Thanksgiving in 2014

                                  
Since its inception, Thanksgiving has been about sharing food, family and diplomacy; pass the stuffing, not the stereotypes. But lately, a new feud is brewing...a food fight. Do you see meat in the classic cornucopia image displayed above? Neither do I.
But I like meat. I'm not crazy about turkey actually, but ham, lamb, beef, chicken, I do eat all of those. And of course, I'll eat turkey tomorrow.
But what about my sister who is vegetarian (this week)? Or my dad who is adamantly attached to creamed corn even though we tell him it's not very healthy and terrible for his arteries?
Can we all still enjoy Thanksgiving together? Will food become a taboo subject at the dinner table like politics and religion?
I say, NO! Have a healthy serving of debate, disagreement and diversity this season, try a few new recipes, respectfully preserve some traditional ones, and just keep it coming til you run out of pie (and wine and beer, I would imagine). All that arguing will help burn off some of these excessive calories we've all decided to ingest anyway. Enjoy!
Some helpful suggestions:

Homemade cranberry sauce

homemade creamed corn,

pumpkin pie or

BPA free cans of cranberry sauce, corn and pumpkin

Vegan recipe suggestions for sides/turkey alternative

Safety tips for turkey

Happy Thanksgiving.


Maya Missaghi, William Mitchell College of Law
Photo credit: http://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/cornucopia.html

Vegans in FAVOR of engineered food? Pass the "mayo"

In an ironic twist, a small San Francisco start-up, Hampton Creek, is standing up for engineered mayo and giant corporation Unilever is pushing for the real deal.

As outlined in the L.A. Times, the dispute is about eggs: is that what makes mayonnaise genuine? Unilever is arguing that Hampton Creek is guilty of false advertising since its product "Just Mayo" does not contain any eggs. Ironically, this is the point of the product, since it is meant to be a vegan substitute for egg-based and therefore animal based mayonnaise. 

Hampton Creek CEO Josh Tetrick's position is that he's not disagreeing with the importance of eggs, but says he is absolved of any false advertising claims because his product is simply called "mayo" not "mayonnaise", thereby alerting his customers to the fact that this spread is different to old-fashioned, formal mayonnaise. 

The FDA's definition of mayonnaise does make eggs and integral part of the equation. But is it really deceptive to call a product "mayo" if your target audience is people looking for alternative solutions to traditional recipes? What do they need to call it, "I can't believe it's not mayo"?

Everyone is waiting with bated breath to see how this turns out. Meanwhile, Hampton Creek is getting free advertising and product placements all over the place. Good for them,

Maya Missaghi, William Mitchell College of Law

photo credit: Richard Levine/Corbis; Courtesy of Hampton Creek

Sodas taxed in Berkeley, and yet another reason to move to Hawaii

Tuesday's votes have established that although a soda tax was defeated in San Francisco, it's standing its ground across the bay in Berkeley, One food writer who lives in Berkeley and supports the tax does wonder if it'll have the desired effect of reducing the amount of soda people drink. But it's exciting to see it happening somewhere besides West Virginia. Let's see what happens.

In other news, the Hawaii islands of Maui and Molokai have voted in a moratorium on the use of genetically modified or engineered crops. This means that any genetic modification and engineering operations in the county have to stop until an environmental and public health study is conducted and finds the proposed practice involving GMO's to be safe and harmless. This has big consequences in Hawaii as many large companies love the tropical climate and have been growing crops abundantly there.

Mobile Market Bringing Healthy to Food Desert

Did you know the Twin Cities ranks in the top five in urban “food deserts,” which are geographic areas where affordable and nutritious food is difficult to obtain, particularly for those without access to an automobile?
Leah and Mike Driscoll knew. And to help mitigate the problem, they have created Twin Cities Mobile Market, a grocery store on wheels that brings affordable, healthy food directly into under-resourced neighborhoods. It fills a gap between food shelves and full-service supermarkets by providing a wide selection of fresh foods at below-market prices in areas where access to healthy food is limited.
 The Amherst H. Wilder Foundation helped get the project off the ground, and by the end of October, Mobile Market plans to be serving areas in St. Paul, including Frogtown, the East Side, North End and West Side, with the goal to expand the program into Minneapolis.  The Market will operate from Tuesday through Saturday, with 16 stops initially scheduled.

You can read more about the Mobile Market here

Maya Missaghi, J.D. expected January 2015, William Mitchell College of Law
photo credit: innoveproject.org

California's Anti-Antibiotics Bill a No-Go: Is voluntary goodwill enough?

