A literature review and meta-analysis of global studies published since 1980 has reportedly found a “weak association” between parents’ dietary intake and that of their children, suggesting to lead author Youfa Wang that “family environment plays only a partial role” in people’s eating patterns. Youfa Wang, et al., “Do children and their parents eat a similar diet? Resemblance in child and parental dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, November 2010. According to a December 8, 2010, press release, researchers with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, National Institute of Aging and University of Zaragoza compared “parent-child pairs’ dietary intakes, by type of parent-child pairs (for example, mother-daughter vs. father-son), world regions and dietary assessment methods, and over time.” Their findings apparently indicated “differences in parent-child dietary intake resemblance, across nutrients and dietary assessment approaches,” with parent-child correlations for energy and total fat intakes…
Category Archives Issue 374
“Essentially, we have a system where wealthy farmers feed the poor crap and poor farmers feed the wealthy high-quality food,” food activist Michael Pollan told Newsweek society editor Lisa Miller in this article examining the gap in the availability of nutritious, fresh and organic foods between rich and lower-income Americans. Noting that “in hard times, food has always marked a bright border between the haves and the have-nots,” Miller opines that healthier foods “have become luxury goods that only some can afford” while “highly caloric, mass-produced foods like pizza and packaged cakes” are staples for the poorest Americans, many of whom are obese and live in “food deserts” that lack supermarkets stocked with nutritious fare. “Corpulence used to signify the prosperity of a few but has now become a marker of poverty,” Miller writes. She quotes recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that show 17 percent of Americans…
Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has released a new international database designed to track company pledges to limit food marketing to children. The database currently features 16 pledges: (i) three specific to the soft-drink industry; (ii) one specific to the food industry; and (iii) 12 applicable to the entire food industry. The pledges covered to date include the Council for Better Business Bureaus’ Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), as well as agreements that are either international in scope or based in Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, or Thailand. The site breaks down each pledge according to “key criteria that define specific restrictions on marketing communications to children, including the definition of ‘children’ (age), the marketing directed at them (audience definition), the communications channels (ex. television, internet, etc.), marketing methods (ex. advertising using licensed characters, advertising using promotional materials, etc.)…
Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted last month to nix alcoholic energy drinks, media focus has apparently shifted to the new campus craze, alcohol-infused whipped creams sold under the monikers CREAM and Whipped Lightning. The growing popularity of “whipahol®” has drawn scrutiny from both public health officials and campus administrators, who in some cases have warned parents about “creative combinations of alcohol” and raised questions about the sufficiency of package labeling. As one Boston Public Health Commission spokesperson told reporters, “If a product looks like something else, it’s easy not to be aware that it might contain a lot of alcohol.” See The Boston Herald, November 28, 2010; Boston NECN, November 29, 2010; University of Kansas Parent Association ENews, December 2010. According to various news sources, the 30-proof canisters are sold in liquor stores where they do not need to be refrigerated and have a shelf life approaching nine months. Moreover,…
Hershey Company has reportedly sued Mars for trademark infringement in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging that colors used in the packaging for Mars’s Dove peanut-butter milk-chocolate Promises® candy is too similar to what Hershey uses for its Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups®. Mars apparently filed a preemptive suit just days earlier in a Virginia federal court, asking to dismiss the Hershey complaint. Mars reportedly contends that Hershey admits it does not have exclusive rights to package peanut-butter candies in orange wrappers and that orange is commonly used in the industry as an indicator of peanut-butter flavor. According to a news source, Hershey sent a cease-and desist letter to Mars in November 2010, stating, “It can come as no surprise to Mars that Hershey, having objected to the color of the individual Dove peanut butter chocolate wrappers and filed a counterclaim to obtain a change of that color, would have a serious problem…
Two Missouri residents with arthritis and allergies have filed a putative class action on behalf of Missouri, Illinois and Kansas consumers who were allegedly deceived by false health-related claims made by a company that sells elderberry juice. Delling v. Wyldewood Cellars, Inc., No. 10-02287 (E.D. Mo., filed December 6, 2010). The complaint also names a retailer as a defendant. The plaintiffs contend that they read an advertisement stating that elderberry juice “prevents colds, flu, viruses, asthma, allergies, diabetes, arthritis & more!” When they went to the store to further evaluate the product, they allegedly read customer and “physician” testimonials about the curative properties of elderberry juice and decided to purchase the product. According to the plaintiffs, they used the product “but failed to realize any health benefits and certainly did not see any abatement in their allergy or arthritis problems.” The plaintiffs allege one count of consumer fraud and seek…
Alleging that Perdue Farms Inc. misleads consumers by labeling its chicken products as “Humanely Raised,” a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has reportedly filed a putative class action against the company in a New Jersey court. The suit apparently claims that the company’s chickens are processed under National Chicken Council guidelines that allow “numerous inhumane practices, including painful handling and shackling of live birds . . . and egregiously inhumane slaughter practices.” The plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers who buy the company’s chicken products relying on the “alleged deceptive and misleading humane claim.” Compensatory damages and injunction relief are also sought. According to an HSUS spokesperson, “Rather than implementing humane reforms, Perdue has simply slapped ‘humanely raised’ stickers on its factory farmed products, hoping consumers won’t know the difference.” Perdue reportedly responded to the complaint by stating, “The Humane Society of the United States…
A California court has reportedly ordered Dole Food Co. to pay about $200,000 in legal fees and costs to Swedish filmmakers whom the company sued for defamation, alleging that their documentary about the lawyer who sued Dole on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers exposed to the pesticide DBCP implied that the company caused their deaths. Dole Food Co. v. Gertten, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided November 17, 2010). The filmmakers filed a motion to strike the lawsuit after it was filed in July 2009 on the ground that it constituted a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP, which is prohibited by state law. Although Dole apparently dismissed its lawsuit voluntarily thereafter, “[t]he potential distributors were concerned because Dole had only dismissed without prejudice. They had the right to re-file the action,” according to the filmmakers’ counsel. While the film has been distributed in 15…
According to a news source, a district court in the District of Columbia has denied a request seeking an order that the Justice Department submit a proposal for settling claims of loan program discrimination filed by female farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Instead, the court apparently urged the lawyers representing the litigants to work together to reach an agreement and to report back during a January 14, 2011, status hearing. Unlike recent cases addressing charges that USDA discriminated against African-American (Pigford I and Pigford II) and Native American (Keepseagle v. Vilsack) farmers, Love v. Vilsack reportedly involves putative class claims that have not been certified. Counsel for the women farmers and those representing Hispanic farmers with similar claims (Garcia v. Vilsack) contend that the government’s settlement proposals thus far pale in comparison to the sums agreed to in Pigford ($2.25 billion) and Keepseagle ($680 million). See National Journal Daily, December…
A federal court in Ohio has determined that, for the most part, an “all-risk” insurance policy excludes from coverage the losses sustained by a meat processor whose products were contaminated with Listeria during processing. HoneyBaked Foods, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 08-01686 (N.D. Ohio, W. Div., decided December 2, 2010). Still, the court ordered the parties to prepare a question for certification to the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether, “notwithstanding the failure of the policy to cover the plaintiff’s loss, such loss might be covered” under a reasonable-expectations theory. According to the court, the meat processor was required to destroy about 1 million pounds of fully cooked ham and turkey products after it was discovered that the Listeria found in product samples matched sludge in a hollow roller that was part of the processing plant’s conveyor system. The company sought coverage for the disposed food products and additional losses…
