[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
speaking of caffeine, my drinking habit, etc. ...
> > How the times can change and yet remain the same...
> > _________________
> >
> > USA -vs- 40 Barrels of Coca Cola
> >
> > If you think this 1916 Supreme Court Case was because Coca-Cola
> > contained coca - you're wrong! It's because it didn't contain any! -
> > nor cola - which the government construed as "mislabeling, false and
> > deceptive". However, The government was also annoyed because they felt
> > the drink did contain another "poisonous and addictive drug" -
> > caffeine!
> > _________________
> >
> > U.S. v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca Cola, 241 U.S. 265
> > (1916). (Also known as United States v Coca Cola Company, Inc.)
> >
> > ISSUES: (1) Whether Coca Cola was "adulterated" within the meaning of
> > the Pure Food and Drug Law by the inclusion of caffeine, by virtue of
> > caffeine being an "added poisonous or added deleterious ingredient ...
> > which might render the product injurious to health." (2) Whether Coca
> > Cola was "misbranded"
> >
> > FACTS: Federal officials seized a quantity of Coca Cola (40 barrels
> > and 20 kegs) being transported in interstate commerce between Atlanta
> > and Chattanooga. They charged that the product was adulterated by the
> > addition of caffeine, which the government said was poisonous and
> > posed the possibility of injury to patients. Further, the government
> > charged the product was misbranded by the use of the distinctive name
> > "Coca Cola," which represented that the syrup contained both coca and
> > cola, whereas it contained "no coca and little if any cola." Coca Cola
> > admitted that caffeine was present in the product, but it was not
> > "added" within the meaning of the law, nor was it poisonous or
> > deleterious. It denied that "coca" or "cola" were substances known
> > under their own distinctive names, and that the product did contain
> > "certain elements or substances derived from coca leaves and cola
> > nuts."
> >
> > A jury trial [in Atlanta - the home of Coca Cola corporate
> > headquarters] was held, with significant testimony regarding the
> > nature of Coca Cola, the safety or lack thereof of caffeine, and other
> > issues. The judge directed a verdict in favor of Coca Cola (avoiding a
> > jury verdict). The government appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of
> > Appeals affirmed the judgment. The government then appealed to the US
> > Supreme Court and it issued certiorari.
> >
> > RULING: (1) Caffeine is an added substance within the meaning of the
> > law. Whether it is poisonous is for a jury to decide. Judgment
> > reversed and case remanded for trial whether caffeine is poisonous or
> > deleterious. (2) Cannot be said as a matter of law that "Coca Cola" is
> > not descriptive within the meaning of the law, but would be a matter
> > for the jury to decide. Directed verdict reversed and remanded for
> > trial.
> >
> > REASONING: (1) Coca Cola argues that caffeine has always been part of
> > the formula since it was first created in 1886 by an Atlanta
> > pharmacist and named "Coca-Cola Syrup and Extract", so it cannot be
> > considered "added" within the meaning of the act. To so restrict the
> > definition of "added" would to put any mixture so developed and given
> > a trade name beyond the reach of the law. "If this were so, the
> > statute would be reduced to an absurdity. Manufactures would be free
> > ... to put arsenic or strychnine ... into compound articles of food,
> > provided the compound were made according to formula and sold under
> > some fanciful name which would be distinctive." Congress, the court
> > said, intended "added" to mean those ingredients artificially
> > introduced. Whether caffeine is poisonous was the subject of
> > contradictory testimony at the trial; the jury should have been
> > allowed to weigh the evidence. The directed verdict should be reversed
> > and the issue retried. (2) Whether "Coca Cola" is a fanciful or
> > descriptive name is a matter for the jury to decide; the directed
> > verdict is reversed.
> >
> > Paul Chattaway (paul at chattaway_com)
> > http://paul.chattaway.com/ \ | /
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- * -
> > It's called the miracle of modern communications, only because / | \
> > nothing modern is supposed to be a curse. - TC
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: