The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has announced a June 17, 2015, workshop in Brussels, Belgium, to discuss supplementary guidance for the allergenicity assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to the agency, the supplementary guidance aims to reflect technological and scientific advances as well as assessment methodologies developed since EFSA finalized the current guidance in 2011. The Working Group of EFSA’s GMO Panel requests feedback from member states, international partners, academia, non-governmental organizations and industry on the following topics: (i) non-IgEmediated immune adverse reactions to foods; (ii) in vitro digestibility tests for allergenicity assessment; and (iii) endogenous allergenicity. The June workshop will feature the work of 90 experts with a focus on molecular allergology, protein chemistry, plant science, clinical allergy, gastroenterology, food chemistry, and risk assessment. See EFSA News Release, April 14, 2015. Issue 562
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
The European Commission (EC) is convening a meeting to “inform Member States, Members of the European Parliament, third country representatives and stakeholders about the ongoing impact assessment on criteria to identify endocrine disruptors and to provide a platform for further exchanges of views” on June 1, 2015, at the Centre Albert Burschette in Brussels, Belgium. Sessions at the day-long event will include discussions of (i) the impact assessment vis à vis the plant protection products regulation and biocide products regulation; (ii) establishing criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors and assessing that criteria in a regulatory context; and (iii) potential impacts on health, the environment, trade, agriculture, consumers, and the food and pesticide industries. The registration deadline is May 19. See EFSA News Release, April 23, 2015. Issue 562
The U.K. Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) has dismissed a complaint alleging that a message on Diageo Great Britain Ltd.’s Guinness® Twitter feed “implied that someone’s week would be improved by drinking alcohol.” Filed by Alcohol Concern, the complaint dubbed a tweet appearing on @GuinnessGB “irresponsible” for featuring a photograph of the iconic brewery’s gates with the caption, “a good week starts here.” Dismissing the challenge, ASA ultimately agreed with Diageo Great Britain that consumers would recognize the gates as belonging to St. James Brewery in Dublin and would not confuse the brewery with a bar or other social venue where alcohol was consumed. According to Diageo Great Britain, the followers of @GuinnessGB would also understand the tweet as part of a larger ad campaign highlighting individual workers at the brewery. “We also noted that the photo was tweeted on Monday,” states ASA. “In this context, we considered that the ad…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has announced a June 16-17, 2015, workshop to gather stakeholders for discussions about emerging evidence of climate change, its drivers and impacts on water resources, agriculture, fish, wildlife, and the health and well-being of California residents. Information gathered at the event is expected to inform the 2017 edition of Cal/EPA’s Indicators of Climate Change in California report. See OEHHA Press Release, April 20, 2015. Issue 562
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has announced a June 17, 2015, public meeting in Washington, D.C. to provide information and receive comments about draft U.S. positions to be discussed during the 38th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, July 6-11. Agenda items at the June 17 meeting include (i) proposed amendments to the procedural manual; (ii) amendments to Codex standards and related texts; (iii) implementation status of the Commission’s five-year strategic plan; and (v) relations between the Commission and other international organizations. See Federal Register, April 22, 2015. Issue 562
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and other organizations have filed a regulatory comment challenging the approval process for substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in food products, arguing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has weakened the GRAS standards to the point that they violate the Food Additives Amendment of 1958. According to the comment, “[T]he American public would likely find it both disturbing and surprising that thousands of chemicals added to food today are not approved or even reviewed by FDA. Instead, of the roughly 10,000 additives currently used in food, more than 3,000 have never been substantively reviewed by FDA. For an estimated 1,000 of these substances, safety decisions were made by the food industry without any notice at all to FDA.” The comment further alleges that the agency has weakened food-safety laws with its 1997 proposal to change the GRAS…
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has reportedly adopted a final rule implementing the state’s new law requiring the labeling of foods produced partially or entirely with genetic engineering (GE). “We are pleased at the amount of public input we received during the rulemaking process – from industry and consumers – and are glad that, with the formal adoption of this rule, we are giving ample time for food manufacturers and retailers to prepare for the law to take effect in just over fourteen months,” Sorrell was quoted as saying. Among other things, Consumer Protection Rule 121 provides specific details about how the GE label must appear on processed food, exemptions from the labeling requirement, and enforcement and penalties. The rule takes effect on July 1, 2016. See Office of the Attorney General Press Release, April 20, 2015. Issue 562
Food & Water Watch (FWW) has released an April 2015 report alleging that the scientific research used by federal agencies to evaluate animal drug safety “is very heavily influenced by corporate drug companies.” In particular, the report alleges that there were “virtually no independent, peer-reviewed” safety studies on one drug used as a growth promoter that was eventually withdrawn from the marketplace. “Most of the available research examined commercial dimensions of Zilmax, such as the drug’s impact on beef qualify, and more than three-quarters of the studies were authored and/or funded by industry groups, almost all of which were published in scientific journals sponsored and edited by industry groups,” opines FWW in an April 8 press release. “Many academic journals have failed to establish or enforce rules requiring scientists to publicly disclose financial conflicts of interest, which has allowed deeply conflicted research to distort the scientific discourse.” Citing these issues,…
Attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have filed a lawsuit against Wholesome Soy Products to permanently enjoin the company, its owner and manager from causing food to become adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) after government agencies allegedly linked the company’s facilities to a 2014 outbreak of Listeria in Michigan and Illinois. United States v. Wholesome Soy Prods., Inc., No. 15-2974 (N.D. Ill., filed April 3, 2015). Wholesome Soy manufactured and sold mung bean and soybean sprouts until November 2014, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state agencies allegedly traced incidents of Listeria infections observed in five people to the Wholesome Soy facility. An FDA laboratory allegedly found Listeria in 28 samples—including two from mung bean sprouts—taken during a September 2014 inspection of Wholesome Soy’s plant and…
Several policy groups, including Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety, have filed a lawsuit challenging a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) procedural change in how ingredients are removed from the National List, a list of synthetics exempted from the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2015). The National List catalogs synthetic and prohibited natural substances that may be used in organic farming despite not being inherently organic because the substances (i) have been determined by USDA not to harm human health or the environment, (ii) cannot be replaced with an organic alternative and (iii) are consistent with organic farming and handling. The groups challenge a 2013 revision to the process for removing an exempted substance from the National List. OFPA created a sunset provision that removed substances from the list—thereby prohibiting their use in…
