The Irish government reportedly plans to prohibit the cultivation of all genetically modified (GM) crops and will introduce a voluntary GM-free label for meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy products made without the use of GM animal feed. Echoing a similar move by Germany, the policy specifies that the government will “declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants,” according to a press release, which called the policy “a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers.” The GM-crop ban and voluntary GM-free label “makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors,” said a spokesperson for GM-Free Ireland, a multi-stakeholder network of social, political and legal-action groups. “Everyone knows that U.S. and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food ban in Europe, if…
Tag Archives labeling
Connecticut Attorney General (AG) Richard Blumenthal has announced that his office will be investigating “a potentially misleading national food label program that deems mayonnaise, sugar-laden cereals and other nutritionally suspect foods ‘Smart Choices.’” Targeting Hellman’s Real mayonnaise (light and non-light), Breyer’s ice cream, processed cereals, and Lipton beverages bearing the symbol, Blumenthal is seeking information from the organizations administering the program and major food companies that make the products. According to his press release, information sought includes “the consumer research and selection criteria driving the Smart Choice program; the process and fees involved in administering the program; and any payments or developmental role that major food manufacturers might have provided for the program.” Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, is quoted as saying, “It is very important that consumers have truthful and non-deceptive nutrition information if they are to make informed choices.”…
According to a recent Orlando Sentinel article, consumers do not understand the difference between food products labeled as “natural,” which, for the most part, is an unregulated term, and those labeled “organic,” which carries extensive government regulation and requires certification. Some food producers are apparently taking advantage of consumers’ mistaken belief that “natural” is a greener term than “organic”; the natural food market reportedly grew 10 percent between 2007 and 2008 to $12.9 billion. Foods labeled “natural” are generally sold for less than those labeled “organic,” and producers can and do create their own definitions for what is “natural.” The article outlines the different rules applying to organic and natural food products. See Orlando Sentinel, September 29, 2009. In a related development, the French agency responsible for regulating competition and fraud has reportedly issued a note establishing requirements for foods sold as “naturel.” The document was apparently prepared for inspectors…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public feedback on the conditions under which the agency should permit “natural” labeling claims for meat and poultry. The current FSIS standard states that minimally processed meat and poultry products can use the “natural” label if the product “does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredients, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient.” The agency is now considering whether to define the term “natural” or continue evaluating the claim on a case-by-case basis. It specifically seeks comments on “how best to coordinate FSIS’ regulation of ‘natural’ claims with the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) voluntary ‘naturally raised’ marketing claim standard.” FSIS will accept comments until November 13, 2009. See FSIS Press Release, September 11, 2009; Federal Register, September 14, 2009.
This article examines a new food-labeling campaign called the Smart Choices Program™, which uses the government dietary guidelines to identify “smarter food and beverage choices” for consumers. According to reporter William Neuman, the industry-backed system has apparently provoked the ire of some nutritionists who question the use of the green checkmark on “sugar-laden cereals like Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops.” The Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture have also warned the program’s managers that the agencies will be monitoring the results to see whether the labels “had the effect of encouraging consumers to choose highly processed food and refined grains instead of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.” “What we don’t want to do is have front-of-package information that in any way is based on cherry-picking the good and not disclosing the components of a product that may be less good,” one senior FDA advisor was quoted as…
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the availability of draft guidance titled “Guidance for Industry: Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA].” The agencies have issued the document “in light of the recent ruling by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) (formerly The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)) clarifying that certain beers do not meet the definition of a ‘malt beverage’ under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act).” According to HHS, beers that do not fall under FAA Act jurisdiction “are subject to the labeling provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA).” The draft guidance also “reminds manufacturers that the labeling of wine beverages containing less than 7 percent alcohol by volume, such as wine coolers, diluted wine…
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that federal food labeling law does not preempt the state law-based claims filed by a consumer who challenged Snapple’s designation of beverages containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as “natural.” Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 08-3060 (3d Cir., decided August 12, 2009). The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the claims on the basis of implied preemption. The complaint, originally filed in state court, but removed to federal court in 2007 under the Class Action Fairness Act, initially asserted that Snapple products were not “All Natural” because they contained HFCS; they were not “Made from the Best Stuff on Earth”; and Snapple falsely labeled some beverages, naming them after fruit-juice varieties that were not actually in the beverages. The plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment and common law restitution, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the New Jersey…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a proposed rule that would create a voluntary labeling program for ‘biobased” products under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. According to USDA, “Biobased products are products that are composed wholly or significantly of biological ingredients – renewable plant, animal, marine or forestry materials.” Looking to encourage the increased use of these products in all market sectors, USDA has already identified 15,000 commercially available biobased products across approximately 200 categories, from cleaning products to construction materials. Manufacturers seeking a BioPreferred label must ensure that their items meet or exceed USDA-established minimum biobased content requirements. USDA is accepting comments on the proposed rule until September 29, 2009. See the Federal Register and USDA Press Release, July 31, 2009; Meatingplace.com, August 3, 2009.
A federal court in California has denied the request for class certification filed by plaintiffs who allege that Van’s International Foods falsely advertised its frozen waffle products by listing incorrect nutritional information in their labels. Hodes v. Van’s Int’l Foods, No. 09-1530 (C.D. Cal, decided July 23, 2009). While the court found that the claims met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it found that the named plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). According to the court, common questions of law and fact do not predominate over individualized issues, and the class action device is not superior to other methods for adjudicating the controversy. The named plaintiffs had sought to certify a nationwide class of consumers, and the court was concerned about the manageability of the class action, stating, “the Court has concerns about how Plaintiffs will identify each…
By a 283-142 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the “Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009” (H.R. 2749). The day before its passage, the measure failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote needed to approve legislation submitted under “suspension of the rules,” which would not have allowed any floor amendments. The second submission, on July 30, 2009, needed only a simple majority vote, which was handily achieved. According to news sources, farm-state lawmakers were able to insert several last-minute changes that would exempt some growers from the new farming standards and restrict recordkeeping requirements for livestock farmers. The pork industry apparently kept some proposed restrictions on antibiotic use out of the final bill. Heralded by some as an historic moment for food safety, the bill would provide for more frequent inspections of processing plants and would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to order the…
