FOREIGN-LANGUAGE LABELING OF FOOD AND DRUGS IN THE WAKE OF RAMIREZ V. PLOUGH INC.: IS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE THE SOLUTION FOR AMERICA?

Abstract

In 1993, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Ramirez v. Plough. Inc.1 holding that manufacturers of nonprescription drugs in that state have no duty under the tort law to print mandatory warnings in any language other than English. It was a question of first impression not only for California, but for the nation, and the public policy issues it raised were among the most difficult in food and drug law: whom should our food and drug laws protect, and is a gain in efficiency worth even a small cost in human life? Further, this case raised a broader, equally difficult question about the very identity of our immigrant nation: when an immigrant chooses not to learn English, how willing are we to change our institutions to accommodate that decision?