America, you are digging your grave with your spoon--should the FDA tell you that on food labels?

Abstract

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin. discussed whether the FDA's promulgation of graphic images violated tobacco companies' First Amendment rights. While the tobacco companies contested the graphic images, the tobacco companies did not contest the promulgation of nine textual statements about the adverse effects of cigarettes. This uncontested mandate opens a door for the FDA to further expand its regulatory scheme. If the FDA can mandate textual statements about the adverse effects of cigarettes, can the FDA mandate textual statements about the adverse effects of sugar to combat the obesity crisis? This Article presents three textual statements about the adverse effects of sugar, to define the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of compelled commercial speech under Central Hudson. Establishing this line ensures that the commercial speech doctrine does not deny the FDA from its authority to provide consumers with accurate information. While three textual statements are presented, this Article advocates that one of the textual statements is likely to serve as the best solution to the obesity crisis. The chosen textual statement serves as an effective solution because it presents meaningful information to the consumers enabling consumers to make healthful decisions about their food and encourages manufacturers to modify their products.