The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will host a January 13-14, 2015, public meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) at the Patriot Plaza III building in Washington, D.C. Topics of discussion at the meeting will include (i) FSIS’s identification and management of chemical hazards within the National Residue Program (i.e., contaminants in meat, poultry and egg products); and (ii) the Economic Research Service’s Cost Calculation Model, which provides federal agencies with peer-reviewed estimates of the costs of foodborne illness that can be used to evaluate the effects of federal regulation and inform policy considerations. See Federal Register, December 24, 2014. Issue 550
Category Archives Issue 550
Responding to objections submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed its decision to allow the use of advantame as a non-nutritive sweetener and flavor enhancer in foods intended for human consumption. FDA apparently received 12 responses to its May 21, 2014, final rule on advantame, but only NRDC’s submission met the requirements for agency consideration. In particular, NRDC cited five animal studies allegedly showing that aspartame affects the hypothalamus, arguing that aspartame and advantame are “structurally related.” But FDA disagreed with this reasoning, noting that although advantame is structurally related to aspartame, the two substances are “chemically different and metabolized differently in the human body.” As a result, the agency did not consider the health effects of aspartame when reviewing the toxicological data for advantame. As the agency concluded, “NRDC’s objection to the advantame final rule does not provide any…
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Partner Jim Muehlberger and Associate Jara Settles discuss the modern consumer protection landscape in a January 2, 2015, expert analysis published in Law360. Noting that food lawsuits “tend to garner significant notoriety,” the authors focus on recent litigation against Whole Foods Market Inc. alleging that the health-food purveyor “benefited from misleading labeling claims on almond milk,” which a third-party certified as free of ingredients made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Richard v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal. Inc., No. BC563304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed Nov. 7, 2014). “In a long line of consumer protection putative class actions aimed at food companies, Richard is somewhat unique in targeting a retailer,” explain Muehlberger and Settles. “In most situations, plaintiffs have targeted the manufacturers of food and beverage products they deem to be improperly labeled… As a retailer, Whole Foods likely had no hand in…
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Co-Chair Madeleine McDonough was quoted in two January 2, 2015, Law360 articles about various legal, legislative and regulatory issues expected to affect food and beverage manufacturers in the new year. Given the September 2014 convictions of former Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell and two other company executives on criminal charges stemming from a 2008-2009 Salmonella outbreak that sickened hundreds of people nationwide and was linked to nine deaths, McDonough speculated that similar misdemeanor prosecutions under the Park Doctrine could be on the rise. “People are really watching all of the fallout from the Parnell situation and trying to keep that in mind in making sure they have appropriate procedures internally,” McDonough told Law360. Under the Park Doctrine, food and drug company executives can be criminally prosecuted for product safety violations without any proof that the executives had any specific knowledge or…
12
