Ruling against Val-de-Travers absinthe producers, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal has reversed a 2010 Federal Office of Agriculture decision confirming the “protected geographical indications” registration of the terms “absinthe,” “fée verte”—the green fairy and “la bleue.” Guignon v. Ass’n interprofessionnelle de l’Absinthe, No. B-4820/2012 (Tribunal administratif fédéral, decided August 13, 2014). The court said in a press release that it believed “that this denomination refers to a type of good, regardless of its origin, and not to a product originating specifically from Val-de-Travers.” According to the court, just a small percentage of people in Switzerland associate the terms with this region, a district in the Neuchâtel canton. The president of the absinthe association, which registered the terms on behalf of the producers and defended the appeals filed by distillers in France, Germany and Switzerland, reportedly characterized the decision as “incomprehensible” because most of Switzerland’s absinthe is produced in Val-de-Travers and the ruling…
Tag Archives Europe
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Marc Shelley and Associate Emily Fedeles recently spoke with Food Navigator about a proposal contained in French Minister of Health Marisol Touraine’s National Health Bill that would extend class actions to claims involving injuries to health. According to the August 7, 2014, article, the bill seeks to expand a new consumer law that established class action procedures for consumer-protection and antitrust claims but stopped short of including personal-injury claims. Noting that the current proposal targets food and beverage manufacturers making product-health claims, Shelley and Fedeles warn that these changes are only the latest in a “troubling” trend that could affect the entire industry as more member states move to expand the scope of their class-action laws. With companies granted only one opportunity to defend against collective claims, Fedeles adds, “[y]ou only get one bite at the apple and of course there’s a difference between paying…
A study published this week by researchers associated with the Zurich, Switzerland-based Food Packaging Forum has sounded the alarm about the number of allegedly hazardous substances contained in food packaging or those that may contaminate food during production, processing, storage and transportation. Birgit Geueke, et al., “Food contact substances and chemicals of concern: a comparison of inventories,” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, published online July 7, 2014. The researchers reportedly compared the inventories of three food contact material (FCM) databases—the Pew Charitable Trusts’ list of legal direct and indirect food additives, the EU-wide positive list for plastic FCMs and the European Food Standard Authority’s 2011 non-plastics FCM substances list—with the Substitute It Now! (SIN) list 2.1 and the TEDX database of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Ultimately identifying 175 substances “with hazardous properties,” they found “(1) gaps in the regulation of FCMs and (2) how knowledge from different authorities and organizations could…
The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) has issued an opinion on Bacillus species used in animal production as microbial feed additives or as the source of other feed additives, mainly enzymes. Noting that the main “concern for humans, and, to a lesser extent livestock, associated with Bacillus is a capacity for toxin production,” the FEEDAP Panel cautions that the capacity for toxin production and the nature of the toxins produced is “unevenly distributed over the genus, occurring frequently in some species and more rarely in others.” According to the panel, the selection of strains belonging to the B. cereus taxonomic group for direct use in animal production is considered inadvisable. For other species, “concerns appear to be associated to the production of surfactin like-lipopeptides, although the relation between the presence of these compounds and/or other toxic factors and the…
The European biotech firm EuropaBio has published a new report titled “Science Not Fiction: Time to think again about GM” that provides an overview of the debate in Europe over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The report urges Europeans to take a new look at evidence for GM safety, to confront some of the “misleading tactics” used by some anti-GM-science campaign groups and to “think again about GM and to discuss how Europe can play its part in reducing the immediate and future stresses facing our life support system—the food chain.” According to a EuropaBio news release, the report “provides insights into the acceptance challenges of the past, the process of re-establishing ‘fact over fear,’ and the role of scientists, policymakers, the food chain, media and other stakeholders over the last 20 years.” Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, director of Agricultural Biotechnology at EuropaBio said, “The scientific consensus on GM crops is even greater than…
