The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently hosted a forum titled “Sizing up Food Marketing and Obesity,” which heard proposals from federal agencies, consumer watchdogs and industry representatives for regulating food advertising to children. In addition to addressing new research, First Amendment issues and self-regulatory initiatives, the forum unveiled a set of proposed nutritional standards (SNAC PAC) developed by an interagency working group at the request of Congress. Co-authored by FTC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of Agriculture, SNAC PAC sets out three standards designed to limit the marketing of foods to children ages 2 through 17. Standard I describes foods that “are part of a healthful diet and may be marketed to children without meeting Standards II and III,” including (i) “100 percent fruit and fruit juices in all forms”; (ii) “100 percent vegetables and vegetable juices in all…
Category Archives U.S. Government and Regulatory Agencies
An administrative law judge recently issued an order suspending a Nebraska-based livestock operation’s organic certification for four years, agreeing with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2008 complaint that the company failed to keep and produce adequate records. In Re Promiseland Livestock, LLC, No, 08-0134 (USDA, Nov. 25, 2009). A supplier for Aurora Dairy and other organic farms, Promiseland Livestock, LLC, apparently operates five ranches in Missouri and Nebraska with more than 22,000 head of beef and dairy cattle. The judge concluded that Promiseland “willfully . . . failed to make requested records available” to USDA and denied agency representatives “access to review and copy organic operation records required to determine compliance” with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and National Organic Program regulations. Promiseland first came under scrutiny when The Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog, targeted Aurora Dairy for allegedly “illegal” operations, according to a recent press release issued by…
A federal court in Connecticut has ordered the payment of $1.9 million in equitable restitution to consumers who purchased Chinese Diet Tea and Bio-Slim Patch in 2003-2004. FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC, No. 04-1866 (D. Conn., decided December 4, 2009). The court determined in 2008 that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) claims of false advertising against the defendants had merit and issued this ruling to explain the basis for its damages award and why it was not allowing any offsets to the defendants from the gross amounts they received for all of the products sold. Essentially, the court found that the defendants’ poor recordkeeping and legal precedent did not allow offsets for credit card refunds, bounced checks, operating expenses, or revenue generated by reorders, which defendants claimed represented satisfied customers. According to the court, reorders could also have represented customers who “had not yet achieved the results promised in the…
In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a biscuit maker’s claim that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) negligent testing of its product for Listeria monocytogenes resulted in a false positive report that caused it to lose its contract with a company that supplied 7-Eleven convenience stores with biscuit sandwiches. Lone Star Bakery, Inc. v. U.S., No. 09-50374 (5th Cir., decided November 17, 2009). The litigation arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act following a 2002 Listeria contamination incident for which the biscuit maker was initially blamed, but later cleared of any responsibility. The company sought $2.9 million in damages from the FDA. According to the court, which affirmed a grant of the FDA’s summary judgment motion, while the company submitted evidence showing “several instances where the FDA inspectors failed to follow agency collection and testing protocol,” its evidence was “devoid of…
In collaboration with Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have announced an October 2010 expert meeting in Ottawa, Ontario, to discuss the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), calling for data from the scientific community on any “adverse human health effects at low doses of BPA, especially on reproduction, the nervous system and on behavioral development.” Meeting participants will apparently consider the current literature on BPA toxicology and exposure, weigh available risk assessments and address any knowledge gaps in an effort to develop international guidance. The agencies are specifically requesting both published and unpublished technical information on (i) “current levels of BPA in relevant food groups”; (ii) the analytical methodologies used to detect BPA “in food and other matrices”; (iii) “BPA migration from food contact materials into food”; (iv) “dietary exposure assessments of BPA from foods and other sources”;…
The National Consumers League has sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the agency to issue industry guidance in a renewed effort “to prevent consumers from being misled by the deceptive labeling of tomato products remanufactured from concentrate.” According to the league, it initiated efforts in 1990 that led the government to define the term “fresh” and require manufacturers to differentiate products prepared directly from fresh ingredients and those made from concentrate. The organization contends that “the marketplace once again is littered with false and misleading labels for tomato products claiming to be packed or made directly from fresh tomatoes.” The letter claims that food companies are misleading consumers by using phrases such as “packed full of premium vine-ripened tomatoes,” “packed from 100 percent California tomatoes” and “picks the freshest tomatoes,” to describe products “made from industrial tomato concentrate.” Citing FDA regulations requiring “from concentrate” or…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a notice seeking public comment on a proposed experimental study that would examine consumer reaction to possible modifications in the nutrition facts labeling format. The study results will reportedly help the agency understand whether label modifications “could help consumers to make informed food choices.” FDA intends to randomly select 3,600 people to review nutrition facts labels from a selection of different formats, foods and nutrition information, and then judge their reactions as to the foods’ “nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness” and whether the labels help “calculate calories and estimate serving sizes to meet objectives.” FDA invites comments on (i) whether the information collected “will have practical utility”; (ii) the “validity of the methodology and assumptions used”; (iii) “ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected”; and (iv) “ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.”…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a proposed rule that would amend the agency’s animal-food regulations by requiring manufacturers to list the common or usual names of FDA-certified color additives on animal food labels, including animal feeds and pet foods. The amendment would make the regulations consistent with those that apply to human food and suggests how color additives not certified by FDA should be declared on the ingredient list of animal foods. According to FDA, the proposal responds to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which modified the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by requiring food labels to list the common or usual names of all FDA-certified color additives. The 1990 amendments apply both to human and animal foods, but apparently regulations pertaining to animal foods have yet to be issued. Written comments will be accepted until February 22, 2010. See Federal Register, November…
Plaintiffs’ lawyer William Marler has apparently filed a second lawsuit against New York-based Fairbank Farms for injury allegedly caused by consumption of E. coli-tainted ground beef. According to Marler, the suit has been filed in a Maine state court on behalf of a woman who was hospitalized for six days after consuming meat produced by Fairbank Farms. Her cultures allegedly tested positive for the same E. coli strain found in the company’s recalled meat. See Food Poison Journal, November 17, 2009. Meanwhile, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) has called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General to investigate the method that meat processors and the agency use to verify that ground beef is free of the bacterium. In her November 12 letter, DeLauro discusses the Fairbank Farms outbreak and notes that the company’s facility sampled its products every 10 to 20 minutes. She states, “However, despite these precautions, it…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) has proposed amending regulations that govern the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. According to AMS, these revisions are necessary to “reflect current industry practices” and include “simplifying sampling plans, updating the acceptable quality levels to incorporate new defects, and updating current defects to include new packaging technologies and interior can defects.” These amendments “could potentially affect more than 26,000 food manufacturing establishments that may request to have their product containers inspected under the provisions of the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers.” The agency will accept comments on the proposal until January 19, 2010. See Federal Register and AMS Press Release, November 19, 2009.
