New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (I) Task Force on Obesity recently garnered national attention by proposing to limit the size of sugar-sweetened beverages sold at local food service establishments. In a May 31, 2012, report outlining several public health initiatives, the Task Force claims that “[s]ugary drink portion sizes have exploded over recent years” and urges a maximum size for these beverages as a way “to help reacquaint New Yorkers with ‘human size’ portions.” To this end, Bloomberg has introduced a measure that—if adopted by the city’s Board of Health at a June 12 hearing—would prohibit restaurants, food carts, delis, movie theaters, stadiums, and arenas from offering sugar-sweetened beverages in sizes that exceed 16 ounces. “Limiting the size of sugary drinks to no more than 16 ounces at food service establishments will help us confront the obesity and diabetes epidemics, which now affect millions of New Yorkers,” said Health…
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
After the Idaho State Liquor Division director was informed that a Utah-based distillery was considering suing the agency and state for refusing to allow the sale of Five Wives Vodka® in Idaho, the agency apparently decided that the product will now be allowed on state liquor store shelves and in bars. Discussing Idaho’s initial rejection of the distillery’s application, Director Jeff Anderson reportedly acknowledged that “people of the LDS faith” would not likely be shopping in liquor stores; still, he was quoted as saying, “that does not mean that we are not sensitive to them.” Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School public-interest law professor, had informed Anderson of the distillery’s intent to sue the agency and the state if the director (i) refused to reverse his rejection of bar requests for Five Wives Vodka® special orders, and (ii) based a refusal to include the product on the state’s…
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued interpretive guidance on chlorothalonil in tomato products, concluding that the average consumer does not eat enough fresh tomatoes or tomato products to exceed the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for the pesticide. According to OEHHA, a NSRL for chlorothalonil of 41 micrograms (µg) per day will take effect on June 15, 2012, at which point businesses causing exposures in excess of the NSRL must comply with Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) warning requirements. OEHHA evidently based its upper-bound limit estimates on USDA pesticide residue surveys taken in 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2008, as well as National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey data on tomato consumption. “Consumption of chlorothalonil residues by the average consumer of tomatoes does not result in exposures that exceed the Proposition 65 NSRL of 41 µg/day for the chemical, where the residue levels in tomatoes are at…
The Canadian government has issued a discussion document outlining a plan for a “stronger, more comprehensive inspection approach to further strengthen food safety.” Titled “Improved Food Inspection Model: The Case for Change,” the plan represents the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA’s) latest effort to keep up with a changing global “food landscape.” Last year, CFIA was allocated $100 million over a five-year period to modernize Canada’s food safety inspections. According to CFIA, the agency operates eight separate food inspection programs for dairy, eggs, fish and seafood, fresh fruits and vegetables, imported and manufactured food, maple, meat, and processed products that include honey. “Having eight food programs has resulted in the development and use of different risk management frameworks, inspection methods, and compliance verification and enforcement approaches,” the document states. “This challenges the CFIA to manage risks consistently across different types of establishments and different foods.” CFIA’s plan includes providing more…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued a scientific opinion on dietary exposure to mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOH) found mainly in “food packaging materials, food additives, processing aids, and environmental contaminants such as lubricants.” According to a June 6, 2012, press release, EFSA’s Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) focused on two types of MOH: (i) aromatic hydrocarbons identified as potentially genotoxic and carcinogenic; and (ii) saturated hydrocarbons that “can accumulate in human tissue and may cause adverse effects in the liver.” The CONTAM Panel apparently found low levels of saturated MOH in all of the food groups tested, “with some high levels found in ‘Bread and rolls’ and ‘Grains for human consumption’ due to their use, respectively, as release/ non-sticking agents and spraying agents (used to make grains shiny).” It also reported the presence of both saturated and aromatic MOH in dry foods such as “‘pudding’…
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Science Advisory Board (SAB) has announced a July 18-19, 2012, public meeting of the SAB Perchlorate Advisory Panel and September 25 public teleconference to address a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for the rocket fuel constituent perchlorate. Perchlorate contamination has been detected in samples of milk, drinking water and lettuce, and exposure at high levels has been linked to thyroid dysfunction and neurological problems in children. See Federal Register, May 30, 2012.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected a Corn Refiners Association (CRA) petition urging the authorization of “corn sugar” as an alternate name for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). According to FDA’s May 30, 2012, response, CRA had asked the agency (i) “to amend the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) affirmation regulation for HFCS (21 CFR 168.11) to designate ‘corn sugar’ as an optional name for HFCS”; (ii) “to eliminate ‘corn sugar’ as an alternate name for dextrose”; and (iii) “to replace all references to ‘corn sugar’ with ‘dextrose’” in the GRAS regulations for corn sugar (21 CFR 184.1857). The trade association had apparently argued, among other things, that consumers confused by the name “high-fructose corn syrup” “incorrectly believe that HFCS is significantly higher in calories, fructose and sweetness than sugar.” In rejecting the petition, FDA countered that its regulations define sugar as “a solid, dried, and crystallized food; whereas…
A coalition of advocacy organizations has reportedly agreed to dismiss as moot its lawsuit seeking an order requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to respond to its 2006 petition asking the agency to regulate products containing nanomaterials. Information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 422 of this Update. The organizations, including Food and Water Watch and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, apparently indicated that while the agency has rejected some of their key proposals, FDA has formally responded to the petition. FDA has said that it will not regulate nanomaterials as new substances, but will evaluate them based on their effects on foods, drugs and cosmetics. See Capital Press, May 18, 2012.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) has upheld some of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) allegations that POM Wonderful violated federal law by making deceptive claims in some advertisements that the company’s pomegranate juice and related products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. In re: POM Wonderful LLC, No. 9344 (FTC, decided May 17, 2012). The ALJ’s initial decision is deemed the decision of the FTC 30 days after it is served on the parties, unless appealed or placed on FTC’s docket on its own motion. According to the ALJ, some, but not all, of POM’s ads could be interpreted as containing an “implied claim” that the company’s products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of some diseases and that “these effects were clinically proven.” The ALJ also determined that (i) “the appropriate level of substantiation for claims that a product treats, prevents,…
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined a Kensington, South Australia, olive oil manufacturer a total of A$13,200 for marketing its products as “extra virgin” even though they purportedly did not meet international grade standards. According to a May 18, 2012, ACCC press release, The Big Olive Company Pty Ltd over a four-month period “supplied nearly three thousand 500ml bottles of ‘Oz Olio’ oil with a representation of extra virgin olive oil on the front label.” The commission has since alleged that some of these oils contained “more free fatty acids than permitted by olive oil trade standards,” indicating that the “olives used to make the oil were old, damaged or otherwise of poor quality and the oil was not extra virgin olive oil at the time of bottling.” ACCC apparently decided to test four imported oils and three domestic labels after receiving complaints from the Australian Olive…
