Burden of proof

Should a party fail to file an opposition against a pubHshed appHcation within the time allowed, the objection can be filed after issuance of the registration. This involves a proceeding for canceUation on grounds similar to those available for opposition. Although the procedures are similar, the burden of proof, which faUs on the party seeking canceUation, is more strictly constmed, at least in theory, in a canceUation proceeding. 

Beweis-fUhrung, /. demonstration reasoning, -kraft, /. conolusiveness, demonstrative power, -last, /. burden of proof, bewenden, v.i. rest, drop. 

Critics of our analyses who claim that the trials are flawed implicitly assume that it is my task to prove that antidepressant drugs do not work. But where does the burden of proof lie Earlier in this chapter I listed a few of the substances that have been used medicinally over the centuries. Others include putrid meat, fly specks, human sweat, worms, spiders, furs and feathers. These treatments seemed to work in the past at least well enough for... 

We have cut many of the documents we considered relevant, in view of some earlier remarks concerning the length of some of our documents. We have no hesitation in saying that we feel we have eliminated all we can honestly eliminate in view of our responsibility to see that the facts are laid before this Tribunal and the world. Taking the defendants admissions alone, and putting them beside these facts, we feel we are meeting the burden of proof. 

The Presiding Judge s ruling was so equivocal that, every morning for many months, we would wake up wondering whether most of the case would be thrown out of court. The door would swing back and forth the burden of proof would seem to shift, as it had, with every change of subject, as in a family quarrel. This was no normal trial. 

The objective of this presentation is to provide an overview of the industry practices to fulfil the obligations in the field of food contact materials and articles, and in addition to discuss elements which are currently not fully covered by legislation. Obligations and burden of proof are discussed with reference to requisites for compliance, evidence of compliance, and liability. 

I mentioned three factors in federal law which impact on this disclosure problem. The first is that the Freedom of Information Act makes it difficult to withhold information. It does this both by an uncertain standard of confidentiality, and by the omission of the procedural protection which comes with all other kinds of adjudicative decisions by federal agencies. The courts rewrote the Freedom of Information Act s original intent in the 1974 National Parks v. Morton decision. Since that time, each submission to an agency has been vulnerable to disclosure if the owner fails to carry a rather difficult burden of proof That disclosure would cause substantial harm to competitive position at the time the disclosure is made. Assume that the owner of a secret catalyst had a market share of 10 in specialty fatty acids for rubber production, and filed the catalyst information with the EPA on April 1, 1982. When the request for disclosure comes in November 1983, what will the firm s market position be then, and how much would this... 

The term, unfair labor practice, is used in the Taft-Hartley Act. Violation of any of the specific practices stated in the Act are subject to remedial action ordered by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has the authority to go to court to ensure that its decisions are carried out. If an employee who is fired or otherwise discriminated against so charges, the burden of proof is on the employer to show that such action is completely unrelated to union activity. 

The balancing of risks and benefits and the placing on the proper party the burden of proof about toxic substances can create a number of complex legal, economic, and social problems. In a journal editorial Albert F. Plant said (1) ... 

I think the heaviest burden of proof should lie with those who will profit from a new development, not with those who will be exposed to it, but the decision should still try to balance the benefits versus the risks. 

The agency is permitted to restrict substances that pose a "significant and rmreasonable risk" rmder the conditions of use on the label or as commonly consumed. The FDA has the burden of proof and cannot act rmtil substantial harm occurs to consumers, but manufacturers are not required to report adverse events. Even when harm is obvious, instituting a ban can take years. For example, even though thousands of consumers appear to have been affected by products that contain ephedra, it took the FDA more than 5 years to go through the procedures needed to ban its use. 

Wetherington CL (2007) Sex-gender differences in drug abuse a shift in the burden of proof Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 15(5) 411 17... 

