According to public health lawyer and activist Michele Simon, who recently attended a meeting in Brussels “to address the problem of cross-border marketing of unhealthy food to children,” the same types of issues confronting public health advocates in the United States confront their counterparts in Europe. Regulatory standards are apparently under development, but Simon did not share the details because they are still in draft and the meeting was closed to the public. She did, however, discuss a presentation by an industry representative who apparently outlined voluntary efforts that food and beverage companies have undertaken in Europe to decrease the number of TV ads children are exposed to. Simon questioned the effectiveness of these efforts and industry’s transparency, noting that the messages companies are delivering to children in other ways, such as the Internet, are not apparently being tracked. Simon also provided a summary of the Federal Trade Commission’s update…
Public interest lawyers and industry representatives debated the merits of using litigation to address obesity at a December 2010 symposium hosted by George Mason University, and edited transcripts have recently been made available in the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy. Among the speakers was John Banzhaf whose law students at George Washington University have long focused on “public interest litigation,” including lawsuits and regulatory initiatives against the interests of cigarette manufacturers. Banzhaf claims that a reporter’s question in 2002 about using litigation as a weapon in other arenas, such as concerns over obesity, led to the “modern fat litigation movement.” He contends that litigation and the courts are a legitimate tool to effect policy change, arguing that until corporations and their customers are forced to pay the full costs of their products, changes will not be made. Banzhaf also discussed the 10 lawsuits or threats of litigation that convinced…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has reportedly scheduled an April 26, 2011, hearing to determine whether attorneys representing Native American farmers and ranchers in the settlement of claims alleging discrimination against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should receive $60.8 million in fees. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., preliminary settlement approval filed November 1, 2010). The sum represents 8 percent of the $760 million settlement; Department of Justice attorneys oppose the request and will file supporting papers in the next week. See The Blog of LegalTimes, April 5, 2011.
New York City Council Member Leroy Comrie (D) has introduced a bill (Int. No. 530) that would ban toy giveaways in restaurant meals deemed high in calories, sodium and fat. Amending the city’s administrative code “in relation to setting nutrition standards for distributing incentive items aimed at children,” the bill mirrors a similar San Francisco measure set to go into effect in December 2011. Comrie’s proposal would require establishments that offer toys with meals to make sure the food contains less than 500 calories, 600 milligrams of sodium and 35 percent of calories from fat. A half cup of fruit or vegetables and one serving of a whole-grain product must be included in the meal. Violators would be subject to fines ranging from $200 to $2,500. “While I recognize that ensuring children have access to, and eat more, nutritious meals is ultimately the responsibility of their caretakers, the City Council…
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has reportedly proposed levying a $50 annual fee on smokers, the chronically ill or obese who receive aid from the state’s financially strapped Medicaid program. Effective October 1, 2011, if approved by the Arizona Legislature, the plan would apply to childless adults who “need to work with their primary care physician to develop a care plan.” According to news sources, the measure is part of a wider plan to help the state save $510 million. “If you want to smoke, go for it,” a spokesperson for Arizona’s Medicaid program was quoted as saying. “But understand you’re going to have to contribute something for the cost of the care of your smoking.” State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) asserted that she would vote against the measure because it would unfairly penalize the obese. “If someone is obese because they’re severely disabled or can’t exercise, we shouldn’t be…
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) has reportedly reassessed the nutritional benefits and risks of intense sweeteners, confirming that two new studies “provide no sufficient scientific basis for a toxicological re-evaluation of aspartame.” ANSES apparently dismissed the first study concerning the effects of aspartame on mice because of methodological deficiencies, while finding the second one insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between aspartame and preterm delivery. The agency concluded, however, that it shares “the desire of the European Food Safety Authority to study the toxicological risks inherent in sweeteners.” It thus noted that it intends to “broaden” its aspartame research, as well as initiate “a working group to assess the nutritional benefits and risks of intense sweeteners and the need to draw up recommendations for any vulnerable population groups—including pregnant women—identified in the course of its work.” See ANSES Press Release, March…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued an April 6, 2011, statement on food irradiation that summarizes the 2010 scientific opinions adopted by the Panel on Biological Hazards and the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavorings and Processing Aids, which together assessed the procedure’s efficacy and safety. Using the latest available evidence, these panels have evidently concluded “that there are no microbiological risks for the consumer linked to the use of food irradiation,” and “that most of the substances formed in food by irradiation are also formed during other types of food processing, with levels comparable to those arising, for instance, from the heat treatment of foods.” According to EFSA, “only a very limited quantity of food consumed in Europe is irradiated,” a practice considered part of “an integrated food safety management program… that includes good agricultural, manufacturing and hygienic practices.” Still, panel experts have recommended that “decisions…
The European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee has reportedly failed to block approval for an infant formula manufacturer’s claim that adding the fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to baby food “contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age.” Although the application to include the health claim had already received favorable opinions from the European Food Safety Authority and European Commission, the committee MEPs last month voted against authorization, arguing “that there is no scientific consensus on the effect that DHA-fortified formula have on infants, that more research is needed on the possible effects, both beneficial and harmful, of DHA supplements, and that the health claim could be misleading.” But this resolution did not gain enough support in the April 4-7, 2011, plenary session of Parliament, which ultimately approved the DHA health claim by a margin of eight votes. Meanwhile, The Telegraph…
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have announced an April 25, 2011, public meeting in College Park, Maryland, to provide information and receive public comments on draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 39th session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) on May 9-13 in Quebec City, Canada. CCFL is responsible for such things as “studying problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions for drafting provisions on labeling applicable to all foods.” Agenda items include (i) “recommendations on the declaration of sodium (salt)”; (ii) “mandatory nutrition labeling”; (iii) “labeling of foods and food ingredients obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification/ genetic engineering”; and (iv) “modified standardized common names.” See Federal Register, April 1, 2011. In a related matter, a public meeting was held April 5…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed a procedural change that would allow inspectors to keep meat and poultry products from commerce “until FSIS test results for harmful substances are received.” FSIS currently recommends that processors and official import establishments hold sampled products pending test results, but has evidently concluded that his voluntary measure has allowed adulterated shipments to enter the market. “Therefore, FSIS is announcing its tentative determination not to apply the mark of inspection until negative results are available and received for any testing for adulterants,” stated the agency, which will accept comments on the proposal for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. FSIS has argued that a mandatory “test and hold” requirement will “substantially reduce serious recalls for meat and poultry.” Along with the agency’s new and revised performance standards to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter incidence in young chickens and…
