The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued a proposed rule to “expand the circumstances under which FSIS will generically approve the labels of meat and poultry products.” Under the proposal, which would also combine regulations into a new CFR part, FSIS would reportedly allow establishments “to label a broader range of products without first submitting the label to FSIS for approval.” As the agency explained in a December 5, 2011, press release, “all mandatory label features would still need to comply with FSIS regulations.” In particular, FSIS noted that the current generic label regulations are too restrictive in practice, compelling the agency to pre-approve “a significant amount of labeling” instead of dedicating resources to other consumer protection and food safety activities. “For example, the label for a nonstandardized product, such as pepperoni pizza (bearing no special statements or claims) that was sketch approved…
Category Archives U.S. Government and Regulatory Agencies
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supporting a legal petition that demands required labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) food. Information about the October 4, 2011, petition filed by the Center for Food Safety appear in Issue 412 of this Update. Representing nearly 300 nonprofit consumer organizations concerned with food safety, agricultural biotechnology, food and agricultural policy, and nutrition, CFA claims that current FDA regulations fail to provide consumers with information about GE food despite growing public interest in food content. “Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world,” the November 23 letter states. “U.S. consumers should be provided the same basic information about GE foods as consumers in these other countries.”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating current allowable levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice in response to consumer groups’ demand for tighter restrictions. In a November 21, 2011, letter to Food & Water Watch and the Empire State Consumer Project, FDA said, “we are seriously considering setting guidance or other level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice and are collecting all relevant information to evaluate and determine an appropriate level.” Earlier this year, Mehmet Oz, M.D., highlighted concerns about arsenic in apple juice during his nationally syndicated TV show, details of which were highlighted in Issue 410 of this Update. According to FDA guidelines, apple juice cannot contain more than 23 parts per billion (ppb) of inorganic arsenic, which is found in pesticides and can be harmful if consumed at high levels over a long period of time. FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor told a news source…
Congress has approved and President Barack Obama (D) has signed a bipartisan agricultural spending bill (H.R. 2112) that will block or delay regulations aimed at making school lunches healthier. Signed into law on November 18, 2011, the bill will, among other things, prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from limiting starchy vegetables, such as potatoes, to two servings a week and will continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to count as a vegetable. It will also require further study of USDA’s long-term sodium reduction requirements that would reduce by half the amount of sodium in school meals over the next 10 years. Although some lawmakers claim that the bill will prevent costly regulations and provide school districts greater flexibility in improving the quality of school meals, critics assert that it will keep schools from serving an array of vegetables while allowing foods such as french fries to remain…
The attorneys general of a number of states have submitted a comment to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) taking issue with several aspects of a proposed settlement agreement with the company that makes the caffeinated alcoholic beverage Four Loko®. Additional information about the proposed settlement appears in Issue 412 of this Update. Attached to the November 16, 2011, letter are numerous Facebook comments by individuals who apparently “like” various Four Loko® photos, press announcements and news items. The AGs express their concern that FTC will allow Phusion “to market as much as 2.5 servings of alcohol (1.5 oz of ethanol) as if it were one serving and avoid the Order’s requirements for label disclosure and resealability, and its prohibition against depicting consumption directly from the can. By condoning the marketing of ‘single serving’ FMBs [flavored malt beverages] with 2.5 servings of alcohol, the Order would undermine federal guidelines for moderate…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced a January 18, 2012, public meeting in Washington, D.C., to consider draft U.S. positions to be presented during the 6th session of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding of the Codex Alimentarius Commission on February 20-24 in Berne, Switzerland. The January agenda includes discussion of draft risk assessment guidelines for feed and a proposed list of feed hazards. See Federal Register, November 17, 2011.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule requiring animal and pet food labels to list “the common or usual names” of any certified color additives used in the products. Issued in response to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the final rule brings animal food labeling in line with current human food regulations by adding “paragraph (k) to the animal food labeling regulations at § 501.22 (21 CFR 501.22).” The first part of paragraph (k) explains that any FDA-certified color additive used in animal foods “must be declared in the ingredient list” under the name listed in 21 CFR part 74 or 21 CFR part 82, although manufacturers are permitted to “parenthetically declare an appropriate alternative name of the certified color additive following its common or usual name.” In addition, the new rules require that the term “Lake” be included “in the declaration of…
A federal court in California has entered an order granting the motion of conventional alfalfa farmers and environmental groups for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in litigation that successfully challenged a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision to de-regulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa without conducting an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, No. 06-01075 (N.D. Cal., decided November 8, 2011). While the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately reversed lower court rulings in the case as to the scope of relief granted, the core determination that APHIS had violated NEPA survived the appeal. Due to the “limited” nature of the plaintiffs’ success, the court imposed a 10-percent reduction on their request and ordered a total award of $1.6 million. The defendant had argued that the plaintiffs were entitled to $829,422 only.
After a coalition of advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking an order compelling the agency to rule on 1999 and 2005 petitions that asked the agency to withdraw approval of certain antimicrobial drugs in food animal production, the agency finally acted. Information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 396 of this Update. According to November 7, 2011, letters addressed to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Environmental Defense, “the Agency has decided not to institute formal withdrawal proceedings at this time and instead is currently pursuing other alternatives to address the issue of antimicrobial resistance related to the production use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture.” FDA contends that withdrawal proceedings can be protracted and consume significant agency resources. While the agency notes that it shares the petitioners’ “concern about the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals for…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued a final rule amending the definitions and standards of classes of poultry ready for market. Effective January 1, 2014, the measure aims to “ensure that the labeling of poultry products is truthful and not misleading.” According to FSIS, poultry classes have been defined mostly by the bird’s age and sex, but improvements in poultry feeding and management have reduced the “grow-out” period for some classes, allowing producers to have the birds ready for sale much quicker. The new classifications, which have been in the rulemaking process since 2003, reflect “more accurately and clearly describe the characteristics of poultry in the market today,” FSIS noted. The new classifications lower the age of poultry ready for market in five classes—roaster or roasting chickens, broiler or fryer chickens, Rock Cornish game hens, capons, and fryer-roaster turkeys. Roaster chickens, for example,…
