New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a bill (A2990) that seeks to amend legislation requiring retail food establishments to provide calorie information for food and beverages. Proposed by Assemblywomen Nancy Pinken (D-Middlesex) and Linda Stender (D-Middlesex, Somerset and Union), the bill would require entertainment facilities to provide calorie information for food and beverage items offered for sale, subject to the same requirements that currently apply to chain restaurants. The bill defines “entertainment facility” as “any privately or publicly owned or operated facility that is used primarily for sports contests, entertainment, or both, such as a theater, stadium, museum, arena, automobile racetrack, or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held.” Issue 519
Tag Archives labeling
American Law Reports (A.L.R.) has published an annotation titled “Liability of Food Manufacturer Based on Statement in Product Labeling or Promotion Relating to, or Inconsistent with Presence of, Trans Fat in Product.” 92 A.L.R.6th 141 (2014). It “collects and analyzes all the federal and state cases discussing the liability, when not precluded by federal preemption, of a food manufacturer based on an allegedly untrue or misleading statement, in the labeling or promotion of a food product, relating to the presence or absence of trans fat in the product or a statement that, while not referring itself to trans fat, is allegedly inconsistent with the presence of trans fat in the product.” Most of the nearly 30 cases were filed in federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit. Issue 517
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Mercury Policy Project have sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking a declaration that the agency’s delay in responding to their citizen petition on labeling fish with high levels of mercury is unreasonable and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. CSPI v. FDA, No. 14-0375 (D.D.C., filed March 10, 2014). Further details about the petition, which seeks labeling on seafood packaging and point-of-purchase signage, appear in Issue 401 of this Update. The plaintiffs also seek an order compelling the agency to issue a final response by a court-imposed deadline. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs submitted the petition to FDA in July 2011 and received a tentative response from the agency beyond the 180-day limit required by FDA regulations. The plaintiffs claim that they have not received any communication from FDA since then…
Snack maker Snyder’s Lance, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss an amended class complaint filed by representative plaintiffs alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its products as “natural” when they contain genetically modified ingredients. Barron v. Snyder’s Lance, Inc., No. 13-62496 (S.D. Fla., Miami Div., motion filed March 10, 2014). Among other matters, the company argues that the plaintiffs’ “premium price” theory of harm is not plausible, they lack standing to seek injunctive relief and their failure to address their understanding of the term “natural” is fatal to their claims. As to the price theory, Snyder’s-Lance contends that the plaintiffs’ claims require the court to assume that price differences between its products and those of “rival brands” are based solely on the “natural” labeling. According to the company, the alleged price differential could be due to any number of other factors, such as better taste, more appealing…
The European Parliament has reportedly rejected draft rules mandating the labeling of engineered nanomaterials used in food. According to a March 13, 2014, press release, MEPs voted to scrap the proposed measure over concerns that the European Commission’s definition of nanomaterial “would exempt nano-sized food additives already on the market.” In particular, MEPs noted that although the European Union currently defines engineered nanomaterials “as any intentionally produced material whose size is under 100 nanometres,” the commission’s draft rules stipulated that “a nanomaterial should consist of at least 50% of particles having a size between 1-100 nanometres,” an increase over the European Food Safety Authority’s recommended threshold of 10 percent. “The EP has repeatedly called for proper nano-labeling and it is highly surprising that the Commission even tried to weaken what has been decided by both Parliament and the Council,” MEP Carl Schlyter was quoted as saying. “Consumers have the right…
Mother Jones has published a March 5, 2014, interview with journalist Murray Carpenter about his forthcoming book, Caffeinated: How Our Daily Habit HelpsUs, Hurts, and Hooks Us, which aims to “bring us the inside perspective at the additive that Salt Sugar Fat overlooked.” Speaking with Maddie Oatman about “how much caffeine is healthy, where the industry stands on labeling, and the most pretentious coffee preparation he’s observed,” Carpenter notes that current regulations do not require foods or supplements to disclose caffeine content on labeling. “There’s some voluntary labeling initiatives underway: The American Beverage Association has recommended bottlers do that, but you can still find energy drinks that don’t tell you how much caffeine is in them,” Carpenter is quoted as saying. “It’s not impossible for coffee and tea to start doing this. And for the products where caffeine is blended in very specific amounts, I don’t see any reason consumers…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reopened the comment period on its draft industry guidance titled “Ingredients Declared as Evaporated Cane Juice” on food labels. First published for comments in October 2009, the draft guidance advises industry of “FDA’s view that the common or usual name for the solid or dried form of sugar cane syrup is ‘dried cane syrup,’ and that sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup should not be declared on food labels as ‘evaporated cane juice’ because that term falsely suggests the sweeteners are juice,” and they are not “juice” as defined in federal regulations, 21 C.F.R. 120.1(a). FDA seeks “additional data and information to better understand the basic nature and characterizing properties of the ingredient, the methods of producing it, and the differences between this ingredient and other sweeteners.” Among the specific questions the agency has raised are (i) “How is ‘evaporated cane juice’…
George Washington University Law Professor John Banzhaf, who is known for his anti-tobacco advocacy, contends that recent court rulings involving food company defendants facing consumer-fraud and product-mislabeling allegations have opened “the door even further to a growing wave of such suits.” He argues that class action lawsuits over labeling terms such as “natural” and “all natural” will lead to increased transparency in food advertising and a reduction in obesity. He also claims that The American Lawyer attributed this exploding wave of litigation to “the movement started by Prof. John Banzhaf several years ago to use legal action as a weapon against the problem of obesity, just as he had earlier done in leading the use of legal action as a weapon against smoking.” See John Banzhaf News Release, February 27, 2014. Issue 515
A federal court in New York has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant in litigation alleging that it mislabeled its industrially processed olive-pomace oil as “100% Pure Olive Oil.” Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Factory, No. 13-2311 (S.D.N.Y., order entered February 25, 2014). Details about the court’s grant of the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class appear in Issue 507 of this Update. The court rejected, again, the defendant’s argument that its Capatriti olive-pomace oil is, as a matter of law, olive oil. According to the court, “there exists more than sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to determine that Capatriti is not 100% pure olive oil. Capatriti has more trans-fat and fewer antioxidants than virgin olive oil, is tasteless, is made from the seed and skin rather than the flesh of the olive, and undergoes chemical treatment with solvents, rather than a…
California Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) has introduced legislation (S.B. 1381) that would require labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods but also place limits on potential litigation arising from the failure to label such products. Under the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, “any raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering” would need to bear labels stating that the product in question was “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” The bill would allow the state attorney general or an injured resident “to bring an action for injunctive relief against a violation of these provisions, as specified.” Unlike previous efforts, however, the current proposal would “authorize a court to award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and would prohibit a court from awarding monetary damages in an action brought under the bill’s provisions.” It would…
