987 resultados para Federal regulation


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal government that is responsible for monitoring and maintaining public health through the regulation of many industries, including food safety. Through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was granted authority over the implementation and regulation of nutrition labeling on packaged foods. Many nutrients are printed on nutrition labels as well as their percent Daily Values. Research has been undertaken to examine the evidentiary basis the FDA relied upon in making its determinations regarding which nutrients to include on nutrition labels as well as their Daily Values. ^ Methods. Relevant legal policies, scientific studies, and other published literature (either in print or electronic form) were used to collect data. ^ Results. Results demonstrated that the FDA did not employ one single method in its determination of which nutrients to select for inclusion on food labels. The agency relied upon current public heath studies of that time as well as recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General.^

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The federal regulatory regime for addressing airborne toxic pollutants functions fairly well in most of the country. However, it has proved deficient in addressing local risk issues, especially in urban areas with densely concentrated sources. The problem is especially pronounced in Houston, which is home to one of the world's biggest petrochemical complexes and a major port, both located near a large metropolitan center. Despite the fact that local government's role in regulating air toxics is typically quite limited, from 2004-2009, the City of Houston implemented a novel municipality-based air toxics reduction strategy. The initiatives ranged from voluntary agreements to litigation and legislation. This case study considers why the city chose the policy tools it did, how the tools performed relative to the designers' intentions, and how the debate among actors with conflicting values and goals shaped the policy landscape. The city's unconventional approach to controlling hazardous air pollution has not yet been examined rigorously. The case study was developed through reviews of publicly available documents and quasi-public documents obtained through public record requests, as well as interviews with key informants. The informants represented a range of experience and perspectives. They included current and former public officials at the city (including Mayor White), former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality staff, faculty at local universities, industry representatives, and environmental public health advocates. Some of the city's tools were successful in meeting their designers' intent, some were less successful. Ultimately, even those tools that did not achieve their stated purpose were nonetheless successful in bringing attention and resources to the air quality issue. Through a series of pleas and prods, the city managed to draw attention to the problem locally and get reluctant policymakers at higher levels of government to respond. This work demonstrates the potential for local government to overcome limitations in the federal regulatory regime for air toxics control, shifting the balance of local, state, and federal initiative. It also highlights the importance of flexible, cooperative strategies in local environmental protection.^

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Although 23 states and the District of Columbia have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, marijuana remains a prohibited substance under federal law. Because the production, sale, possession and use of marijuana remain illegal, there is a risk of prosecution under federal laws. Furthermore, those who help marijuana users and providers put themselves at risk — federal law punishes not only those who violate drug laws but also those who assist or conspire with them to do so. In the case of lawyers representing marijuana users and businesspeople, this means not only the real (though remote) risk of criminal prosecution but also the more immediate risk of professional discipline. Elsewhere, we wrote about the difficult place in which lawyers find themselves when representing marijuana clients. We argued that while both the criminal law and the rules of professional conduct rightly require legal obedience from lawyers, other countervailing factors must be considered when evaluating lawyers’ representation of marijuana clients. In particular, we asserted that considerations of equity and access to justice weigh dispositively in favor of protecting lawyers who endeavor to help their clients comply with state marijuana laws, and we suggested means of interpreting relevant criminal law provisions and rules of professional conduct to achieve this result. This article builds on that analysis, taking on the particular issue of the public lawyer’s’ role in marijuana regulation. For government lawyers, the key issues in exercising discretion in the context of marijuana are not clients’ access to the law and equality but rather determining the clients’ wishes and serving them diligently and ethically. Lawyers representing state agencies, legislatures and the executive branch of government draft and interpret the rules and regulations regarding marijuana. Lawyers for federal, state and local governments then interpret those rules to determine the obligations and responsibilities of those they represent and to help their clients meet those obligations and carry out their required tasks. Both state and federal prosecutors are charged with determining what conduct remains illegal under the new rules and, perhaps more importantly, with exercising discretion regarding whom to prosecute and to what extent. Marijuana regulation is not a niche area of government regulation; it will influence the practice of virtually every public lawyer in the years to come. Public lawyers must understand the changes in marijuana law and the implications for government clients. Given the pervasiveness of the modern regulatory state, the situation is no easier — and, in many ways, it is more complicated — for public lawyers than it is for private ones. Public lawyers face myriad practice challenges with respect to marijuana law reform, and while we do not purport to identify and resolve all of the issues that are sure to arise in this short paper, we hope that the article helps alert public lawyers to some of the risks involved in participating in marijuana regulation so that they can think carefully about their obligations when these issues arise.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Item 535

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Includes indexes.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Latest issue consulted: Vol. 121 (Jan. 1, 1996 to June 30, 1996).

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Title varies slightly.