Settling is reason three in one of them and absent from the other.
The six-reason version was assumed
It is the FDA regulation at 21 CFR 100.100(a), which the pet food property quotes in full. The statutory definition in 15 U.S.C. 1454(c) names two.
So settling was relied on from the wrong text
Unavoidable product settling during shipping and handling is reason three in the regulation and does not appear in the statute.
And the package function reason too
Room for a scoop is a package function under the regulation and is not named in the statute either.
A percentage was looked for
Neither text gives one. Both turn on whether the space has a functional reason, and the statutory threshold is substantially less than its capacity.
The size characterization paragraph was read as a limit
It expressly declines to authorize any limitation on size, shape, weight or mass, dimensions or number of packages. It is a standard for describing a size.
Or as a requirement in itself
The subsection is an authority to promulgate regulations. What any such regulation says is not described on these pages.
Paragraph (3) was relied on
It excludes a food, and a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food. So the common or usual name and ingredient listing requirements in that paragraph do not reach this group.
Including its trade secret protection
Which sits inside the paragraph a supplement is excluded from, so it is not available from there.
And the wine rule was assumed to generalize
27 CFR 4.72 restricts a fill to twenty-five values. This statute declines the same power for the commodities it covers. There is no general federal stance.
And paragraph (2) was read as a packaging rule
It reaches printed matter representing a price advantage by reason of the size of the package or the quantity of its contents. That is a claim about price, not a constraint on the package.
Find the scheme, then read the parentheses
Which is the lesson from both halves of this property.
References
15 U.S.C. 1454(c)(4), requiring regulations effective to "prevent the nonfunctional-slack-fill of packages containing consumer commodities", with the statutory definition: "a package shall be deemed to be nonfunctionally slack-filled if it is filled to substantially less than its capacity for reasons other than (A) protection of the contents of such package or (B) the requirements of machines used for enclosing the contents in such package." The FDA regulation at 21 CFR 100.100(a) gives six functional reasons rather than two; the pet food and treats property quotes all six.
law.cornell.edu15 U.S.C. 1454(c)(1). The promulgating authority shall promulgate regulations effective to "establish and define standards for characterization of the size of a package enclosing any consumer commodity, which may be used to supplement the label statement of net quantity of contents of packages containing such commodity, but this paragraph shall not be construed as authorizing any limitation on the size, shape, weight or mass, dimensions, or number of packages which may be used to enclose any commodity;" The subsection is an authority to promulgate regulations rather than a packaging requirement in itself, and nothing here describes the content of any regulation made under it.
law.cornell.edu15 U.S.C. 1454(c)(3), requiring regulations effective to "require that the label on each package of a consumer commodity (other than one which is a food within the meaning of section 321(f) of title 21) bear (A) the common or usual name of such consumer commodity, if any, and (B) in case such consumer commodity consists of two or more ingredients, the common or usual name of each such ingredient listed in order of decreasing predominance, but nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require that any trade secret be divulged;" The concluding text of 21 U.S.C. 321(ff), quoted in the adjacent botanicals property, deems a dietary supplement to be a food within the meaning of that chapter.
law.cornell.edu 