As part of a proposal to reorganize several federal agencies, the Trump administration has recommended that food-safety regulatory oversight be shifted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), combining the agency's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) with the current food purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the proposal, the Government Accountability Office found that the existing approach "has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources" and recommends "merging Federal food safety functions as a potential solution to this fragmentation." For example, the administration suggests, "[W]hile FSIS has regulatory responsibility for the safety of liquid eggs, FDA has regulatory responsibility for the safety of eggs while they are inside of their shells; FDA regulates cheese pizza, but if there is pepperoni on top, it falls under the jurisdiction of FSIS; FDA regulates closed-faced meat sandwiches, while FSIS regulates open-faced meat sandwiches." The proposed USDA agency, the…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released draft guidance on intentional adulteration of the food supply. The guidance aims to help manufacturers develop and implement plans to protect their products by providing details on the components of a food defense plan, including vulnerability assessments, mitigation strategies and training requirements. Large businesses must have a plan by July 26, 2019, with enforcement dates in 2020 and 2021 for small or very small businesses. FDA also indicated that it will issue two further installments of draft guidance on intentional adulteration focusing on vulnerability assessments and corrective actions. "The likelihood of an incident at a particular facility is low, but the intentional adulteration of the U.S. food supply represents a very serious threat – one that could have devastating public health consequences," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement. "The goal of this draft guidance, in its entirety, is to…
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has determined that coffee will not be required to carry a label indicating that it contains chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65). According to the notice, "Coffee, a unique and complex chemical mixture made from the roasted seeds of the coffee plant, contains many different compounds, including carcinogens listed under Proposition 65, and anticarcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—the only Proposition 65 authoritative body to have evaluated coffee—concluded that coffee consumption is not classifiable as to its overall carcinogenicity and is associated with reduced risk of certain cancers in humans." Written comments on the determination will be accepted until August 30, 2018.
The Cornucopia Institute has released "The Turkish Infiltration of the U.S. Organic Grain Market: How Failed Enforcement and Ineffective Regulations Made the U.S. Ripe for Fraud and Organized Crime," a report arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to "curb the infiltration of questionable organic grain imports" into the U.S. food supply. The report alleges that shipments of grain have arrived from Turkey, Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan that were purportedly sourced from countries that do not have sufficient organic acreage to produce the amount of imported organic grains. The report accompanies a Cornucopia letter urging Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue to "implement protocols and procedures to require testing of any bulk shipment of 'organic' grain that meets minimum volume or monetary value thresholds and is presented for import at ports, docks, and border crossings of the United States." "We again urge the USDA to engage in emergency…
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has proposed changes to its compositional standards of beer, ale, stout, porter and malt liquor "to allow for innovation within the beer category while still preserving product integrity and to better reflect the tastes and needs of consumers." The proposed amendments would update the definition of beer to allow the use of microorganisms beyond yeast in the fermentation starter culture and remove the requirement that the final product "possess the aroma, taste and character commonly attributed to beer." In addition, herbs and spices would be permitted for use in product formulation, and beer would be limited to no more than 4 percent by weight of residual sugars to distinguish beer from malt-based beverages. Comments on the proposed changes will be accepted until September 14, 2018.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will host a public meeting on cultured meat, poultry and seafood on July 12, 2018. In a press release, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb asserted that the agency governs "both substances used in the manufacture of these products of animal cell culture technology and the products themselves that will be used for food" and grouped cultured meats with other "rapidly evolving areas of technological innovation" such as genetically engineered foods and microbial, algal and fungal cells generated and used as direct food ingredients. "The FDA remains committed to using our expertise in relevant scientific areas to evaluate the safety of emerging food technologies, such as foods generated by animal cell culture technology," according to Gottlieb's statement. "But as we mentioned, in addition to leveraging the existing expertise of our staff, we’re also investing in making sure we are considering all the unique attributes and challenges…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that April 2018 proposed changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) will be adopted. The amendments update several provisions, including "those concerning NPIP participation, voting requirements, testing procedures, and standards."
A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that infant formula was mislabeled because it contained synthetic ingredients, ruling that the plaintiff's state law claim was preempted by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Organic Consumers Assoc. v. Honest Co. Inc., No. B280836 (Cal. App. Ct., entered June 12, 2018). The advocacy group alleged that the formula contains synthetic ingredients not permitted in organic products under OFPA, thus violating the California Organic Products Act (COPA). "Association’s complaint does not allege that Honest is selling its premium infant formula without having gone through the organic certification process," the court found. "Nor are there any allegations of misconduct by Honest in obtaining or using its organic certification. Rather, the gravamen of Association’s single cause of action under the COPA is that Honest is labeling as organic infant formula that is not in fact organic." The court found this claim preempted by federal law. "If, as Association…
Seven advocacy groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Food Safety, have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a decision on a 2015 petition asking FDA to withdraw its approval of seven food additives purportedly shown to cause or linked to cancer. In re Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. FDA, No. 18-71260 (9th Cir., filed May 2, 2018). According to the petition, the additives—including benzophenone, ethyl acrylate and pyridine—add flavoring to food, such as mango, butterscotch, “floral, cinnamon and mint notes." The petition alleges that “food labels do not indicate whether a product contains any of the seven flavors here at issue. And the degree of risk associated with consumption is impossible to predict. ... [C]oncentrations of the flavors—and, therefore, the health consequences of ingestion—may vary significantly between brands.”
A federal court in Louisiana has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit alleging that Chipotle Mexican Grill's food caused the plaintiff to contract Helicobacter pylori, holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded "any semblance of a fact that causally connects [his] illness" with Chipotle. Gilyard v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 17-0441 (W.D. La., entered June 14, 2018). The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead "factual allegations sufficient to show that Chipotle failed to act as a prudent person skilled in food preparation." The only factual allegation in the complaint, the court noted, was that the plaintiff regularly ate at Chipotle in the two months before he was diagnosed with an H. pylori infection. Further, the court found, the complaint did not allege how the food was defective, how the duty of reasonable care in making or storing the food was breached, or that Chipotle provided contaminated food or utensils.
