According to this article, companies trying to find ways to can their food products in metal containers without bisphenol A (BPA) have found that the search is costing millions and may not ultimately result in BPA-free foods. Companies no longer using cans with linings containing BPA have apparently found traces of the ubiquitous chemical in their foods and are trying to determine whether the source is cutting boards, latex gloves or even the food items themselves. Food manufacturers are not waiting for the government to act on proposals to ban the substance; they reportedly began searching for alternatives in 2008 after consumer pressure motivated manufacturers to remove BPA from plastic baby bottles. While it has been relatively easy for plastic-bottle makers to find a simple BPA substitute, canned-food manufacturers face problems such as alternative lining disintegration, taste issues and the inability of the other linings to withstand the high temperatures…
Category Archives Issue 339
“Concern about toxins in the environment used to be a fringe view. But alarm has moved into the medical mainstream,” writes New York Times op-ed contributor Nicholas Kristof in this February 25, 2010, piece examining a purported shift in how the scientific community perceives the likelihood that ubiquitous chemicals affect the developing brain. Kristof references a forthcoming opinion piece in Pediatrics that reportedly cites “historically important, proof-of-concept studies that specifically link autism to environmental exposures experienced prenatally.” Although the Pediatrics editorial apparently focuses on the impact of medications such as thalidomide, misoprostol and valproic acid, Kristof extends his concern to other chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A. “At a time when many Americans still use plastic containers to microwave food, in ways that make toxicologists blanch, we need accelerated research, regulations and consumer protection,” he opines. While Kristof warns against “sensationalizing risks,” he nevertheless urges consumers “to be wary…
Two public health advocates have penned an article in the February 23, 2010, edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that calls for an end to all front-of-package (FOP) food labels. According to New York University Professor Marion Nestle and Children’s Hospital Boston Obesity Program Director David Ludwig, the food industry has historically used loopholes in labeling laws to make tenuous health claims and develop “self endorsement labeling systems” in an effort to sell more products. The authors note that although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “intends to examine the entire issue of front-of-package labeling,” the agency continues to maintain that “point of purchase labeling . . . can be an effective way of promoting informed food choices and helping consumers construct healthier diets.” Nestle and Ludwig, however, remain skeptical that these systems will not be co-opted by food and beverage manufacturers seeking to promote sales.…
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued a policy statement calling for warning labels on foods that pose a high risk of choking. The medical organization has identified hot dogs as “the food most commonly associated with fatal choking among children,” as well as other high-risk foods that include “hard candy, peanuts/ nuts, seeds, whole grapes, raw carrots, apples, popcorn, chunks of peanut butter, marshmallows, chewing gum, and sausages.” According to a February 22, 2010, press release, the policy contains “recommendations for government agencies, manufacturers, parents, teachers, child care workers and health care professionals to help prevent choking among children.” In addition to the warning labels, AAP has urged these groups to consider strategies for (i) recalling food products that pose a significant choking hazard, (ii) establishing “a nationwide food-related choking-incident surveillance and reporting system,” (iii) designing new food and redesigning existing food to minimize choking risk, and (iv)…
The Cornucopia Institute has written to the CEOs of Sara Lee and National Public Radio to express its concerns with the marketing campaign for Sara Lee’s EarthGrains® products. In its February 22, 2010, letter, the institute refers to a study it made of the claims and calls for Sara Lee to “immediately suspend promotional activities until your organization can complete its own analysis of our findings.” Institute co-director Mark Kastel stated, “Even though they’ve done a countrywide media rollout, including underwriting spots on National Public Radio, Sara Lee is, in essence, playing a shell game. . . . If advertising executives could be charged with malpractice, this would be a major felony.” According to the institute, Sara Lee claims that its EarthGrains® bread contains, “Eco-Grain™,” an ingredient that “is more sustainable than organic grain.” The institute calls this a “crass and exploitive marketing ploy” that has angered the organic community…
Cargill, Inc. has reportedly responded to a $100 million lawsuit by admitting that a beef patty it manufactured contained E. coli and caused plaintiff Stephanie Smith’s debilitating injuries. While not contesting strict liability, the company is denying that it was negligent. Its suppliers apparently certified that the product had been tested for E. coli and that all the tests were negative. The company also reportedly included in its response that its products are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that federal law requires meat products to be labeled with warnings that meat may contain bacteria that will cause illness if not properly cooked. Smith, who is confined to a wheelchair and was profiled in a New York Times article, is represented by food lawyer William Marler. He was quoted as saying, “Never in my 23 years have I seen a food company admit liability out of the box…
According to a news source, a putative class action has been filed against E&J Gallo Winery alleging that it falsely labeled and sold its Red Bicyclette® wine as Pinot Noir when the wine was “illegally cut with cheaper Syrah and Merlot grapes.” The action, reportedly filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, follows news that wine makers in France were sentenced for selling the cheaper wine to the company as pinot noir. Additional details about the French scam appear in issue 338 of this Update. Meanwhile, the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has reportedly been investigating the matter with French authorities and may also take action against U.S. wine importers. The bureau was quoted as saying, “TTB is waiting for an official translation of the court documents and has begun investigations to determine the appropriate course of action to take regarding the American importers of these mislabeled…
A putative class action has been filed in a Madison County, Illinois, court alleging that a fast food chain has fraudulently advertised its Super Stacked™ sub sandwiches “as containing ‘double portions of meat’” compared with its standard sandwiches, when they do not have double the meat. Williams v. Kahala Corp., No. 10-L-166 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty., filed February 12, 2010). According to the complaint, while defendant charges a premium for its Super Stacked™ sandwiches, they “do not have double the protein” because “they do not have double the meat.” The plaintiffs allege that a 12-inch BLIMPIE Best™ sandwich has 50 grams of protein, while its Super Stacked™ counterpart “contains only 73 grams of protein.” They also allege that some Super Stacked™ sandwiches have no “regular” counterpart with which consumers can compare. Seeking to certify a class of all persons who purchased a Super Stacked™ sandwich from Blimpie restaurants in…
After a federal court in Ohio preliminarily approved the settlement of claims that The Dannon Co. deceived consumers by advertising the purported digestive health benefits of its Activia® and DanActive® products, class notification was initiated. Gemelas v. The Dannon Co., Inc., No. 08-236 (N.D. Ohio, order filed January 27, 2010). Without admitting liability, Dannon has agreed to create a $35 million fund for the settlement, which was discussed in detail in issue 320 of this Update. Claims must be submitted by October 1, 2010, and objections to the proposed settlement must be filed by May 24. The court has scheduled a June 23 hearing to consider any objections; to decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate; and to determine what the plaintiffs’ lawyers will be paid.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods have been cooked at high temperatures, as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction have both determined that acrylamide is a developmental, male reproductive toxin. Under Prop. 65, a chemical must be listed when an authoritative body formally identifies the chemical as causing reproductive toxicity and the evidence it considered meets certain sufficiency criteria. Public comments must be submitted by April 27, 2010. Noting the significant public interest in the chemical, which has been found in baked goods and cooked starchy foods such as potato chips and French fries, OEHHA has also published a notice of proposed rulemaking that…
12
