses fiction to illuminate anxieties associated with the substances that sustain, nourish and transform us, and to consider the impact of consumer perceptions on the regulatory balances that must be struck between nature and technology, and between cultural concerns and scientific methods. It explores as a case study the FDA’s labeling regulations as applied to food crops developed using gene manipulation techniques, and touches on the FDA’s appropriate role as a consumer advisor.

Since the creation of the Federal Food and Drug law in 1906 up until a district court decision in 1976, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) over both the adulteration and misbranding (labeling) of alcoholic beverages. As a policy matter, the FDA deferred the regulation of alcoholic beverages labeling to the BATF in order to avoid duplication, as long as the regulations were consistent with the food labeling requirements of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, as a result of a District court ruling in 1976, the BATF now possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the labeling of alcoholic beverages under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. This has led to the some peculiar results and a confusing regulatory scheme. For instance, the FDA requires affirmative ingredient and nutritional labeling of all “food and drinks†within its jurisdictional boundaries, whereas the BATF does not require ingredient labeling requirements for any alcoholic beverages within its jurisdictional boundaries and still follows the mandate of an alcohol labeling law that dates back to the enactment of the Federal Administration Act in 1935. This has resulted in a lack of consumer information regarding the ingredients and contents in alcoholic beverages, as ingredient and nutritional labeling give consumers the information they need to make responsible choices about their consumption of food and beverages. Today, the FDA still holds concurrent jurisdiction over the adulteration of all alcoholic beverages, and exclusive labeling jurisdiction over wine and cider with less than ten percent alcohol, but the BATF has not yet issued ingredient labeling requirements, nor has a congressional mandate granted the FDA the power to assume jurisdiction over the labeling of alcoholic beverages.

This paper will first look at the historical development of the division of regulation of food labeling by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the regulation by food advertising by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Then the standards by which the agencies regulate misbranding will be compared, both generally and in regards to health claims specifically. Agency interaction will be emphasized.

Food and drug labels must respond to the needs of the increasing linguistic minority population in the United States. Currently, the FDA only requires that food and drug labels be in English. Due to the growing segment of the population that cannot understand English, the FDA is not able to satisfy its goals of communicating valuable information to consumers through food and drug labels. The majority of the non-English speaking population speaks Spanish, suggesting that the FDA must target this specific linguistic minority with any policy response. The paper poses the question of whether the FDA should require food and drug labels in another language in addition to English. The paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter covers the history of the FDA's approach to food and drug labels. The California Supreme Court's decision in Ramirez v. Plough is analyzed in the second chapter. The third chapter examines the Canadian model of bilingual French/English food and drug labels. Six possible policy options are covered in chapter four. Chapter five, the policy recommendation, concludes that the FDA should ask for comment on a proposal for bilingual English/Spanish warnings and directions on over-the-counter drugs combined with a foreign language patient package insert program for prescription drugs. The paper concludes that a mandate of bilingual over-the-counter drug labels combined with a foreign language patient package insert program is an appropriate and proportionate FDA response to the increasing needs of linguistic minorities.

In this paper we will explore the choices made by the FDA when adopting its policies regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods. We will try to point out some of the alternative roads policymakers could have taken even within the existing legal and regulatory mechanisms. We will argue that every alternative was an equally reasonable path under the circumstances, and show that none (either those followed, nor the roads not taken) were a necessary regulatory choice. But we will also argue that, in some cases, each choice was not without it cost, for each entailed the blocking of roads that would have otherwise been available. Thus, for example, the choice of utilizing existing regulations to deal with this emerging technology brought into play a set concepts with preexisting meanings (such as the word “materialâ€), which have shaped current labeling policies and limited available alternatives.

This paper discusses the regulation of packaging and labeling of foods throughout the 20th century, with a focus on the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966. The paper is divided into three sections: first, an overview of the regulatory environment and packaging and labeling practices from the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 to the Senate Hearings in 1961 to discuss reform of packaging and labeling law; second, a detailed examination of the development of Fair Packaging and Labeling Act; and third, a survey of government, media, industry, and public response to the Act and an analysis of the efficacy of the Act both at the time of passage and today.

In 1976, the District Court of the Western District of Kentucky, in Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Matthews, found that alcoholic beverages were exempt from the Food & Drug Administration labeling requirements. Since then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has had exclusive jurisdiction over the labeling of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the recent findings on the health effects of alcoholic beverages, in particular wine, it is necessary to revisit that 1976 decision. The FDA currently allows health claims to appear on the labels of food as long as there is significant scientific agreement on the evidence to support the claim. These standards establish a workable rule to allow health claims to appear on food and drink. These guidelines should be expanded to cover wine labels.

The United States should step up to the plate and pass a regulation requiring the inclusion of allergens on ingredient labels regardless of the amount of allergen in the food. This regulation would put some teeth into the FDA’s current policy of doing this already. This one step would make a huge difference in the lives of allergy sufferers in the United States of course, but also likely around the world. They could buy more products safe in the knowledge that they will not make them sick. This regulation would have to be joined by a continued effort on the part of manufacturers to practice good manufacturing policies and reduce the risk of allergen contamination in their products. The current policies are an important step towards ensuring that all allergy sufferers feel safe with the food they buy in stores and prepare at home.

By tracing the history of food labeling laws, we can see that labeling regulation has come a long way from the branding of bread during the reign of King John in the thirteenth century. The food label has gone from a mere enforcement devise to a marketing tool to an instrument for fulfillment of nutrition policy. Labeling regulation has transformed from simple rules to avoid fraud and mispresentation to complex affirmative requirements to help the consumer understand the labeled food in the context of their overall diet.

This paper will examine the arguments and motivations underlying the FDA stand against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and ingredients. Part I of the paper will describe FDA’s current regulatory policy towards genetically engineered foods. Part II will advance the theoretical basis for the labeling argument. Part III will explore the FDA and industry’s arguments against labeling. Part IV will evaluate those FDA and industry responses. Part V will examine how predictions about public risk perceptions may have shaped the FDA’s labeling stance. Finally, Part VI will examine the realities facing the government and industry that may affect the direction of labeling policy in the future.

For the average American. the words "radiation" and "irradiation" are apt to conjure up images of nuclear weapons. radioactive waste, x-rays. and other unpleasant materials associated with health dangers. Yet these words are also displayed on the labels of food products treated with a irradiation process which made the foods safer for consumers to eat. Food irradiation. currently approved for use on several foods, kills microorganisms and insects which could pose substantial health risks to consumers. Irradiation can also be used to retard spoilage and ripening of fruits and ~'egetables to increase their shelf life. Despite its potential benefits, irradiation and the labeling of irradiated foods has been a subject of controversy since its inception. Since 1966, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has required irradiated foods to be labeled as such, but because the initial foods approved for irradiation treatment were limited to potatoes and wheat, the process was not widely publicized. In 1986. however, FDA expanded the list of approved foods to include fruits. vegetables, and spices, and revised its labeling regulations to require that irradiated products be labeled at both the wholesale and the retail level. The promulgation of these guidelines drew criticism from the food industry. Congressmen, and several consumer groups and remains a hotly debated topic today.

Product labels blast their message through the supermarket aisles, vying to attract the attention of consumers. However, the advertising means available to manufacturers are limited by laws that regulate the claims that they may make. Regulation of "kosher claims" on food packaging implicates many of these general labeling issues, as well as several unique problems involving freedom of religion. The presence of religious issues provides a stronger justification for State involvement, as well as a stronger reason for keeping a distance.