The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to compel the agency to act on the advocacy group’s 2005 citizen petition requesting regulations about the use of salt as a food additive. Ctr. for Sci. in Pub. Interest v. FDA, No. 15-1651 (D.D.C., filed October 8, 2015). The petition called for FDA to revoke salt’s status as generally recognized as safe, amend prior approvals of salt use, require food manufacturers to reduce sodium levels in processed foods, and mandate labeling messages about the health effects of salt in foods containing more than half an ounce of the substance. The complaint alleges that while “[n]early all Americans consume more sodium than is safe,” “[c]onsumers can exert relatively little control over their sodium intake by adjusting discretionary use of salt” because such use amounts to only 5 to 10…
Tag Archives D.C.
Finding a lack of standing, a D.C. federal court has dismissed Food & Water Watch’s lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) is inconsistent with the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which requires USDA to ensure that poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated and properly marked, labeled and packaged. Food & Water Watch v. Vilsack, No. 14-1547 (D.D.C., order entered February 9, 2015). The NPIS reduces the number of USDA inspectors at the slaughter line of poultry production facilities, “freeing up [USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service] resources to conduct offline inspection activities that are more important for food safety, such as verifying compliance with sanitation and [other] requirements, or conducting Food Safety Assessments.” Food & Water Watch challenged the NPIS as consumers of poultry, arguing that the USDA inspection label indicated to them that a federal employee had inspected the poultry and that…
Challengers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules requiring meat products to indicate where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered reportedly will not continue to pursue their claims, according to a stipulation of dismissal. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.C., stipulation filed February 9, 2015). The meat and poultry groups lost their First Amendment challenge to the mandatory labeling rules in the D.C. Circuit Court and were later denied a rehearing. The stipulation comes after a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the United States in favor of Canada and Mexico, which argue that the rules discriminated against their livestock producers. “While we remain disappointed with the court’s ruling on country of origin labeling (COOL), we agree with the World Trade Organization’s assessment that the U.S. rule is out of compliance with its trade obligations to Canada and Mexico,” North American Meat Institute CEO…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) order that found POM Wonderful’s advertising to be misleading for claiming that its products treat or reduce the risk of several medical conditions, including prostate cancer and heart disease. POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, No. 13-1060 (D.C. Cir., order entered January 30, 2015). In 2013, FTC ordered POM to stop making misleading health claims about its product, and POM challenged the ruling. POM argued that its ads were protected by the First Amendment, but the court dismissed this argument, finding that deceptive and misleading ads have no First Amendment protection. The juice company also asserted that it had clinical studies to support its health claims. The circuit court affirmed FTC’s finding that POM had cherry-picked its results when presenting them to the public, which invalidated them as support for the claims. The court agreed with POM, however, that…
Several consumer and environmental groups, including the Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health, have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for EPA’s alleged failure to respond to the groups’ 2008 petition calling for regulation of consumer products containing nano-sized versions of silver. Ctr. for Food Safety v. EPA, No. 14-2131 (D.D.C., filed December 16, 2014). According to the complaint, the 2008 petition requested that EPA classify nano-silver products as pesticides and provided EPA with a legal, policy and scientific blueprint for necessary action. EPA opened a comment period on the matter later that year but allegedly failed to take any further action. The petition also included an index of products that contained nano-silver, including food storage containers, food/produce cleaners, cutlery, cutting boards, and ingestible “health” drink supplements. The groups assert that nanomaterials “create unique human health and environmental risks,…
A federal court has granted summary judgment for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Mercury Policy Project (MPP) alleging that the agency has egregiously delayed a response to the organizations’ 2011 petition urging FDA to require the labeling of mercury levels in seafood. CSPI v. FDA, No. 14-0375 (D.D.C., order entered November 21, 2014). Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 517 of this Update. Assessing precedent, the court noted six considerations relevant in evaluating agency delay and found that three were in question here. CSPI and MPP argued that FDA’s delay was unreasonable because statutorily, the agency has six months to approve, deny or tentatively respond to citizen petitions; while FDA technically complied with this regulation, they argued, the deadline “provides a framework within which to gauge FDA’s delay in issuing a…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the requests of meat-producer interests to rehear arguments in a case challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules as a violation of First Amendment rights. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-5281 (D.C. Cir., order entered October 31, 2014). Under the regulations, amended in May 2013, retailers of “muscle cuts” are required to list on product labels the countries of origin and production as to each step of production—born, raised or slaughtered. Additional details about the en banc ruling upholding the regulations appear in Issue 532 of this Update. USDA amended the rules to address an adverse World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that they discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock producers. The effort was unsuccessful, as WTO again ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico. Information about that decision appears in Issue 542 of this Update. Issue 544
According to a proposed consent decree filed in a D.C. district court, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will “submit a final rule regarding ‘Substances Generally Recognized as Safe’ [GRAS] to the Federal Register for publication no later than August 31, 2016.” Ctr. for Food Safety v. Burwell, No. 14-0267 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.D.C., consent decree filed October 20, 2014). The Center for Food Safety apparently brought the action over concerns that food makers have been able to use an interim GRAS process and secure agency approval for allegedly unsafe ingredients, such as volatile oil of mustard, “olestra” and “quorn,” based on self-assessments. According to the Center’s complaint against the agency, FDA has unlawfully exempted GRAS substances from regulation as food additives under a rule proposed, but never finalized, some 15 years ago. That proposed rule purportedly eliminated a petition process requiring food companies to demonstrate that a substance satisfies…
Nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, Inc. and two of its members have filed an action against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Food Safety and Inspection Service seeking to enjoin their new National Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) rules. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, No. 14-1547 (D.D.C., filed September 11, 2014). Details about the rules, which take effect October 20, 2014, appear in Issue 532 of this Update. The plaintiffs allege that the rules violate the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They interpret the PPIA as requiring “that federal inspectors critically appraise all chicken and turkey carcasses and viscera,” and set forth how increased line speeds and rules giving poultry employees, without training or certification, the authority to inspect and remove adulterated birds or parts from processing lines before inspectors see them violate this requirement. Without actual inspection of every bird,…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a panel’s March 28, 2014, denial of the motion for preliminary judgment filed by meat producer interests in litigation challenging U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations requiring retailers of “muscle cuts” of meat to list the countries of origin and production (country-of-origin labeling, or COOL) as to each step of production—born, raised or slaughtered. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-5281 (D.C. Cir., order entered April 4, 2014). Additional information about the March 28 decision appears in Issue 518 of this Update. A court majority voted to rehear the case before the full court on May 19 and ordered the parties to brief a supplemental issue: “Whether, under the First Amendment, judicial review of mandatory disclosure of ‘purely factual and uncontroversial’ commercial information, compelled for reasons other than preventing deception, can properly proceed under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651…
