Last November, when I read Judge Leon's opinion in an earlier chapter of the F.D.A. case, a preliminary injunction that blocked the cigarette packaging rule from taking effect, I thought the judge couldn't possibly be right.
Consider the long-term consequences of finding workarounds for the no-candy-in-camp-care-packages rule.
More importantly, the Republican rules package, the rules that the majority party sets for the House at the beginning of each Congress, specifically took the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off-budget.
It explained how the company intended to fight the proposed plain packaging rules in the UK.
New packaging rules in the Czech Republic, for example, gave manufacturers of consumer goods barely a month to introduce new labels.
Four of the world's biggest tobacco companies have gone to the high court to challenge the lawfulness of the government's new plain packaging rules.
The state has since changed its packaging rules, mandating that products like chocolate bars be split into clearly marked doses of ten milligrams.
In Britain, excess packaging rules are policed by the Trade Standards Agency, whose local officers investigate consumer complaints like the ones that got the beef in trouble, as well as issues like counterfeiting.
Even as it was signing a customs union with Belarus, Russia imposed a ban on Belarusian milk products, which it claimed did not meet its new packaging rules (rather as it once argued that Georgian wine, fruit and mineral water were of substandard quality).
Tobacco giants also failed in a last-ditch legal challenge against the government's plain packaging rules at the high court when a judge rejected a judicial review action brought against the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, by four of the world's biggest firms.
