“Free range is not necessarily natural. In fact, free-range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness,” writes James McWilliams in this op-ed article questioning claims that free-range products confer “indisputable” health benefits. According to McWilliams, a recent study published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease found that free-range pigs had higher rates of Salmonella and Toxoplasmosis than conventional livestock and that two specimens carried the parasite responsible for Trichinosis, a potentially fatal infection all but eliminated in the commercial pork supply. McWilliams notes that a desire for the “superior taste” of free-range pork has led many connoisseurs to conflate “the highly controlled grazing of pigs” with “wild animals in a state of nature,” an assumption that obfuscates the “arbitrary point between the wild and the domesticate.” “Even if the texture conferred on pork…
Category Archives Issue
“Because excess consumption of unhealthful foods underlies many leading causes of death, food taxes at the local, state and national levels are likely to remain part of political and public discourse,” claims this editorial co-authored by Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity Director Kelly Brownell and New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Freiden, who write in favor of a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Describing these products as “the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic,” the article compares a soft drink tax to similar taxes on tobacco “that have been highly effective in reducing consumption.” The authors specifically argue that an excise tax would help (i) reduce health care and other societal costs for obesity and diet-related diseases; (ii) correct an “informational asymmetry” between marketers and younger audiences, “who often cannot distinguish a television program from an advertisement”; and (iii) generate revenue, “which can further…
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is sponsoring a National Conference on Childhood Obesity on June 18-19, 2009, in Washington, D.C. The event will address (i) evidence-based links between diet, obesity and chronic disease, (ii) opportunities in clinical practice for preventing and treating obesity and related chronic diseases, (iii) the ways that school food programs and government policies affect children, and (iv) upcoming changes to nutrition guidelines and related government policies.
The consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch (FWWatch) recently launched a campaign to block chicken imports from China, where several U.S. companies are reportedly building plants. Alleging that these corporations are “putting pressure” on lawmakers, FWWatch has asked Congress to uphold its 2008 ban on imported processed poultry in light of “specific problems” with China’s food safety standards and inspection system. In particular, the group pointed to the rejection of other Chinese imports due to “contamination with melamine or banned chemicals like chloramphenicol; pesticide residues and unsafe additives; and conditions inspectors described as ‘poisonous’ and ‘filthy.’” “Even worse,” according to FWWatch, “China has experienced several outbreaks of the very contagious bird flu that has not only infected poultry but also been fatally transmitted to humans.” See Food & Water Watch Action Alert, April 14, 2009.
According to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (BBB), Wrigley should modify or discontinue some of the claims it makes for its Eclipse® brand chewing gum. Following a challenge by Cadbury Adams USA, which makes competing products, the BBB’s advertising division examined Wrigley claims that its gum “kills germs and cures bad breath.” The division determined that such claims “convey the message that Eclipse with MBE [magnolia bark extract] is different from other gums based on its germ killing capabilities which is attributable to the addition of MBE.” Because scientific studies did not provide the support necessary to substantiate the claims due to purported methodological flaws, the division “recommended that the print advertising and packaging claims be discontinued or modified to indicate that there is emerging evidence as to MBE’s germ killing capability without expressly or by implication communicating that there is credible scientific evidence…
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has turned aside a constitutional challenge to the statutory damages provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act in litigation against a food establishment that allegedly printed more than the last five digits of a customer’s credit card number on an electronically generated receipt. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., Nos. 08-13510 & -13616 (11th Cir., decided April 9, 2009). The district court had granted the merchants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice, after finding the statutory damages provision unconstitutionally vague and excessive. According to the appeals court, which addressed only the facial challenge to the law, by providing for a range of damages (from $100 to $1,000), the law does not deprive potential defendants of notice of the consequences of violations or result in arbitrarily assessed damages awards. The court remanded the litigation for further proceedings.
Finding that a trial court erred in admitting evidence and instructing the jury in a lawsuit involving claims that milk permeate sickened or killed calves that were fed the product as a source of dietary energy, protein and minerals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has returned a breach-of-warranties lawsuit to the lower court for a new trial. Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., Nos. 07-35299 & -35318 (9th Cir., decided April 14, 2009). The defendant allegedly advised the owners of a cattle operation about the use of milk permeate as a food source for their calves and then sold the product to them. When their calves fell ill and some died, the plaintiffs learned that they had stored the product at an improper temperature, “which allowed lactose to ferment into a harmful lactic acid that caused the calves to fall prey to rumen acidosis.” The plaintiffs sued for breach…
According to a news source, Health Canada is about to become the first country to formally place bisphenol A (BPA) on its toxic substances list and prohibit its use in baby bottles. An official announcement in the Canada Gazette is reportedly imminent, although nothing on the government agency’s website confirms this report. Health Minister Tony Clement said in 2008 that the government planned to take such action, calling the move “precautionary and prudent.” See Canada.com, April 14, 2009. Meanwhile, a legislative committee in Connecticut has apparently approved a bill (Raised Bill No. 6572) that would prohibit BPA’s use in products for children younger than age 3, such as baby bottles, infant formula cans and spill-proof cups, as well as in reusable food or beverage containers, beginning in October 2009. Jars, cans, bottles, or other food product containers could not contain BPA after October 2012. While the proposal still faces approval…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has certified for immediate appeal its denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss in multidistrict litigation (MDL) alleging price-fixing by chocolate manufacturers. In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1935 (M.D. Pa., April 8, 2009). The defendants in these 87 consolidated lawsuits reportedly supply 75 percent of the chocolate candy consumed by Americans each year. The lawsuits allege that the companies conspired to raise prices in 2002, 2004 and 2007 by as much as 10 percent and rely on information generated by government investigations in the United States and Canada to bolster their conspiracy allegations. At least one company spokesperson has been quoted as saying, “You can’t just infer the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy from the fact that independent competitors in concentrated industries independently choose to raise their prices.” The question certified to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the U.S.…
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) has announced a joint expert meeting titled Application of Nanotechnologies in the Food and Agriculture Sectors: Potential Food Safety Implications, to be held June 1-5, 2009, in Rome, Italy. The gathering will reportedly address the potential food safety risks that may arise from nanoparticles, particularly in the areas of (i) nanotechnology applications in plant and animal food production; and (ii) nanotechnology applications in food processing, packaging and distribution.
