The Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. has filed a series of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) 60-day notices since December 2013 against supermarkets and rice companies in California, Texas and Taiwan, alleging violations of the law for failure to warn consumers that their rice products contain arsenic (inorganic arsenic compounds), known to the state to “cause both cancer and reproductive toxicity.” The most recent notice was filed February 17, 2014. Under Prop. 65, private citizen enforcers must notify the alleged violator and local prosecuting authorities of their intent to sue so that the alleged violator has the opportunity to correct any alleged violation and local district attorneys have the opportunity to bring government action. The first in this series of notices, brought against Far West Rice, Inc., also alleged that the company’s rice contained lead. Issue 514
Category Archives Issue 514
California State Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) has introduced legislation (SB 1000) that would require all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) containing more than 75 calories per 12-ounce serving to carry safety warnings. Co-sponsored by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Safety Warning Act would direct manufacturers, distributors and retailers to place the following notice on sealed containers, multipacks and vending machines, as well as any premises where SSBs are sold in unsealed containers: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.” The bill would also mandate the two-year retention of business records pertaining to the distribution, purchase or sale of SSBs as part of a statewide effort “to determine the quantity and type of sugar-sweetened beverages distributed, purchased or sold.” “When the science is this conclusive, the State of California has a responsibility to take steps to protect consumers,”…
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled that an advertisement for a range of lactose-free products made “sufficiently clear that the Lactofree products were not suitable for dairy allergy sufferers but were suitable for those intolerant to lactose.” Responding to a complaint alleging that the ad failed to adequately differentiate between lactose intolerance and dairy allergy, Arla Foods Ltd. reportedly noted that its TV commercial included an on-screen footnote stipulating that the products displayed were “Not suitable for milk allergy sufferers,” and that consumers in doubt should consult their physician. Warning that the ad’s voice-over—“Listen up hedgehogs, you’re not intolerant to dairy, you’re just intolerant to lactose, the sugars in dairy”—could be misunderstood as a stand-alone statement, ASA nevertheless agreed with Arla’s position, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the on-screen text not only provided a clear reference to milk allergy, but also instructed consumers to “Search Lactofree”…
The U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA) has requested public comments on a novel foods application submitted by a Swiss company seeking permission to use algal oil in its food products. The company suggests in its application that the oil, extracted from a newly isolated strain of microalgae, is a rich source of omega-3 fatty acid and proposes to use it as a source of the fatty acid in infant formula. The omega-3 fatty acid currently used in infant formula is derived from tuna fish oil or the microalgae, Crypthecodinium cohnii. FSA has also requested public comments on a second application, submitted by Unilever, seeking permission to extend the use of phytosterol esters. Used in the food industry for their cholesterol-lowering properties, phytosterol esters are naturally present at low levels in vegetable oils. This is the third application made by the Unilever for this ingredient. An application for margarines with added…
The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) has issued an opinion reiterating a previous conclusion that products with less than 75 mg of caffeine may not bear an increased alertness claim, because most studies found “no effect of caffeine doses of less than 75 mg on various cognitive tasks (simple reaction time, choice reaction time and reaction time on other vigilance tasks).” EFSA has also issued an opinion regarding a request to broaden the approved cholesterol-lowering claim for plant sterol esters. In response to a request to extend conditions of plant sterol esters to an additional food matrix (powder supplements to be diluted in water), the panel reiterated its previous conclusion that, “while plant sterols added to foods such as margarine-type spreads, mayonnaise, salad dressings, and dairy products such as milk, yoghurts, including low-fat yoghurts, and cheese have been shown consistently to lower blood LDL-c…
The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) has issued an opinion on formaldehyde, currently used as a feed additive and a preservative for skimmed milk intended for pigs. Concluding that “although there is no health risk for consumers exposed to the substance through the food chain,” FEEDAP cautions that inhalation of formaldehyde may cause cancer and appropriate measures should be taken to “ensure that the respiratory tract, skin and eyes of any person handling the product are not exposed to any dust, mist or vapour generated by the use of formaldehyde.” The panel also notes that formaldehyde will not accumulate in the environment and its use in animal nutrition is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Issue 514
A number of U.S. House of Representatives members have written to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to express concern over proposed regulations that would implement the Affordable Care Act’s requirements pertaining to the nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants. In their February 14, 2014, letter, they claim that FDA’s April 2011 proposal “goes well beyond [the law’s] intent and unnecessarily captures small business owners who are already complying with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Specifically, the proposed rule limits the ability of businesses to determine for themselves how best to provide nutritional information to its (sic) customers, particularly those establishments that offer made to order items or primarily service customers outside the restaurant, such as delivery operations.” They urge Hamburg to incorporate instead the alternatives outlined in H.R. 1249, which has not been referred out of committee since its introduction in March 2013.…
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against Suja Life, LLC, alleging that the company, which advertises and labels its juice products as “raw” and “cold-pressed,” misleads consumers because it uses a high pressure processing (HPP) treatment that alters the nutrients and live enzymes that raw-product purchasers wish to consume. Heikkila v. Suja Life, LLC, No. 14-0556 (N.D. Cal., filed February 5, 2014). Claiming that HPP’s effects on juice products are “identical to those of traditional pasteurization—inactivated enzymes, inactivated probiotics, altered physical properties of the product, and denatured proteins, among other undesirable qualities,” the plaintiff alleges that the products “are nothing more than run-of-the-mill, processed juices.” According to the complaint, the plaintiff reviewed the company’s Website, packaging and labeling before making her purchase and paid a premium price for the products. She contends that raw juices have a short shelf life and are thus more expensive than…
12
