A recent psychology study has reportedly suggested that children younger than age 5 “have emerging knowledge of brands that are relevant in their lives.” Anna McAllister and T. Bettina Cornwell, “Children’s Brand Symbolism Understanding: Links to Theory of Mind and Executive Functioning,” Psychology & Marketing, March 2010. Noting previous research suggesting that “brand symbolism understanding does not develop until 7 to 11 years of age,” the study authors nevertheless found that younger children not only recognize brands, but are already beginning to understand brands “as social systems.” McAllister and Cornwell first asked 38 children ages 3 to 5 to identify brand name logos for 50 brands across 16 product categories, including fast food. The researchers then interviewed 42 3-to-6 year olds to determine their brand symbolism understanding. “Surprisingly, there were children as young as 3 who were making very strong judgments when comparing McDonald’s and Burger King,” one author was quoted…
Category Archives Issue 341
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report criticizing the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) oversight of food ingredients determined to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Noting that companies are not required to submit their GRAS determinations to regulators, GAO examined whether FDA can vouch for these substances, which increasingly include nanomaterials. The report apparently concludes that not only does FDA’s oversight process fail to ensure the safety of both new and preexisting GRAS determinations, but it allows engineered nanomaterials to enter the food supply without the agency’s knowledge. According to the report, FDA “has not systematically reconsidered GRAS substances since the 1980s,” nor has it responded to “concerns about GRAS substances, such as salt and the trans fat in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, that individuals and consumer groups have raised through 11 citizen petitions submitted to the agency between 2004 and 2008.” The findings also fault…
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine have reportedly claimed in a new study that exposure to the food packaging chemical bisphenol A (BPA) during pregnancy can cause permanent abnormalities in the uterus of offspring, including altering their DNA. Jason G. Bromer, et al, “Bisphenol-A exposure in utero leads to epigenetic alterations in the developmental programming of uterine estrogen response,” Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (March 2010). According to a March 8, 2010, Yale University press release, the study is the first to show that BPA exposure permanently affects sensitivity to estrogen. Using two groups of mice, one exposed to BPA as a fetus during pregnancy and another exposed to a placebo, researchers examined gene expression and the amount of DNA modification in the uterus. Results showed that the mice exposed to BPA as a fetus had an exaggerated response to estrogens as adults, long after the…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has issued a report card that rates 128 companies for their policies on marketing food to children. According to CSPI, most of the food makers, restaurants and entertainment companies failed “either for having weak policies or for failing to have any policies whatsoever.” Based on research conducted in summer 2009, the report found that industry spends some $2 billion on youth marketing annually. Grades in the “Report Card on Food-Marketing Policies” ranged from a B+ for Mars, Inc., for its policy to exclude marketing to children ages 12 and younger, to an F for Denny’s “for marketing to children through its children’s menu, which includes many nutritionally poor items; games on its Web site; and a kid’s birthday club.” In all, seven of the companies earned a D, and 95 received an F. “Despite the industry’s self-regulatory system, the vast majority…
A European Court of Justice adviser has determined that Monsanto Co. cannot seek royalties from a company that imported from Argentina soy meal containing residues of Monsanto’s patented gene. Case C-428/08, Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Cefetra BV (Op. of Advocate Gen. Mengozzi, delivered March 9, 2010). Monsanto has no patent on its Roundup Ready® soybeans in Argentina. In 2005 and 2006, the company had shipments of soy meal from Argentina impounded in Amsterdam harbor, and testing showed that it contained some of the seed traits that Monsanto has patented in the European Union (EU). The company then sued the importers for infringement, and a Dutch court hearing the dispute sought guidance from the EU tribunal. Disagreeing with Monsanto, which argued that its EU patent covers the DNA sequence, the adviser opined that under Directive 98/44, “a DNA sequence must be regarded as protected, even as a self-standing product, only where it…
Over the past two years, little has taken place in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., the putative class action litigation brought in 2002 on behalf of obese and overweight teenagers who alleged that the fast food restaurant is responsible for their weight-related health conditions. On March 10, 2010, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Donald Pogue. Since Judge Robert Sweet recused himself in 2008 from the case he had heard through two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the matter has been passed to three different judges. Currently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 30, 2002).
A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice some of the claims filed by a food supplier in a dispute over insurance coverage in food-contamination litigation. Nat’l Surety Corp. v. Pacific Int’l Vegetable Mktg., Inc., No. 09-4898 (N.D. Cal., decided March 5, 2010). A fast food restaurant was sued for injuries purportedly linked to foodborne contamination, and it filed a third party complaint against the company that supplied the lettuce which allegedly caused the outbreak. The supplier turned to the lettuce grower’s insurer to defend it under a policy that was supposed to include the supplier as an additional insured pursuant to an agreement between the supplier and grower. The insurer refused to defend the claims, and the supplier sued the agent purportedly responsible for adding the supplier to the insurance policy for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that certain business expense claims and a personal property claim made by a poultry processor for damages sustained during a break in electrical service caused by an ice storm were not covered by the processor’s insurance policy. George’s Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co., No. 09-2220 (8th Cir., decided March 9, 2010). The insurer paid the processor’s claims for lost business income and extra expenses totaling more than $300,000, but refused to pay $155,000 in fixed labor and overhead costs and $30,000 for chickens that died in the processor’s holding shed. The court agreed with the insurer that the refused claims were subject to exclusions under the insurance policy, rejecting the processor’s contentions that (i) its labor and overhead costs were extra expenses because the processor experienced an increase in cost-per-pound when the business disruption caused it to process less chicken…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended until April 7, 2010, the public comment period on its proposal to add epoxiconazole, a triazole fungicide used on coffee beans and bananas grown outside the United States, to the state’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. According to OEHHA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the chemical as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. If the fungicide is added to the list, warnings will have to be provided to California consumers purchasing products containing the substance. See OEHHA News, March 8, 2010.
New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) has reportedly introduced legislation (A.B. A10129) that would bar restaurants from using salt “in any form” during food preparation. According to the bill, which cites the World Health Organization, “three quarters or more of the sodium intake in the United States comes from processed or restaurant foods.” Proposing to fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation, the law aims to “give customers the option to add salt after the meal has been prepared for them,” allowing them “more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and . . . the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles.” Meanwhile, the legislation has drawn swift criticism from consumers, nutritionists, restaurateurs, and chefs, the latter of whom have noted the important chemical role of salt in baked goods and other dishes. “Chefs would be handcuffed in their food preparation, and many are already in open rebellion…
12
