A recent study has reportedly detected inorganic arsenic (Asi) in organic brown rice syrup (OBRS), a prepared foods sweetener sometimes used in lieu of high-fructose corn syrup. Brian P. Jackson, et al., “Arsenic, Organic Foods, and Brown Rice Syrup,” Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2012. Researchers evidently sought to determine “the concentration and speciation of arsenic (As) in commercially available brown rice syrups, and in products containing OBRS including toddler formula, cereal/energy bars, and high energy foods used by endurance athletes.” Their results purportedly indicated that OBRS “can contain high concentrations of Asi and dimethylarsenate (DMA),” raising concerns about products such as organic toddler milk formula that use OBRS as a primary ingredient. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a February 17, 2012, statement pledging to expand “its surveillance activities” in response to the study’s claims. The agency has also commissioned its own research on arsenic in rice and rice…
Category Archives Issue 428
German researchers claim that “elevated serum phosphate concentrations have recently been found to be correlated with mortality in patients with chronic renal failure, while high-normal serum phosphate concentrations have been found to be correlated with cardiovascular morbidity in the general population.” Eberhard Ritz, et al., “Phosphate Additives in Food—a Health Risk,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 2012. Noting that naturally occurring phosphate in foods, “including meat, potatoes, bread, and other farinaceous products,” is not completely absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract and thereby poses less concern, the researchers contend that “inorganic phosphate in food additives is effectively absorbed and can measurably elevate the serum phosphate concentration in patients with CKD [chronic kidney disease].” According to the authors, foods with large amounts of added phosphate include processed meats, canned fish, cheeses, baked goods, and cola beverages and other soft drinks. The ingredient is apparently added as a preservative, acidifying agent and buffer, and emulsifying…
Researchers presenting at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2012 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, B.C., have announced two new ways to produce synthetic meat, significantly upping the ante in what AAAS describes as a potentially lucrative industry. The first approach pioneered by Stanford University biochemist Patrick Brown reportedly uses plant material to create meat substitutes and may also serve as dairy products. Noting that grazing requires extensive land and energy use, Brown explained to AAAS attendees that “yields from the world’s four major food plant crops—corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans—already provide more than enough protein and amino acids for the world population.” Meanwhile, a Dutch team led by Maastricht University Professor Mark Post has taken a different tack, “gradually transforming” cow stem cells “into tissues that resemble the skeletal muscle that makes up steak or hamburger.” The scientists apparently aim to produce the first lab-grown hamburger by…
In an article titled “Government Can Regulate Food Advertising to Children Because Cognitive Research Shows That It Is Inherently Misleading,” two attorneys and a communications professor assert that the First Amendment is no bar to the regulation of “junk food” ads targeting children younger than 12 because they lack the ability to understand the advertisers’ intent. Because children are unable to effectively comprehend advertising, according to the authors, any commercial messages directed toward them are “inevitably misleading.” The research and article were supported in part by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant. The article first cites research about the amount of time children spend watching TV as well as “more than sixty published studies” purportedly linking TV exposure and obesity. It also discusses the numbers of “low-nutrient, calorie-dense” products advertised to children daily on TV and notes that the most heavily advertised food brands are also promoted online through advergames…
According to news sources, a state court has ordered dairy farmers on the California Milk Advisory Board to answer questions about marketing the dairy industry in California. The order was reportedly entered in a lawsuit filed in June 2011 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) alleging that the board’s “Happy Cow” ads deceive the public by representing that California dairy products come from cows that are “happy,” humanely treated, healthy, and comfortable. According to the animal rights’ organization, the board lacks the evidence to substantiate the ad campaign. The court also apparently denied PETA’s motion to subpoena confidential dairy-producer records relating to animal-welfare practices. The litigation is currently in discovery, and the next hearing has reportedly been scheduled for May 25, 2012. See Capital Press, February 9, 2012; Merced Sun-Star, February 16, 2012.
Counsel for five current and former Illinois prison inmates has reportedly indicated that four expert witnesses are prepared to testify that the soy in the inmates’ prison diets caused them “irreparable, actual harm,” and thus their litigation against the state, prison wardens and nurses will proceed. Harris v. Brown, No. 07-03225 (C.D. Ill., filed August 16, 2007). According to a news source, the inmates are seeking an order to stop the Illinois Department of Corrections from using soy in the food prisoners eat; the plaintiffs claim they consumed up to 100 grams of soy protein daily despite Food and Drug Administration recommendations that soy intake not exceed 25 grams. Claiming violations of their Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, the plaintiffs are being represented by the Weston A. Price Foundation, which opposes soy foods and has backed similar lawsuits in other states. The foundation claims that…
Starbucks Corp. has filed its response in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute over tip sharing, asking the court to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in its favor. Lawrence v. Starbucks Corp., No. 11-3199 (2d Cir., brief filed February 22, 2012). Additional information about related litigation involving Starbucks baristas and shift supervisors appears in Issue 256 of this Update. The company asserts that the district court correctly held that (i) New York labor law does not grant plaintiff assistant store managers the right to participate in a tip pool, and Starbucks did not “demand,” “accept,” or “retain” their tips; (ii) Starbucks’ policy of allowing only baristas and shift supervisors to share tips is consistent with state law; and (iii) assistant store managers exercise control over their subordinates’ employment status and are thus “agents” prohibited from sharing tips under state law.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have agreed to a timeline for the production of material NRDC requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) involving bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging and food contact materials. NRDC v. FDA, No. 11-8662 (S.D.N.Y., stipulation and order filed February 21, 2012). Additional information about the litigation appears in Issue 420 of this Update. The agreement narrows the request, limits the FDA offices required to conduct searches for responsive records and specifies the format in which the records will be produced. It also creates a timeline for FDA to produce internal material, material involving other agencies and a list of withheld documents. Any further proceedings in the litigation NRDC filed to force the agency to respond to its FOIA request are stayed until further order of the court on or after August 22, 2012. NRDC is…
A federal court in South Carolina has reportedly determined that a tomato grower seeking damages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allegedly caused by a 2008 tomato recall that followed a Salmonella outbreak which was ultimately found not to be linked to contaminated tomatoes, may pursue negligence claims against the agency. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-01399 (D.S.C., order entered February 23, 2012). Further details about the case appear in Issue 398 of this Update. The court has apparently dismissed claims of defamation, slander of title, product/commercial disparagement, unconstitutional taking, and violation of unfair trade practices law. See Law360, February 23, 2012.
A federal magistrate judge in Illinois has stayed a putative class action, the fourth of five brought against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company deceives consumers by representing that its granola and oatmeal products are “heart healthy,” “wholesome,” and a “smart choice made easy,” when they actually contain trans fat. Askin v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 11-111 (N.D. Ill., order entered February 15, 2012). The named plaintiff, a New York resident, filed his complaint on behalf of a putative nationwide class after other similar suits were filed in California, where they are proceeding as one consolidated action. He unsuccessfully sought to consolidate all of the action in Illinois before a multidistrict litigation court. Quaker and the intervening plaintiffs, who filed the California actions, asked the court to dismiss the Illinois action under the first-to-file rule, and the court denied the request despite finding that the suits are…
12
