食品、药品和食品:对美国食品和药品法律中定义和类别的历史考察。

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2008-07-01
Lewis A Grossman
{"title":"食品、药品和食品:对美国食品和药品法律中定义和类别的历史考察。","authors":"Lewis A Grossman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Article explores the evolution and interaction of the legal and cultural categories \"food\" and \"drug\" from the late nineteenth century to the present. The federal statutory definitions of \"food\" and \"drug\" have always been ambiguous and plastic, providing the FDA with significant regulatory flexibility. Nevertheless, the agency is not necessarily free to interpret the definitions however it chooses. \"Food\" and \"drug\" are not only product classes defined by food and drug law, but also fundamental cultural concepts. This Article demonstrates that the FDA, as well as Congress and the courts, have operated within a constraining cultural matrix that has limited their freedom to impose their preferred understandings of these categories on American society. Nonetheless, history also provides ample evidence that lawmakers possess substantial power to mold the legal categories of \"food\" and \"drug\" so as to advance desired policies. One explanation for this regulatory flexibility in the face of deep-seated cultural conceptions is the indeterminate nature of the extralegal notions of \"food\" and \"drug.\" The terms, as commonly understood, embrace nebulous, overlapping, and constantly evolving realms. Moreover, the relationship between culture and law is not a one-way street with respect to these categories. Although the regulatory apparatus has always had to take into account the extralegal understandings of \"food\" and \"drug,\" the law in turn has exerted significant influence over their meaning in broader culture.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"93 5","pages":"1091-148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Food, drugs, and droods: a historical consideration of definitions and categories in American food and drug law.\",\"authors\":\"Lewis A Grossman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This Article explores the evolution and interaction of the legal and cultural categories \\\"food\\\" and \\\"drug\\\" from the late nineteenth century to the present. The federal statutory definitions of \\\"food\\\" and \\\"drug\\\" have always been ambiguous and plastic, providing the FDA with significant regulatory flexibility. Nevertheless, the agency is not necessarily free to interpret the definitions however it chooses. \\\"Food\\\" and \\\"drug\\\" are not only product classes defined by food and drug law, but also fundamental cultural concepts. This Article demonstrates that the FDA, as well as Congress and the courts, have operated within a constraining cultural matrix that has limited their freedom to impose their preferred understandings of these categories on American society. Nonetheless, history also provides ample evidence that lawmakers possess substantial power to mold the legal categories of \\\"food\\\" and \\\"drug\\\" so as to advance desired policies. One explanation for this regulatory flexibility in the face of deep-seated cultural conceptions is the indeterminate nature of the extralegal notions of \\\"food\\\" and \\\"drug.\\\" The terms, as commonly understood, embrace nebulous, overlapping, and constantly evolving realms. Moreover, the relationship between culture and law is not a one-way street with respect to these categories. Although the regulatory apparatus has always had to take into account the extralegal understandings of \\\"food\\\" and \\\"drug,\\\" the law in turn has exerted significant influence over their meaning in broader culture.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Law Review\",\"volume\":\"93 5\",\"pages\":\"1091-148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了从19世纪晚期到现在,法律和文化范畴“食品”和“药品”的演变和相互作用。联邦法律对“食品”和“药品”的定义一直是模糊和可塑的,这为FDA提供了很大的监管灵活性。然而,该机构不一定可以自由地解释其选择的定义。“食品”和“药品”不仅是食品药品法规定的产品类别,也是基本的文化概念。本文表明,FDA以及国会和法院在一种限制性的文化矩阵中运作,这种文化矩阵限制了他们将自己对这些类别的偏好理解强加给美国社会的自由。尽管如此,历史也提供了充分的证据,表明立法者拥有很大的权力来塑造“食品”和“药品”的法律类别,以推进所需的政策。面对根深蒂固的文化观念,这种监管灵活性的一个解释是,“食品”和“药品”这两个法外概念的不确定性。通常理解的术语包含了模糊、重叠和不断发展的领域。此外,就这些范畴而言,文化与法律之间的关系并不是单行道。尽管监管机构总是不得不考虑对“食品”和“药品”的法外理解,但法律反过来对它们在更广泛的文化中的含义产生了重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Food, drugs, and droods: a historical consideration of definitions and categories in American food and drug law.

This Article explores the evolution and interaction of the legal and cultural categories "food" and "drug" from the late nineteenth century to the present. The federal statutory definitions of "food" and "drug" have always been ambiguous and plastic, providing the FDA with significant regulatory flexibility. Nevertheless, the agency is not necessarily free to interpret the definitions however it chooses. "Food" and "drug" are not only product classes defined by food and drug law, but also fundamental cultural concepts. This Article demonstrates that the FDA, as well as Congress and the courts, have operated within a constraining cultural matrix that has limited their freedom to impose their preferred understandings of these categories on American society. Nonetheless, history also provides ample evidence that lawmakers possess substantial power to mold the legal categories of "food" and "drug" so as to advance desired policies. One explanation for this regulatory flexibility in the face of deep-seated cultural conceptions is the indeterminate nature of the extralegal notions of "food" and "drug." The terms, as commonly understood, embrace nebulous, overlapping, and constantly evolving realms. Moreover, the relationship between culture and law is not a one-way street with respect to these categories. Although the regulatory apparatus has always had to take into account the extralegal understandings of "food" and "drug," the law in turn has exerted significant influence over their meaning in broader culture.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
期刊最新文献
The Health Security Act: coercion and distrust for the market. Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison to Race The Role of History in Constitutional Interpretation: A Case Study Making state civil procedure Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1