New York City's charter authorized the New York City board of health to adopt a health code that it declared to have the force and effect of law. The board adopted a code that provided for the fluoridation of the public water supply. A suit was brought to enjoin the carrying out of this program on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and that money could not spent to carry out such a program in the absence of a statute authorizing the expenditure. It was also claimed that the fluoridation program was unconstitutional because there were other means of reducing tooth decay; fluoridation was discriminatory by benefitting only children; it unlawfully imposed medication on children without their consent; and fluoridation was or may be dangerous to health. Was the code's provision valid? [ Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 ] Question 2
The consumer product safety commission is reconsidering a rule it first proposed in 1997 that would require child resistant caps on household products, including cosmetics. When the rule was first proposed in 1997, it was resisted by the cosmetics industry and abandoned. However in May 2011, a 16 month old baby died after drinking baby oil from a bottle with a pull tab cap. The proposed rule would cover products such as baby oil and suntan lotion and any products containing hydrocarbon such as cleansers and spot removers. The danger, according to the commission is simply the inhalation by children, not necessarily the actual ingestion of the products. Five children have died from inhaling such fumes since 1993, and 6,400 children under the age of five were brought into emergency rooms and hospitalized for treatment after breathing in hydrocarbons. There is no medical treatment for the inhalation of hydrocarbons. Several companies in the suntan oil/lotion industry have supported the new regulations. The head of a consumer group has said, we know these products cause death and injury. That is all we need to to know. What process must the CPSC follow to promulgate the rules? What do you think of the consumer group head's statement? Will that statement alone justify the rule making?