A new documentary titled Food, Inc. apparently paints a vivid picture of the foods Americans eat–from bigger-breasted chickens fattened artificially to new strains of deadly E. coli bacteria, to a food supply controlled by a handful of corporations. The filmmakers claim these purported dangers create harmful effects on public health, the environment, and worker and animal rights. Robert Kenner, the movie’s director, reportedly called it a “horror film,” and told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on June 9, 2009, “If you visit feed lots, as I have, you lose your appetite for certain kinds of food. Some people are in denial. But, increasingly, people are curious to know the story about their food.” Food industry trade associations, however, have countered the movie’s claims by creating a number of websites, including one led by the American Meat Institute called SafeFoodInc.com., and a campaign that promotes the U.S. food industry as safe, abundant…
Commuters and visitors in Washington, D.C., metro stations are being asked, “Who’s Hogging Our Antibiotics?” in a new ad campaign featuring pigs in a trough. The series of ads by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming is apparently part of the project’s national effort to end what it claims is the misuse of antibiotics in food animal production. The campaign asserts that up to 70 percent of human antibiotics are fed to factory-farm animals that aren’t sick, a practice leading medical groups allege promotes development of deadly strains of drug-resistant bacteria that can spread to humans. “Human antibiotics are routinely misused on industrial farms to compensate for crowded, stressful and unsanitary conditions,” said Laura Rogers, a project director with the Pew Health Group. “The way we are raising our food animals is putting human health at risk.” Versions of the ads will also reportedly appear soon online…
University of Minnesota Law School Associate Professor William McGeveran discusses the problems posed by Internet marketing that collects and disseminates information about individual purchases as a form of product endorsement among the purchaser’s friends and acquaintances. The author describes how such marketing has already occurred on social networking platforms and the backlash it created. The article explains how current legal paradigms, such as privacy, trademark and consumer protection law, may not provide the protection needed for invasion of privacy by “social marketing” and posits that a common theme to the objections to this type of Web 2.0 marketing is the issue of genuine user consent. McGeveran recommends regulatory best practices to rein in any excesses and theorizes that giving a person control over whether information about her purchase can be used to market a product would go a long way toward resolving some of the concerns that have been raised.
A company that manufactures mustard oil supplied to the employers of food-flavoring workers who alleged they contracted bronchiolitis obliterans from occupational exposure to diacetyl and other chemicals, is seeking court confirmation of its good faith settlement with some of the workers. Ortiz v. Flavor & Extract Mfrs. Assoc. of the U.S., No. BC364831 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty., motion filed June 2, 2009). According to Naturex, Inc.’s motion for an order confirming the settlement, its experts were prepared to testify that scientific evidence and published literature do not link mustard oil to bronchiolitis obliterans, a point two of the plaintiffs appeared to concede when they initiated settlement discussions rather than making their expert available for deposition. The settlement agreement would provide these plaintiffs with $7,500 in exchange for a release and dismissal with prejudice. The motion also indicates that another plaintiff never used mustard oil during his employment. He has…
Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW) has reportedly filed litigation under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a number of companies that make snack foods. According to the attorneys who litigate as this advocacy organization, the companies fail to warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods such as breads, french fries and potato chips are made; it is included on the state’s list of substances known to cause cancer. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit apparently seeks punitive damages for fraudulent concealment and Prop. 65 violations. EWW has previously brought Prop. 65 claims involving acrylamide against fast food restaurants. More information about that litigation appears in issue 5 of this Update. See CourtHouse News, June 10, 2009.
A California resident has sued Unilever United States, Inc. in federal district court, seeking class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, and punitive damages for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws in the sale and marketing of a butter-substitute product known as “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®” Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 09-02563 (N.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2009). According to the complaint, Unilever labels and promotes its product as “Made with a Blend of Nutritious Oils” and “a better nutrition option than butter,” when, in fact, the product contains “a highly unhealthy, non-nutritious oil known as partially hydrogenated oil.” Claiming that he would not have purchased the product but for reliance on defendant’s purportedly deceptive statements, named plaintiff Amnon Rosen alleges only economic injury, stating that he “suffered injury in that he would not have paid money for the Product had these misrepresentations not been made.” Still, he avers…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is responsible for implementing the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), is reportedly reviewing a joint industry proposal submitted in April 2009 with detailed recommendations for a comprehensive food warning system. OEHHA has been conducting meetings with stakeholders to develop a regulation that would provide consumers with point-of-sale warnings about food chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or pose reproductive health hazards. The California Grocers Association, California Retailers Association, California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, and Grocery Manufacturers Association proposal would exempt small retail establishments from regulation and would allow warnings to be provided via (i) signage at a store’s entrance, (ii) pamphlets or brochures, or (iii) the backs of cash register receipts. Environmental groups and consumer advocates have reportedly criticized the industry approach, saying that most consumers would remain unaware…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule that amends the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of silver, excluding silver salts, in or on all foods when used in public eating places or applied on dairy- or food-processing equipment that comes into contact with surface-sanitizing solutions. The regulation requires the silver concentration in the solutions not to exceed 50 parts per million. Objections and requests for hearings about the regulation, which took effect June 10, 2009, must be received by August 10. See Federal Register, June 10, 2009.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the availability of draft industry guidance titled “Questions and Answers Regarding the Reportable Food Registry as Established by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.” The Food Administration Amendments Act of 2007 required FDA to establish within one year of enactment an electronic portal to facilitate the reporting of adulterated foods. FDA has now delayed until September 8, 2009, implementation of the registry “to consider any comments received on the draft guidance and through the agency’s planned outreach initiatives, and to allow for further testing of the electronic portal for reportable foods.” In the interim, the agency has encouraged industry to continue reporting of adulterated foods through existing channels, such as the relevant FDA district office. See Federal Register, June 11, 2009.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a June 23, 2009, public meeting to present the background, approach, scope, and data needed for a recently initiated interagency risk assessment of Listeria in some ready-to-eat foods that are sliced, prepared or packaged in retail facilities. Several agencies, including the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), are conducting the risk assessment to determine the effects that current practices and potential interventions to prevent Listeria have on public health. See Federal Register, June 9, 2009.
