The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released a summary of survey results pertaining to the regulatory framework in 12 countries that provide oversight of nanotechnology in food and medical products. Conducted in 2011-2012, the survey addressed (i) “the regulatory frameworks being used to provide oversight for the use of nanotechnology in the relevant field,” (ii) “the legislative frameworks relevant to these regulatory frameworks,” and (iii) “relevant government supported research programmes and institutions.” OECD has concluded that food ingredients, additives, colorings, and contact substances “that may contain nanomaterials or otherwise involve the application of nanotechnology are covered under existing national and/or regional legislative and regulatory frameworks that are relevant and applicable to foods.” See OECD News Release, May 28, 2013.
Category Archives Issue 486
The American Public Health Association’s 141st annual meeting and exposition is slated for November 2-6, 2013, in Boston, Massachusetts. Expected to attract more than 13,000 physicians, researchers, epidemiologists, and related health specialists, and featuring a myriad of presentations, the meeting will include a session on “Regulating for the Public’s Health: Food and Beverages, Drugs, and Emerging Technologies.” Among the presentations during this session are the legal considerations of antibiotics in food animals, focusing on a court order requiring that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) complete proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics (presented by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention senior attorney Heather Horton), and “Legal strategies to increase funding and improve the FDA’s authority over food labeling violations and questionable claims” (presented by Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity attorney Jennifer Pomeranz). Pomeranz contends that FDA lacks sufficient authority and funding to address misbranded food products and “[t]he…
Austin-based Amy’s Ice Creams has reportedly filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in a federal district court against Amy’s Kitchen, which makes frozen lunch and dinner entrées with organic and non-genetically modified ingredients. While the two companies have apparently co existed without difficulty for more than 20 years, Amy’s Ice Creams, now with 15 shops throughout Texas, claims that it recently learned about the frozen food company’s plan to launch a line of frozen treats. Amy’s Kitchen is based in California, and its products are sold nationally. Ice cream company founder Amy Simmons reportedly said, “We don’t want them to go into ice cream because there will be obvious confusion.” According to the complaint, the confusion would not be limited to Texas consumers, as the ice cream company “is well known beyond the state. The success of Amy’s [Ice Creams] has been featured in such publications as Inc., Southern Living, Wall…
Chef Kyle Connaughton, who has “been employed by some of the most prestigious restaurants in the world,” co-authored books and co presented on United Kingdom (U.K.) TV programs, has sued Chipotle Mexican Grill and its CEO, claiming that he was hired to developed a ramen-noodle fast-food restaurant concept that was doomed to fail because someone else had already created the concept in the context of a confidential business deal with Chipotle that did not come to fruition. Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 155106/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., filed June 3, 2013). Connaughton allegedly developed the business plan and concept from 2010-2012 in close collaboration with Chipotle employees. Connaughton later learned on meeting with Momofuku’s Noodle Bar chief marketing officer that Momofuku would sue Chipotle when its ramen restaurant opened because owner David Chang had developed the same concept for Chipotle in 2008. Because Chang could not come to terms…
A federal court in California has reportedly determined that a named plaintiff in a putative consumer-fraud class action may pursue claims pertaining to the defendant’s green tea products but not its black teas. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 31, 2013). The plaintiff apparently alleges that the defendant made misleading statements in press releases and on its website about the presence of antioxidants in its tea products, including both green and black teas. Because he did not purchase the black teas, the court ruled that he lacked standing to represent consumers who did purchase them. The court also reportedly dismissed the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but refused to dismiss most of his other allegations finding them sufficiently pleaded. See Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, June 4, 2013.
A federal court in Arkansas has ruled that it has jurisdiction, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal standing decision under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), to adjudicate the putative class claims filed by a woman who alleges that Frito-Lay deceives consumers by labeling its Tostitos® and SunChips® products as “All Natural” because they contain genetically modified corn and hexane-extracted soybean oil. Deaton v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1029 (W.D. Ark., order entered June 5, 2013). At issue was whether the defendants had submitted sufficient evidence to show that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional minimum. The plaintiff had stipulated that she would not seek more than $5 million to keep the lawsuit in state court, but conceded that her stipulation could not prevent removal under the Knowles decision. The court ruled that the…
A California resident has filed a strict liability lawsuit against a food retailer and the Oregon-based company that produced a frozen organic fruit mix allegedly implicated in a widespread Hepatitis A outbreak. Brackenridge v. Townsend Farms Corp., No. BC510633 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 3, 2013). According to the complaint, Lynda Brackenridge contracted the disease after purchasing the frozen fruit blend and remains hospitalized in isolation and in guarded condition. Seeking past and future economic and non-economic damages in excess of $25,000, court costs and interest, the plaintiff also alleges negligence and breach of implied warranties.
A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed a putative class action alleging that General Mills misleads consumers by labeling its Nature Valley products as “Natural” or “100% Natural” when they actually contain highly processed ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose dextrin syrup and maltodextrin. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., decided June 3, 2013). Additional details about the original complaint appear in Issue 453 of this Update. The court dismissed all counts relating to Nature Valley products that the plaintiffs did not purchase, according to their first amended complaint, ruling that they lacked standing to bring such claims. The court dismissed a breach of written warranty claim brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because labeling a product as “100% Natural” is not a written warranty under the law; rather, it is a “product description.” Implied warranty claims under the Act and state law were also dismissed…
The New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has reportedly launched an ad campaign targeting beverages with added sugars, such as sports drinks, teas and energy drinks. Part of a four-year “Pouring on the Pounds” campaign that has compared sweetened soft drinks to sugar packets and fat globs, the new TV ads apparently feature the physical effects of diabetes, an overweight man drinking a neon-blue beverage and a surgeon manipulating a diseased heart with tweezers. The effort comes on the eve of the city’s appearance before a state appeals court to defend its vacated limits on the size of sugar-sweetened beverages sold in certain retail venues. Oral argument is scheduled for June 11, 2013. Additional information about the lower court’s ruling appears in Issue 475 of this Update. See Bloomberg News, June 3, 2013.
Connecticut lawmakers have passed a bipartisan bill (H.B. 6527) that will require labeling on foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, making it the first state in the nation to enact such legislation. Designated as “An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food,” the bill was unanimously passed in the Senate and by a 134-3 vote in the House. Governor Dan Malloy (D) has reportedly indicated that the final step in its passage, his signature, will “not be an issue.” “This is important stuff. . . and I think the rest of the world is starting to understand that.” The bill’s passage came after House and Senate conferees reached a compromise following debate over a different version of the proposal. At issue was whether to allow the law to take effect automatically or to attach a “trigger” that would require neighboring states to pass similar legislation before Connecticut’s law would be implemented and enforced. The final…
12
