The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for "a Label on Processed Meat and Poultry Products Warning the Public that Frequent Consumption May Increase the Risk of Colorectal Cancer." Citing the International Agency for Research on Cancer's finding that smoked, salted and/or cured bacon, hot dogs, ham, sausages and similar products are "carcinogenic to humans," CSPI argues that epidemiological studies backed by "mechanistic evidence" support the alleged link between processed meat and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. The group also points to similar conclusions drawn by the World Cancer Research Fund International, American Institute for Cancer Research, Imperial College London and the American Cancer Society, the latter of which "advises the public to 'minimize consumption of processed meats such as bacon, sausage, luncheon meats, and hot dogs' based on evidence that the risk of colorectal cancer increases by 15…
Category Archives Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has reportedly voted 10-3, with one abstention, to remove carrageenan from the national list of substances allowed in organic processing and handling. Held November 16-18, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri, the NOSB’s semi-annual meeting included a review of carrageenan on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that identifies “the synthetic substances that may be used and the nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in organic crop and livestock production.” Other substances slated for sunset in 2018 include agar-agar, animal enzymes, calcium sulfate-mined, glucono delta-lactone, tartaric acid, cellulose potassium hydroxide, silicon dioxide, and beta-carotene extract for use as a coloring agent. According to news sources, NOSB did not impugn the safety of carrageenan but took into account the availability of other substances to replace the seaweed-based thickening agent. If it accepts NOSB’s recommendation, the National Organic Program…
The Cornucopia Institute has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture “requesting an investigation into the organic certification of hydroponic operations in the U.S. that appear to conflict with the statutory language of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and current federal regulations governing organic food production.” The organization argues that two companies, Wholesum Harvest Family Farms and Driscoll’s, sell hydroponically raised produce as certified organic despite failing to meet federal standards on the contents of their soil, which allegedly include peat moss, coconut cuir and hydrolyzed soy fertilizers made from genetically modified soybeans. “Hydroponic and container systems rely on liquid fertilizers developed from conventional crops or waste products,” said a Cornucopia Institute farm policy analyst in a November 1, 2016, press release. “Suggesting that they should qualify for organic labeling is a specious argument.” Issue 621
A consumer has filed a proposed class action against Hormel Foods Corp. alleging the company misrepresents its meat products as natural and free of preservatives despite containing synthetic or genetically modified ingredients, including cultured celery powder, baking powder and maltodextrin. Phelps v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 16-62411 (S.D. Fla., Ft. Lauderdale Div., filed October 11, 2016). The lawsuit, focused on Hormel’s Natural Choice® line of products, echoes similar claims in a complaint filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund in June 2016. Details on that complaint appear in Issue 610 of this Update. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (‘USDA’) takes into account the level of processing in its policy on natural claims on food labeling,” the consumer complaint asserts. “The USDA allows such products to be labeled ‘natural’ when ‘(1) The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative [], or any other artificial…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National Service for Animal and Plant Health, Food Safety and Quality of Mexico (SENASICA) have announced a joint Organic Compliance Committee to “ensure the integrity of organic products trade between the United States and Mexico.” With implementation of Mexico’s organic regulations slated for 2017, the two countries agreed to form a committee to achieve “equivalency in organic production and trade,” as well as enhance enforcement controls on organic products. According to an October 19, 2016, press release, the committee will “establish requirements for the use of import certificates in both countries within six months to provide verification of each shipment of organic products between the United States and Mexico.” Under the new arrangement, the committee will sample organic products for chemical residues, share the results with AMS and SENASICA, and “engage with certifiers operating in Mexico by conducting listening…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has updated its guidelines on the documentation needed to support animal-raising labeling claims, which include “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Organic,” “Grass-Fed,” “Free-Range” and “Raised with the use of hormones.” Among other things, the agency requires the following information to support such claims: (i) “a detailed written description explaining the controls used for ensuring that the raising claim is valid from birth to harvest or the period of raising being referenced by the claim”; (ii) “a signed and dated document describing how the animals are raised (e.g., vegetarian-fed, raised without antibiotics, grass-fed), to support that the specific claim made is truthful and not misleading”; (iii) “a written description of the product-tracing and segregation mechanism from time of slaughter or further processing through packaging and wholesale or retail distribution”; (iv) “a written description for the identification, control, and segregation of non-conforming animals…
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allowed the American Egg Board to unduly influence the government’s nutrition advice on dietary cholesterol. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Vilsack, No. 16-0069 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., order entered October 12, 2016). Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed the lawsuit following a change to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines that removed the recommended limit of 300 milligrams per day of dietary cholesterol; instead, the guidelines recommended consuming “as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.” PCRM alleged that the advisory body’s analysis and recommendations were compromised by the presence of scientists who had received funding from the American Egg Board or Egg Nutrition Center. The court assessed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider PCRM’s claim by examining the underlying statutes…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has completed a report reviewing nine allegations of misconduct asserted by Josh Tetrick, head of Just Mayo producer Hampton Creek, against the American Egg Board (AEB). The report concludes that AEB staff and board members engaged in inappropriate conduct, including failing to adhere to USDA guidelines, targeting a specific company and sending inappropriate emails. The report found substantiation for five of Tetrick’s nine allegations: (i) AEB employees exchanged inappropriate emails about Tetrick, including references such as, “Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?” and “old buddies from Brooklyn pay him a visit”; (ii) an AEB executive accepted a consultant’s offer to contact Whole Foods Market Inc. in an effort to persuade the company to stop stocking Just Mayo, although the consultant never actually contacted the company; (iii) a public relations expert conducted market research on egg-replacement products,…
Shook Partner Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Associate Ravika Rameshwar have authored an article for the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse discussing a New York federal court’s dismissal of a class action centered on infant formula marketed as organic. The complaint alleged that Abbott Laboratories, Inc. represented its Similac® Advance® as organic despite containing ingredients prohibited in organic products by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Cruz-Alvarez and Rameshwar provide an overview of the case and detail the relevant provisions of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which establishes that a product can be labeled “organic” if a USDA-accredited agency certifies it as such. The court compared the infant formula allegations to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case challenging the organic label of milk and reached an analogous conclusion: the state laws supporting the complaint challenged the federal law’s certification determination and were thus preempted. Accordingly, the…
A California federal court has denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by several activist groups challenging aspects of the Organic Food Production Act’s sunset provision, which governs when substances are removed from the National List. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 8, 2016). The plaintiffs objected to how USDA changed the process to remove a substance from the List, which documents permitted synthetic substances and prohibited non-synthetic substances in the production of organic food. Details about the complaint appear in Issue 561 of this Update. The court first determined that the plaintiff groups had standing to sue, then considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. USDA argued the sunset notice changes were not part of a final agency action, but the court determined the question of jurisdiction and the merits of the action were so intertwined…
