A California resident has filed a putative class action against Starbucks Corp. alleging that the company deceived consumers by failing to disclose that some of its products were made with cochineal extract, a common food-coloring ingredient made from crushed insects. Anderson v. Starbucks Corp., No. BC485438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 25, 2012). Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff claims that she and the class members, had they known about the company’s use of the ingredient, would not have purchased the products for a number of reasons, including objections to consuming animal products, allergic responses to the ingredient or “sheer disgust.” Alleging violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and False Advertising Act, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/concealment, and violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, payment to a cy pres fund,…
Tag Archives artificial coloring
A meta-analysis of recent scientific literature has questioned data alleging a link between synthetic food colors approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Joel Nigg, et al., “Meta-Analysis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms, Restriction Diet, and Synthetic Food Color Additives,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, January 2012. Researchers evidently assessed 24 articles on synthetic food colors and 10 additional studies on dietary restriction, but ultimately found that several effects observed for food color additives were subject to publication bias or other flaws. In particular, the study authors noted that, while a restriction diet appears “to benefit some children with ADHD,” reports based on information from parents or teachers/observers were not wholly reliable or consistent even “after quality of measure was taken into account.” The analysis also revealed that “nearly all studies examined combinations of colors, with too little consistency…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the disclosure of food color additives on front-of-package labeling. Citing “the ubiquity of food colorings” in the American diet, the petition claims that consumers are misled when colorings are used to either mask less-nutritious ingredients or make a product “appear to be of higher quality or nutritional value than it actually is.” The group also points to studies suggesting a link between certain food additives and behavioral effects in children. CSPI urges FDA to “amend the labeling requirements set forth at 21 C.F.R. § 101.22” to require foods containing such additives to state “Artificially Colored” “on the product display package next to the product name in bold letters not less than half the height and weight of the name of the food.” According to CSPI, FDA already possesses the statutory authority and…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule requiring animal and pet food labels to list “the common or usual names” of any certified color additives used in the products. Issued in response to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the final rule brings animal food labeling in line with current human food regulations by adding “paragraph (k) to the animal food labeling regulations at § 501.22 (21 CFR 501.22).” The first part of paragraph (k) explains that any FDA-certified color additive used in animal foods “must be declared in the ingredient list” under the name listed in 21 CFR part 74 or 21 CFR part 82, although manufacturers are permitted to “parenthetically declare an appropriate alternative name of the certified color additive following its common or usual name.” In addition, the new rules require that the term “Lake” be included “in the declaration of…
A new Environmental Health Perspectives paper discusses a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee’s recent conclusion that the evidence is too inconclusive to associate children’s consumption of artificial colors in food with hyperactivity or to recommend warning labels. Titled “Synthetic Food Colors and Neurobehavioral Hazards: The View from Environmental Health Research,” the paper suggests that if FDA had approached the issue from an environmental health perspective and broadened its inquiry to consider a range of adverse effects, current research findings could have supported a different outcome. The author notes that the review confined itself “to the clinical diagnosis of hyperactivity . . . rather than asking the broader environmental question of behavioral effects in the general population; it failed to recognize the significance of vulnerable subpopulations; it misinterpreted the meaning of effect size as a criterion of risk.” The article concludes that scientific risk reviews with “too narrow a…
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Food Advisory Committee has reportedly rejected a proposal to require warning labels for artificial food dyes, thereby confirming its earlier position that “a causal relationship between exposure to color additives and hyperactivity in children in the general population has not been established.” The committee addressed the issue at a March 30-31, 2011, meeting, where it heard testimony from experts, consumers and advocacy groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has long urged FDA to follow Europe’s example in encouraging companies to switch to non-synthetic alternatives. “It is to the great shame of many U.S.-based food companies that they are marketing safer, naturally colored products in Europe but not the United States,” opined CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson in a March 30, 2011, statement. See The New York Times, March 29, 2011; NPR, March 30, 2011. In particular, the advisory…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced an advisory committee meeting to “discuss whether available relevant data demonstrate a link between children’s consumption of synthetic color additives in food and adverse effects on behavior.” FDA plans to provide background material no later than two business days before the March 30-31, 2011, public meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland. Calling the news “welcome and overdue,” Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) Executive Director Michael Jacobson said that the meeting was in response to CSPI’s 2008 petition calling for FDA to ban Yellow 5, Red 50 and six other food dyes. The dyes “have long been shown in numerous clinical studies to impair children’s behavior,” Jacobson said. “But for years—FDA— which actually commissioned one of the first controlled studies—dismissed the mounting evidence against the dyes.” See Federal Register and CSPI News Release, December 1, 2010.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has issued a report urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban several food dyes that allegedly pose “risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children, and allergies.” According to a June 29, 2010, CSPI press release, “Dyed foods should be considered adulterated under the law, because the dyes make a food ‘appear better or of greater value that it is’—typically by masking the absence of fruit, vegetable, or other more costly ingredient.” CSPI has charged FDA with failing to enforce “a stricter standard of safety for color additives than other food additives,” despite a five-fold increase in per capita consumption of dyes since 1955. It has specifically asked the agency to prohibit (i) Red 3 and Citrus Red 2 “because they caused cancer in rats,” (ii) Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, “which are tainted with cancer-causing contaminants,” including benzidine and…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called for comment on “the information collection provisions of FDA’s regulations for submission of petitions, including food and color additive petitions (including labeling) and generally recognized as safe (GRAS) affirmations.” As required by the Office of Management and Budget, the agency has invited comments on the following: (i) “Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility”; (ii) “the accuracy of FDA’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used”; (iii) “ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected”; and (iv) “ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.” FDA has also…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published safety reassessments of three food additives, Brilliant Black (E 151), Brown HT (E 155) and Brown FK (E 154). For Brilliant Black, which first gained approval in 1984, EFSA has confirmed the existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 5 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight (mg/kg bw). According to the scientific panel, Brilliant Black is used in soft drinks, bakery products and desserts, but “only some children who regularly consume large amounts of foods containing the color might exceed this level of intake.” EFSA, however, has recommended decreasing by one-half the ADI for Brown HT, setting the new limit at 1.5 mg/kg bw after “adverse effects, such as slightly reduced weight gain, were noted in animals following long-term exposure” to the additive. The reviewers also expressed concern that “exposure to Brown HT could be above the new ADI for adults and children who…
