The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has asked the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) to further evaluate “nitrite in combination with amines or amides” for possible inclusion on the state’s list of substances known to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, “nitrite is a natural constituent of fresh produce, including spinach and celery, and of fresh uncured meats,” while “amines are organic compounds that contain a basic nitrogen atom with a lone electron pair” and “amides are organic compounds that can be formed from amines, and contain a nitrogen atom and an oxygen atom.” After announcing a February 7, 2014, proposal to list the chemical combination under Prop. 65, the agency received comments and scientific evidence supporting the measure but ultimately concluded that regulatory criteria “have not been met for the spectrum of…
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is convening a public meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan on July 23, 2015, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The group of industry and state agency representatives will reportedly discuss (i) approved tests and (ii) updates regarding avian influenza, Salmonella and Mycoplasma. See Federal Register, May 1, 2015. Issue 564
Proposed legislation (S.B. 203) that would have required all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) containing more than 75 calories per 12-ounce serving to carry safety warnings has failed to garner the requisite five votes needed to clear the California Senate Health Committee and move forward in the legislative process. Introduced by Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Safety Warning Act directed 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.” A similar proposal (S.B. 1000) failed to receive adequate support from state lawmakers in 2014. The legislation was co-sponsored by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which issued a statement on its website declaring that “It is unfortunate that of all places, the health committee…
The Food and Drug Administration has announced a June 1, 2015, public meeting of the Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) Advisory Committee in Silver Spring, Maryland. Presentations at the meeting will reportedly target the (i) current bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) “situation” domestically and worldwide; (ii) U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulatory approaches to decreasing the risk of foodborne exposure to BSE; and (iii) variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease “situation” domestically and worldwide, and status of the U.K.’s Transfusion Medicine Epidemiological Review. Written comments must be submitted by May 25. See Federal Register, April 29, 2015. Issue 563
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has approved a final consent order barring an automobile shipment broker from touting its “highly ranked ratings” without disclosing that consumers were offered a $50 discount to write favorable reviews. According to the agency, the complaint against AmeriFreight is the first time FTC “has charged a company with misrepresenting online reviews by failing to disclose that it gave cash discounts to customers to post the reviews.” See FTC Press Release, February 27, 2015. FTC apparently flagged AmeriFreight’s website and advertising materials for claiming that the company had “more highly ranked ratings and reviews than any other company in the automotive transportation business.” Consumers were apparently offered $50 discounts in exchange for good reviews, with the opportunity to win $100 if their review was selected for a monthly prize. In addition, the agency claimed that the respondents (i) “contacted consumers after their cars had been shipped to…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service has proposed revisions to the origin of livestock requirements that govern the transition of dairy animals to organic production. Clarifying that a producer can transition dairy animals into organic production only once, the amendments would ensure that “after completion of this one-time transition, any new dairy animals that a producer adds to a dairy farm would need to be managed organically from the last third of gestation or sourced from dairy animals that already completed their transition into organic production.” The proposed rule also includes provisions for the management of breeder stock on organic livestock farms. “This proposed rule would create greater consistency in the implementation of a standard for the transition of dairy animals into organic production and for the management of breeder stock,” explains AMS in an April 28, 2014, Federal Register notice. “This proposed rule would update the regulation…
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) arguing that the agency does not adhere to the goals of its Scientific Integrity Policy because the policy “fails to clearly prohibit political suppression and interference.” The policy was released in 2013 after President Barack Obama directed executive department heads to promote scientific integrity within each department, and PEER argues that USDA’s policy does not protect its scientists to the extent that other agencies’ policies protect theirs. USDA’s policy fails its scientists, PEER argues, because it does not (i) include political suppression and interference in its definition of misconduct; (ii) establish procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints; (iii) protect whistleblowers; or (iv) include “any process or mechanism for preventing politically motivated suppression or for challenging it once it occurs.” PEER also argues that USDA has failed to adhere to its policy because it…
The Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health and Beyond Pesticides have filed a lawsuit against the leaders of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service and National Organic Program (NOP) arguing that USDA failed to allow public comments on a contaminated compost rule before issuing a guidance document on the subject. Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Vilsack, No. 15-1690 (N.D. Cal., filed April 14, 2015). The 2011 guidance at issue allows organic producers to use compost materials treated with pesticides. According to the complaint, “NOP regulations expressly prohibit fertilizers and compost from containing any synthetic substances not included on the National List” of approved exceptions, but the Contaminated Compost decision “contravened that legal requirement, purporting to establish that organic producers may in fact use these contaminated plant and animal materials in compost under certain circumstances.” The decision was never subject to public comment, the plaintiffs argue,…
Days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a March 2015 letter warning Kind LLC against using the word “healthy” to describe several of its products, a consumer filed a class action against the company alleging negligent misrepresentation and violations of California consumer protection statutes. Kaufer v. Kind LLC, No. 15-2878 (C.D. Cal., filed April 17, 2015). The FDA Warning Letter listed the packaging of several products that an agency investigation apparently determined violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the products’ nutrient contents do not meet federal requirements to be described as “healthy.” The letter also warned Kind against the use of “+” or “plus” as well as “No Trans Fats.” The putative class action complaint cites the FDA letter, arguing that the “healthy,” “+” or “plus” and “no trans fats” claims mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing a healthful product. The plaintiff…
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case brought by raisin farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging that a federal program requiring a portion of the yield to be set aside amounted to a taking of their property, thus requiring just compensation. Horne v. USDA, No. 14-275 (U.S., oral arguments heard April 22, 2015). According to news reports, the justices appeared to favor the raisin farmers’ arguments. “You come up with the truck, and you get the shovels, and you take their raisins—probably in the dark of the night,” Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly said. At another point in the proceedings, he called the program’s requirement “a classic, physical taking.” Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly called the program “ridiculous” and compared its structure to communism (“Central planning was thought to work very well in 1937. Russia tried it for a long time.”), and Justice Samuel Alito asked…