In organic solids the determination of rotating frame relaxation is severely complicated by the presence of the strongly interacting proton spin system. Spin-spin fluctuations compete with spin-lattice fluctuations to produce an effective relaxation time large rf field amplitudes are mandated to discriminate against the spin-spin event. The burden of proof lies with the experimenter to establish that a rotating frame relaxation rate actually reflects a motional effect seen by the carbon nuclei. 

A generally accepted definition of the Precautionary Principle has never been brought forward. According to a popular definition (Wikipedia 2006) The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable. ... 

The burden of proof for such an unprecedented effect should be high, and the foregoing experiments with willows and tent caterpillars cannot be considered to constitute such proof. However, at the very least, they show that the results of experiments designed to test for changes in leaf quality of attacked plants should be Interpreted with caution, particularly if control plants are near attacked ones. 

Food and Drug Act (1906). This first drug law required only that drugs meet standards of strength and purity. The burden of proof was on FDA to show that a drug s labeling was false and fraudulent before it could be taken off the market. 

All details about starting materials and central production features should be known, in order to define exactly the status natural of a flavouring substance. In principle, the burden of proof is the responsibility of the producer. If necessary, production documents should be disclosed, in order to get objective authenticity assessment by qualified and authorised experts. Constructive cooperation between food researchers, the food industry and authorities will be stimulating to quality assessment in the food industry and will enhance consumer confidence [83]. 

DSHEA severely limited when the FDA could take action to protect the public and what actions could be taken. The burden of proof to show harm is now placed on the FDA. Moreover, dietary supplement manufacturers are not required to report adverse dietary supplement events. In fact, between 1994 and 1999 fewer than 10 of the 2500 adverse events associated with dietary supplements and reported to the FDA were reported by the manufacturer (53). The Office of Inspector General concluded the spontaneous adverse event reporting system has difficulty generating signals of possible public health concern due to limited medical information, product information, manufacturer information, consumer information, and ability to analyze trends (57). One weight loss supplement manufacturer is reported to have withheld from the FDA 14,684 complaints of adverse events regarding ephedra, which included heart attacks, strokes, seizures, and deaths (53). 

As can be seen, the various directives and regulations on chemicals differ in the demands they place on the chemicals industry to provide information on the effects of the chemicals that they produce and use. They also vary in where the burden of proof lies — with the regulator to show that a chemical is a significant risk, or with the manufacturer or importer to show that a chemical meets certain requirements. In some cases what has to be demonstrated is not simply whether or not there is a risk, but whether a chemical is or is not more hazardous than alternatives. 

Whether a chemical substance is naturally occurring should affect where the burden of proof lies. At one end of the scale are substances identical to common natural ones. For these the burden of proof should lie with the regulator to show that they have the capacity to cause harm. Regulatory controls on them should then depend on the nature of the harm that they have the capacity to cause. At the other end are chemicals that are clearly novel. These should be assumed to be risky unless there is good evidence that they are accommodated in natural processes without significantly changing those processes or causing harm. 

Today, to a large measure, the burden of proof still falls upon the accuser, and that ephemeral and undocumented "presumption of innocence" concept provides some measure of protection. They, the accusors, must prove you are guilty. But, as the legal structure drifts from the criminal statutes to the regulatory statutes, this protection is lost. You must prove that you are innocent. The perfect example is the random urine test, which demands, without any probable cause, that you prove that you do not have drugs in you. There is no presumption of innocence. This has been the sad state of our income tax laws for years, and now it is becoming a reality in our drug laws. Prove to the court that you didn t know that these mushrooms were psychoactive Shades of the Inquisitions of a few hundred years ago. Or the Salem travesties of more recent times. Prove to us you are not a witch. 

The intent of Congress to more stringently restrict oil imports appears in the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA) (3), now part of the National Energy Act (NEA). The new legislation removes the burden of proof from the government in justifying conversion from oil and gas to coal. Instead, it is now incumbent upon the stationary source to demonstrate why it cannot make the conversion. 

---