A Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity study has compared the U.S. food industry’s “Facts Up Front” labeling scheme to the “Multiple Traffic Light” system used in the United Kingdom, concluding that consumers found both front-of-package systems easier to use than no labels at all, while an enhanced Traffic Light system yielded “the best overall performance.” Christina Roberto, et al., “Facts Up Front Versus Traffic Light Food Labels,” American Journal of Preventative Medicine, July 2012. Researchers asked 708 adults in an Internet-based survey to compare the nutrient levels of foods as well as estimate saturated fat, sugar, sodium, fiber and protein contents using one of five systems: (i) no label; (ii) Traffic Light; (iii) Traffic Light “plus information about protein and fiber (Traffic Light+)”; (iv) Facts up Front; or (v) Facts Up Front “plus information about ‘nutrient to encourage’ (Facts Up Front+).” The results evidently indicated that respondents…
Tag Archives labeling
A nutritionist who published a study about the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has objected to Dean Foods Co.’s decision to cite her work in marketing the health benefits of its Horizon organic milk fortified with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Penn State University Professor Penny Kris-Etherton apparently took issue with Horizon milk labels that used her paper to support a claim that “many Americans don’t get the recommended DHA from their everyday diet.” According to Kris-Etherton, however, her research did not establish an optimum level of DHA consumption for the average consumer. “It’s not right—it’s inaccurate,” she was quoted as saying. “It’s a marketing strategy to sell more of their milk.” Kris-Etherton’s concerns have evidently led Whole Foods Market Inc. to review its policy on DHA health claims and Dean Foods to consider voluntarily withdrawing the citation. “It’s appropriate to use published scientific studies…
The American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources will hold a teleconference on July 31, 2012, titled “California’s Proposed GM Food Labeling Law: Pros, Cons, and Legal Issues.” A panel of speakers, including the Center for Food Safety’s George Kimbrell and the Global Environmental Ethics Counsel’s Thomas Redick, will consider the latest information on this ballot proposal, the current status of genetically modified (GM) food labeling laws elsewhere and information about pending federal initiatives relating to the labeling of biotech food products. See The U.S. Agricultural & Food Law & Policy Blog, July 12, 2012.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided which of the parties sued over an E. coli outbreak that sickened dozens of Sizzler Steak House patrons in 2000 and caused the death of a 3-year-old are liable for consequential damages, indemnity and costs under various supply chain and insurance contracts. Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., Nos. 2009AP1212 & 2010AP491 (Wis., decided June 29, 2012). Among other matters, the court ruled that Sizzler was entitled to (i) recover consequential damages for the meat supplier’s breach of implied warranties despite limiting language in the continuing guaranty provision of their contract, and (ii) indemnity from the meat supplier for Sizzler’s advance partial payment to the family of the deceased child “because the payment was not voluntary and the jury found that Sizzler was zero percent liable for the E. coli contamination.” The court also ruled that Sizzler could not recover its attorney’s fees despite a jury finding…
After two years of deliberation, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has reportedly agreed to issue draft regulations that would require energy drink manufacturers to rebrand their products as “caffeinated beverages.” Based on the findings of an expert panel convened to study caffeine and energy drink consumption in India, the draft regulations would apparently set an upper caffeine limit of 320 milligrams per liter or 320 parts per million (ppm) in caffeinated beverages, as well as prohibit any nutritive claims and the use of the word “energy” as a descriptor. FSSAI has also proposed that all energy drinks bear safety labels warning that such products (i) are “not recommended for children, pregnant or lactating women, persons sensitive to caffeine and sportspersons,” (ii) should not be consumed in excess of two cans per day, and (iii) contain a “high caffeine content.” “We had been considering the standards for…
A group of national pizza chains has reportedly formed a new coalition to combat proposed menu labeling regulations that would require companies with 20 or more food outlets to post calorie information on menus and menu boards. Mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Food and Drug Administration’s April 2011 draft rules call on restaurants to display calories ranges for all customizable menu options as well as the overall calorie count for each item. The American Pizza Community (TAPC), however, has opposed the measure as unfair to those enterprises with highly variable offerings that are unlikely to be consumed by one person. “A light bulb goes on when people hear about all the combinations for pizza,” said TAPC Chair Lynn Liddle. “They start to realize how difficult it would be to make a one-size-fits-all approach.” TAPC members have also argued that not only are 90…
Seeking to represent a statewide class of product purchasers, a California resident has filed a putative class action against Costco, alleging that the company falsely sells its Kirkland Signature Kettle Brand Potato Chips®, which purportedly contain “more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams,” with a “0 Trans Fat” label. Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 12-2908 (N.D. Cal., filed June 5, 2012). Citing 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(h), plaintiff Karen Thomas contends that the defendant is “prohibited from making the unqualified nutrient claims of ‘0 grams Trans Fat’ on its food products if they contain fat in excess of 13 grams, saturated fat in excess of 4 grams, cholesterol in excess of 60 milligrams, or sodium in excess of 480 mg per 50 grams, unless the product also displays a disclosure statement that informs consumers of the product’s fat, saturated fat and sodium levels.” She alleges that the product…
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) has reportedly certified that enough valid signatures were gathered to allow a genetically modified organism (GMO) food-labeling initiative on the state ballot during the November 6, 2012, general election. In May, the Committee for the Right to Know obtained 971,126 signatures, of which 555,236 had to be proven valid. The ballot initiative, aka California Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act, was covered in Issue 438 in this Update. “We’re thrilled that Californians will have the opportunity this November to vote for the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, a committee spokesperson. “It’s about our fundamental right to make informed choices about the food we eat and feed our families.” See California Secretary of State Debra Bowen Press Release, June 11, 2012; Law360, June 12, 2012.
“There are no longer any viable reasons to maintain outdated nutrition labeling standards for sugar,” opines Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, in this article urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revise sugar labeling regulations to better inform and protect consumers. Citing recent developments such as recommendations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Heart Association to limit sugar consumption, “new and robust” science suggesting high-sugar intake is detrimental to human health, and the Institute of Medicine’s call for front-of-packaging labeling for sugar, Pomeranz maintains that FDA’s reluctance to require manufacturers to disclose sugar and added sugar is based on old science and obsolete concerns. “The need for more information relevant to sugar on food labels is long overdue,” she writes. “The government can currently require more information pertinent to total sugar consistent with the public…
A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action filed in March 2012 against the companies that make a line of SoBe® beverages known as 0 Calories Lifewater®. Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., Inc., No. 12-1429 (C.D. Cal., decided May 18, 2012). Further details about the case appear in Issue 429 of this Update. According to the court, state-law consumer-fraud claims based on the use of fruit names to describe the different Lifewater flavors and the use of common vitamin names instead of the vitamins’ chemical names are preempted by federal law which allows both types of labeling. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, said the court, “explicitly permit manufacturers ‘to use the name and images of a fruit on a product’s packaging to describe the characterizing flavor of the product even where the product does not contain any of that fruit, or contains no fruit…
