Sure, but that phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution. The government, Constitutionally, cannot touch local food matters.
The products aren't the government.
According to everything legal, including the Supreme Court interpretation, you're wrong. You may disagree with the Supreme Court, but, oh well. We've had over a century of this interpretation, and I don't disagree with it. State and local governments are liable under the federal government if they're seen to be violating a citizen's due process rights.
"Congress enacted the FDCA in 1938 pursuant to its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce."
Not only is Congress constitutionally allowed to require products to be labeled directly, but if something poses a health risk they have the right to regulate it.
Section 8 of the constitution:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
You may disagree with food regulation, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.
no subject
The products aren't the government.
According to everything legal, including the Supreme Court interpretation, you're wrong. You may disagree with the Supreme Court, but, oh well. We've had over a century of this interpretation, and I don't disagree with it. State and local governments are liable under the federal government if they're seen to be violating a citizen's due process rights.
http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/federal-food-and-drug-act-violations-52895629
"Congress enacted the FDCA in 1938 pursuant to its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce."
Not only is Congress constitutionally allowed to require products to be labeled directly, but if something poses a health risk they have the right to regulate it.
Section 8 of the constitution:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
You may disagree with food regulation, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.