The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and National Consumers League have filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision to delay implementation of rules requiring chain restaurants and food sellers to display nutritional information violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Price, No. 17-1085 (D.D.C., filed June 7, 2017). The plaintiffs allege that the agency “repeatedly delayed” the compliance date for the nutritional labeling rules, which were originally scheduled to take effect in December 2015. One day before the revised enforcement date in May 2017, FDA announced that compliance would be delayed until May 2018. The plaintiffs request that the court vacate the delay. Additional details on the delay announcement appear in Issue 633 of this Update. “The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan said in a June…
Category Archives D.C. Circuit
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to issue a determination about what will be produced to or withheld from a FOIA requester within statutory deadlines; a failure to do so is deemed the exhaustion of administrative remedies and allows the requester to bring an action in federal court to compel the production of responsive documents. Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 12-5004 (D.C. Cir., decided April 2, 2013). The Federal Election Commission (FEC) contended that it could simply inform a FOIA requester within the 20-day deadline (or 30 days in “unusual circumstances”) that it would produce non-exempt responsive documents and claim exemptions in the future. According to the court, FEC’s interpretation of the statute would allow an agency to “keep FOIA requests bottled up in limbo for months or years on end.” FEC claimed…
POM Wonderful LLC has filed a petition seeking review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) order requiring two randomized, controlled clinical trials before the company can make a claim that its pomegranate juice products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction. POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, No. 13-1060 (D.C. Cir., filed March 8, 2013). In its January ruling, FTC found that the company made false and misleading claims by advertising its products with health-benefit assertions that POM contended were backed by medical research. Additional information about the FTC rulings in the case appears in issues 441 and 467 of this Update.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules requiring California almonds sold domestically to be treated with heat or chemicals to prevent the spread of Salmonella. Koretoff v. Vilsack, No. 12-5075 (D.C. Cir., decided February 22, 2013). According to the court, the almond producers who mounted the challenge had waived their claims “by failing to raise them during the rulemaking process.” They had contended that the USDA secretary exceeded his authority in requiring the treatment of all almonds “irrespective of whether they are contaminated” and that the secretary failed to determine that the treatment rule was “the only practical means of advancing the interests of the producers.” Finding no error in the lower court’s disposition, the court affirmed its grant of summary judgment for the secretary.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Belgian brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (ABI) and Mexican brewer Grupo Modelo S.A.B. de C.V., seeking to enjoin ABI’s June 28, 2012, acquisition of Modelo. United States v. Anheuser Busch InBev SA/NV, No. 13-127 (D.D.C., filed January 31, 2013). DOJ contends that the $20.1 billion deal, which would combine the largest and third largest beer companies in the United States, “would substantially lessen competition for beer in the United States as a whole and in 26 metropolitan areas across the United States, resulting in consumers paying more for beer and having fewer new products from which to choose.” According to the complaint, Modelo is the only major beer company that has consistently resisted ABI’s annual price increases and has gained a majority share of some markets in California, New York and Texas by pursuing an aggressive marketing strategy with innovative…
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency has wrongfully withheld information requested about the use of anti-microbial drugs in food-producing animals. GAP v. FDA, No. 12-1954 (D.D.C., filed December 5, 2012). GAP requests an order requiring FDA to make the requested information available within 10 working days and further seeks costs and attorney’s fees. According to the complaint, GAP sought information in February 2011 about anti-microbial drugs collected from animal-drug sponsors under 21 U.S.C. § 360b. While FDA produced, as requested, educational and outreach materials that assist drug sponsors in fulfilling their reported duties, it withheld (i) “FDA’s data for use of anti-microbial drugs in food-producing animals in 2009 as broken down by container size, strength, and dosage form”; and (ii) “FDA’s data for use of anti-microbial drugs in food-producing…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has dismissed the declaratory judgment action that POM Wonderful filed against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shortly before the Commission brought an enforcement action against the pomegranate product producer. POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, No. 10-1539 (D.D.C., decided September 30, 2012). More information about the complaint and FTC’s motion to dismiss appears in Issues 364 and 373 of this Update. According to the court, “[t]he balance of relevant factors counsels against exercising jurisdiction over this action.” Among other matters, the court found that (i) the declaratory judgment action would not fully resolve the parties’ claims because they would “still have to litigate whether POM’s health claims about its products were false, misleading, and unsubstantiated in violation of the FTC Act”; (ii) “other overlapping proceedings are pending” and POM can raise arguments in those proceedings that it has raised in the declaratory judgment…
A divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the graphic antismoking images which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) selected for placement on cigarette packages for the purpose of reducing smoking rates in the United States fail the intermediate scrutiny standard for compelled commercial speech. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, No. 11-5332 (D.C. Cir., decided August 24, 2012). According to the court, which vacated the graphic warning requirements and remanded to the agency, “FDA failed to present any data much less substantial evidence required under the [Administrative Procedure Act]—showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agency’s stated objective of reducing smoking rates.” The court discusses the different standards applied when deciding whether government efforts to regulate speech are permissible under the First Amendment. A strict scrutiny standard, for example, gives government little leeway to compel or proscribe speech and imposes a heavy burden on…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has denied a motion to certify a class of Los Angeles County Whole Foods shoppers alleging that the company’s 2007 merger with Wild Oats “substantially lessened competition” in violation of the Clayton Act, “created an unlawful monopoly” under the Sherman Act, and “constituted an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade” in violation of both acts. Kottaras v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., No. 08-1832 (D.D.C., decided January 30, 2012). The plaintiff, a California resident and patron of both stores, claims that the merger unlawfully raised prices on certain products by foreclosing competition in the premium, natural and organic supermarket sector. According to the court, injury to individual class members “cannot be proven through classwide evidence” and thus the action fails to “satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common questions predominate over individual ones.” The court also found that the methodology of the plaintiff’s expert…
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and other public interest organizations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), seeking a declaration that the agency’s decision to allow the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybean crops on wildlife refuge lands in the Midwest violated federal environmental laws. Ctr. for Food Safety v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 11-01934 (D.D.C., filed November 2, 2011). The lawsuit involves 66 refuges and wetland management districts encompassing more than 1.2 million acres across eight states. According to the center, the action “marks the latest in a series of successful lawsuits by public interest organizations to stop the planting of GE crops on national wildlife refuges.” The complaint alleges that FWS has entered into cooperative farming agreements with private parties allowing them to farm national wildlife refuge land with GE crops without preparing an environmental impact statement under the…
