悲剧、转变和胜利:比较导致英国通过1860年《掺假法》和美国通过1906年《纯净食品药品法》的因素和力量。

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2014-01-01
Jillian London
{"title":"悲剧、转变和胜利:比较导致英国通过1860年《掺假法》和美国通过1906年《纯净食品药品法》的因素和力量。","authors":"Jillian London","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 1860 Adulteration Act in England and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act in the United States were two of the earliest pieces of legislation to provide generalized regulation of food and drugs on a national scale. While significant scholarly attention has been given to explaining the factors and forces that led to the passage of each Act independent of the other, few books or articles have directly compared the similar individuals and events that led to the adoption of both Acts. This paper attempts to fill that gap. Through a comparative examination, this paper reveals that four main components were key to the national pure food and drug movements in both countries: individuals who crusaded for national adulteration legislation; tragedies that shocked the public into calling for reform; press and publicity that was willing and able to bring the evils of adulteration to the forefront of the public mind; and a transformation of the social, political, and economic systems, which created atmospheres conducive to reform. This paper aims to shed new light on the 1860 Adulteration Act and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act--two acts that derive their importance not just from the effect that they directly had on the regulation of food and drugs but also as some of the earliest examples of western governments coming to recognize the need for national regulation to protect the public from harm and coming to embrace their changing role as spearheads of modern regulatory states.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tragedy, transformation, and triumph: comparing the factors and forces that led to the adoption of the 1860 Adulteration Act in England and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Jillian London\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The 1860 Adulteration Act in England and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act in the United States were two of the earliest pieces of legislation to provide generalized regulation of food and drugs on a national scale. While significant scholarly attention has been given to explaining the factors and forces that led to the passage of each Act independent of the other, few books or articles have directly compared the similar individuals and events that led to the adoption of both Acts. This paper attempts to fill that gap. Through a comparative examination, this paper reveals that four main components were key to the national pure food and drug movements in both countries: individuals who crusaded for national adulteration legislation; tragedies that shocked the public into calling for reform; press and publicity that was willing and able to bring the evils of adulteration to the forefront of the public mind; and a transformation of the social, political, and economic systems, which created atmospheres conducive to reform. This paper aims to shed new light on the 1860 Adulteration Act and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act--two acts that derive their importance not just from the effect that they directly had on the regulation of food and drugs but also as some of the earliest examples of western governments coming to recognize the need for national regulation to protect the public from harm and coming to embrace their changing role as spearheads of modern regulatory states.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国1860年的《掺假法》和美国1906年的《纯净食品和药品法》是最早在全国范围内对食品和药品进行普遍监管的两项立法。虽然学术界对解释导致每项法案独立通过的因素和力量给予了极大的关注,但很少有书籍或文章直接比较导致两项法案通过的类似个人和事件。本文试图填补这一空白。通过比较研究,本文揭示了四个主要组成部分是关键的国家纯食品和药品运动在这两个国家:个人对国家掺假立法;悲剧使公众震惊,要求改革;媒体和公众愿意并有能力将掺假的罪恶带到公众思想的前沿;社会、政治和经济体制的转型,创造了有利于改革的氛围。本文旨在对1860年的《掺假法》和1906年的《纯净食品药品法》进行新的阐释——这两项法案的重要性不仅在于它们对食品和药品监管的直接影响,还在于它们是西方政府最早认识到需要通过国家监管来保护公众免受伤害的例子,并开始接受它们作为现代监管国家先锋的不断变化的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tragedy, transformation, and triumph: comparing the factors and forces that led to the adoption of the 1860 Adulteration Act in England and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act in the United States.

The 1860 Adulteration Act in England and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act in the United States were two of the earliest pieces of legislation to provide generalized regulation of food and drugs on a national scale. While significant scholarly attention has been given to explaining the factors and forces that led to the passage of each Act independent of the other, few books or articles have directly compared the similar individuals and events that led to the adoption of both Acts. This paper attempts to fill that gap. Through a comparative examination, this paper reveals that four main components were key to the national pure food and drug movements in both countries: individuals who crusaded for national adulteration legislation; tragedies that shocked the public into calling for reform; press and publicity that was willing and able to bring the evils of adulteration to the forefront of the public mind; and a transformation of the social, political, and economic systems, which created atmospheres conducive to reform. This paper aims to shed new light on the 1860 Adulteration Act and the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act--two acts that derive their importance not just from the effect that they directly had on the regulation of food and drugs but also as some of the earliest examples of western governments coming to recognize the need for national regulation to protect the public from harm and coming to embrace their changing role as spearheads of modern regulatory states.

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
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信