[N]o State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce . . . any requirement respecting any claim . . . made in the label or labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement . . . of this title.
[T]o the extent there is any ambiguity [to the “all natural” and “with vitamins” language], it is clarified by the detailed information contained in the ingredient list, which explains the exact contents of [the drink] [R]easonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging.
Professor Carter was right then, and he’s right now. If the plaintiff has just Read! Read! Read! he would have seen what the defendant was telling him all along, and this lawsuit wouldn’t have been necessary. But then again it was fun to reminisce about Professor Carter. Maybe a future decision will give us another opportunity to quote him. He said lots of funny stuff.