A standard of identity can serve as a private anticompetitive weapon

Evidence

This practice of appropriating a name - and the characteristics that connote the product of that name - to a closely-defined substance has been vigorously defended by the FDA as the most effective means of protection against foods which, though truthfully labeled, might tend to mislead a purchaser. However, Section 401 is one of the few sections of the Act which proceed on the assumption that consumers do not read labels. This aspect of the section has been criticized as an unwarranted extension of Government protection, and has given food producers a powerful weapon to use against one another. The producer who can persuade the FDA to standardize a common food so as to include his product and exclude those of his competitors gets the exclusive use of the common name of the food and may be able to prevent the marketing of the competitors’ products altogether. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1517

Categorization

• XREF: Closely parallels ch8 hearings as interest-alignment signaling and the licensing chapters where rules get captured by incumbent producers. — connects to: The Securities Act of 1933 regulates securities by mandated disclosure rather than by prohibition — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 868; Forward-looking food-id standards require prior administrative rulemaking — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1510; Identity and beliefs can be a product rather than a cause of institutional commitment — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 238 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Identity and beliefs can be a product rather than a cause of institutional commitment #exemplifies (0.72) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 238