A federal court in the District of Columbia has denied the American Meat Institute’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the amended country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that the original rules violated the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade by according less favorable treatment to foreign livestock. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., decided September 11, 2013). The court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs, meat processing interests, were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment and statutory challenges to the amended rule. Additional information about the challenge appears in Issue 495 of this Update. Assessing the First Amendment claims under a lenient reasonableness standard because the rule involved commercial speech that mandated purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures, the court determined that…
Category Archives Issue 497
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling denying the request for a preliminary injunction to halt the application of a California statute that forbids the sale of products resulting from force feeding a bird to enlarge its liver and prohibits force feeding birds to enlarge their livers beyond normal size. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-56822 (9th Cir., decided August 30, 2013). While the court dismissed the governor and state as defendants on the basis of immunity, it agreed with the district court that the state attorney general was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Additional information about the lawsuit appears in issues 446 and 454 of this Update. Because the court found that the plaintiffs, out-of-state foie gras producers and a California restaurant that sold the product before the law took effect, were not likely…
Lawmakers in Mexico have reportedly proposed a tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages in an effort to curb the nation’s obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemics. According to a news source, the proposed legislation, intended for flavored beverages, concentrates, powders, syrups, and essences or flavor extracts, would apply a tax of one peso (US eight cents) for each liter of sugar-sweetened beverage. Soft drinks sold at movie theaters would evidently be exempt. Consumer advocacy groups support a tax on sugary beverages, but argue that it should be higher to have a greater impact on public health. “It’s good that there would be a tax. We have to acknowledge that. But to have a significant impact on consumption of sugary drinks, assessments show that it should be a 20 percent tax,” said Alejandro Calvillo, head of the consumer watchdog group Consumer Power A.C. Calvillo, who has linked the consumption of sugary drinks…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended until November 12, 2013, the period for submission of comments, scientific data and other information related to its draft guidance titled “Arsenic in Apple Juice: Action Level.” Originally published in the July 15 Federal Register, the guidance proposes an action level of 10 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in apple juice, which FDA considers “protective of human health and achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set the same level for arsenic in drinking water. FDA extended the deadline in response to a request “to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.” More details about the proposed rule appear in Issue 490 of this Update. See Federal Register, September 13, 2013.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported that after testing 1,300 samples of rice and rice products for the presence of arsenic, the agency has determined that although the levels varied significantly depending on the product tested, the amount of detectable arsenic is “too low” to cause any “immediate or short-term adverse health effects.” The new findings represent the latest of the agency’s ongoing efforts to manage possible arsenic-related risks associated with the consumption of rice in the United States. FDA has apparently been monitoring arsenic levels in rice for more than 20 years and has seen no evidence of change in levels of total arsenic in rice. The agency’s next step will be to use new tools that provide greater specificity about different types of arsenic present in foods to analyze the effect of long-term exposure to low levels of arsenic in rice. It plans to conduct…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service has announced an October 22-24, 2013, public meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in Louisville, Kentucky. The meeting will address “several petitions pertaining to changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, including several substances for use in aquaculture, streptomycin for use to control fire blight in pears and apples, and glycerin,” in addition to featuring updates from the NOSB subcommittees on Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification; Crops; Handling; Livestock; Materials; Policy Development; and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). In particular, the GMO Ad-Hoc Subcommittee will discuss how to ensure and enforce the genetic purity of seed used in organic crop production. NOSB will accept written public comments on the meeting agenda and registrations for oral public comments by October 1, 2013. See Federal Register and NOSB Press Release, September 5, 2013.
According to news sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently withdrew two draft rules, including one that would have designated bisphenol A (BPA) and certain phthalates as “chemicals of concern,” submitted for approval in 2010 and 2011 to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) where they remained beyond their prescribed 90-day period of review. The other rule would have clarified that health and safety studies on pre-market chemicals submitted to EPA would not have been deemed confidential business information and would have been made publicly available. The proposed rules were opposed by the chemical industry, which has praised EPA’s decision to abandon the rulemaking. According to an Environmental Defense Fund scientist, OIRA’s failure to act “has effectively denied the public its voice in the rulemaking process.” Richard Denison also said, “By blocking EPA from even proposing the rules and taking public comment—which…
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report finding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) did not adequately evaluate the impact of proposed poultry and hog inspection changes that would replace some USDA inspectors on slaughter lines with plant personnel tasked with ensuring quality and safety standards. According to the report, USDA implemented several pilot projects at poultry and hog processing plants over the past decade but ultimately failed to gather enough data to assess the effectiveness of these new systems. Nevertheless, the agency has since proposed an optional inspection scheme for both poultry and hog operations “based on its experience with the pilot projects at young chicken and young turkey plants.” Asked to review these pilot projects by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), GAO determined that the proposed changes would give production plants more flexibility and responsibility while allowing inspectors to focus…
12
