The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and National Consumers League have filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision to delay implementation of rules requiring chain restaurants and food sellers to display nutritional information violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Price, No. 17-1085 (D.D.C., filed June 7, 2017). The plaintiffs allege that the agency “repeatedly delayed” the compliance date for the nutritional labeling rules, which were originally scheduled to take effect in December 2015. One day before the revised enforcement date in May 2017, FDA announced that compliance would be delayed until May 2018. The plaintiffs request that the court vacate the delay. Additional details on the delay announcement appear in Issue 633 of this Update. “The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan said in a June…
Tag Archives menu
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the compliance date for calorie-count menu labeling from May 5, 2017, to May 7, 2018, and is inviting public comment on the issue. The menu-labeling rule applies to restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as “grab-and-go” foodservice vendors such as supermarkets, coffee shops and bakeries, concession stands at movie theaters and amusement parks. While the rule is supported by the National Restaurant Association and many restaurant chains have already posted the required information, other trade groups say that the FDA underestimated the costs of compliance and that the rule is an unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses. Issue 633
The RAND Corp. has published a study claiming that “most kids’ menu items offered by the nation’s top 200 restaurant chains exceed the calorie counts recommended by nutrition experts,” according to a December 5, 2016, press release. Relying on the recommendations of 15 child nutrition experts—including Public Health Institute Advisor Lynn Silver and Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity Director Marlene Schwartz—the study authors adopted the following benchmarks: (i) a maximum of 300 calories for the main dishes in children’s meals; (ii) 100 calories for a serving of fried potatoes; (iii) 150 calories for soups, appetizers and snacks; and (iv) 150 calories for vegetables and salads that included added sauces, with the entire meal not to exceed 600 calories. The study singles out fried potatoes as the item “that most often exceeded the calorie guidelines.” As the authors conclude, “Given the high frequency of children dining away from home,…
Three consumers have filed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. alleging the company misrepresents the calorie counts of its food in store menus, boards and advertising. Desmond v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. BC640700 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed November 15, 2016). The complaint asserts that the defendants each relied upon a menu board displaying a photo of a burrito with chorizo and "300 calories" to order what they believed to be a low-calorie option, then realized after eating it that "the burrito couldn't have been just 300 calories." The plaintiffs seek damages and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California's consumer-protection statutes. Issue 624
A New York consumer has filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (BWW) alleging the company misleads vegetarian customers into believing the restaurant chain offers vegetarian fare when certain offerings are actually cooked in beef tallow. Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., No. 8532 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 2, 2016). The complaint asserts that BWW does not disclose its use of beef tallow in its menu descriptions, nutritional information or website, and further, the usage departs from the industry standard of non-beef cooking oil. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees for an alleged violation of New York’s consumer-protection statute and unjust enrichment. Issue 621
A New York appeals court has reportedly vacated a February 2016 order that stayed enforcement of New York City’s regulation requiring chain restaurants with more than 15 locations to post warning icons on menus next to items with more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium. The ruling allows enforcement to begin on June 6, 2016, with violators subject to $200 fines. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) won an emergency stay on February 29, one day before the regulation’s scheduled March 1 enforcement date. Details about the NRA’s lawsuit challenging the regulation appear in Issues 586, 595 and 596 of this Update. See Reuters, May 26, 2016. Issue 606
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued final guidance to help chain establishments with 20 or more locations (e.g., grocery and convenience stores, quick-service and fast-food restaurants, pizza delivery outlets, and movie theaters) comply with menu labeling requirements for standard menu items and self-service offerings under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. According to FDA, the final guidance provides “additional examples and new or revised questions and answers on topics such as covered establishments, alcoholic beverages, catered events, mobile vendors, grab-and-go items, and recordkeeping requirements.” Enforcement of the menu labeling final rule will begin on May 5, 2017. See Federal Register, May 5, 2016. Issue 603
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that two rules requiring calorie information to be listed on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants will not be enforced December 1, 2016, as initially planned, but will instead be delayed until one year after final guidance is issued. The announcement credits the omnibus appropriations bill enacted December 18, 2015, as cause for the delay. The agency is currently reviewing comments about related draft guidance issued in September 2015. See FDA Statement, March 9, 2016. Issue 597
A New York state court has reportedly refused to grant the National Restaurant Association’s request for a preliminary injunction to stall the enforcement of New York City’s new requirement that chain restaurants label menu items containing 2,300 mg of salt or more, which is set to take effect March 1, 2016. Nat’l Restaurant Assoc. v. New York City Dept. of Health, No. 654024/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., New York Cty., order entered February 24, 2016). During the hearing, the court reportedly distinguished the rule from a ban on the ingredient, noting, “It’s not a ban. It’s information. It’s a warning.” Under the rule, chain restaurants must display a logo of a triangle with the image of a salt shaker next to applicable menu items or risk a $200 fine for each infraction. See Bloomberg, February 24, 2016. Issue 595
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) has petitioned a New York state court for a declaratory judgment stating that a New York City regulation requiring restaurants to post warnings on menu items high in sodium is arbitrary and capricious as applied. Nat’l Restaurant Assoc. v. New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 654024/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed December 3, 2015). The complaint compares the regulation to the city’s 2012 attempt to prohibit sales of soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces, alleging that the New York City Board of Health is merely “looking to grab headlines as the purveyor of ‘first in the nation’ health initiatives, notwithstanding that, in truth, its sodium regulation is illogical, unlawful, and more likely to mislead consumers about sodium health than help them.” NRA argues that the regulation, which took effect December 1, 2015, is “riddled with arbitrary exclusions and exemptions that…