CA Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the state's bill attempting to ban the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and require a veterinarian prescription for a livestock antibiotic. This would mean that animal producers couldn't introduce antibiotics into their animals' environment in any capacity without a "veterinarty-client-patient relationship"; without it, administering antibiotics would become criminal activity under this bill.

Not too surprisingly, that goal didn't get the governor's approval. And from a constitutional law perspective, it's not hard to see why: there are less restrictive ways to regulate food practices and protect public welfare. As a prime example, the voluntary Federal Drug Administration standard that phases-out antibiotic use for growth promotion is seemingly doing a fairly effective job of encouraging food producers to stop antibiotic use on their own. “This action promotes the judicious use of important antimicrobials, which protects public health and, at the same time, ensures that sick and at-risk animals receive the therapy they need,” says CVM Director Bernadette Dunham, DVM, Ph.D. “We realize that these steps represent changes for veterinarians and animal producers, and we have been working to make this transition as seamless as possible.”

Recently, Perdue and Tyson have taken a first step in making the transition to antibiotic-free food production. But although it is definitely in the right direction, this step needs to be looked at more closely. Both companies announced they were no longer going to use antibiotics used by humans in their chicken hatcheries. This technically means that there is no risk of overexposure on our part to antibiotics we use to get better, which means we won't become prematurely immune to their beneficial effects.
Perdue also does not feed its chickens any antibiotics for growth promotion purposes; the same cannot be said for Tyson yet.

The misleading thing about chicken and antibiotics is that as much as these sorts of actions should be encouraged, they are not as meaningful as they would be in the beef and pork industries. This is because all chicken is “antibiotic-free” in the sense that no antibiotic residues are present in the meat due to the withdrawal periods and other precautions required by the government and observed by the chicken companies, according to the National Chicken Council.

So interestingly, this means that antibiotic use in chickens is primarily an animal welfare issue; humans are not theoretically much at risk due to the withdrawal period. But these companies are changing their policies, since we the consumers are getting more and more grossed out by the thought of the Little Red Hen being injected with antimicrobial drugs just so we can have bigger animals and cheap meat.
When will Bessie the Cow and Percy Pig be as ethically treated across the board?

FSMA Revisions seek to better balance organic and conventional farmer interests

 

The FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rule revisions have gained the Organic Trade Association (OTA)'s approval. The revisions strive to respect organic methods of farming while keeping the goal of increasing contamination prevention as much as possible.

Lydia Zuraw summarized the changes made in her Food Safety News article of September 19th:

"Some of the most technical challenges to implementing the Act involve the produce safety rule. In the new language,
- FDA changes the microbial standard for water that is directly applied during the growing of produce,
-proposes a tiered and more targeted approach to testing each source of untreated water,
-removes the nine-month interval for between application of raw manure and harvest of a crop (deferring a decision on an appropriate interval until it conducts more research),
-eliminates the 45-day minimum application interval for compost, and
-redefines a “farm” so that farms that pack or hold food from neighboring farms won’t be subject to both the produce rule and the preventive controls for human food rules."
 
Taking a closer look at a couple of these, this means compost use is being encouraged (since farmers can apply compost whenever they like and not worry that it's too close to harvesting time) and though raw manure use is not as favored (because, you know, fecal waste and all that), the FDA is clearly making a huge effort to recognize the smelly goodness of "“untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin” and regulate its usage in a rational, respectful way.

The elimination of the nine-month interval between manure application and harvesting makes sense because otherwise organic farmers cannot rotate crops (presumably calling for different growth and harvesting intervals than 9 months) and must fall in line to the conventional routine of planting the same thing in the same spot.

Ironically, the biodiversity that crop rotation encourages can increase crop yield in the long run by improving soil nutrient levels and resistance to erosion, weeds and insects. Presumably this is because no one insect or weed "scavenger" population is allowed to thrive for too long since their meal keeps changing...I just made that up, but maybe?

For the full Act text, click here

Maya Missaghi, J.D. expected January 2015, William Mitchell College of Law
photo credit: http://www.123rf.com/photo_14295589_farmer-works-with-manure-at-farm.html

Tomatoes No Cash Crop

                                     


Tomato growers trying to recoup their massive lost profits from an ultimately inaccurate Salmonella source diagnosis by the FDA lost their case today; food safety warnings were NOT ruled to be government takings and therefore the FDA is not responsible for the dramatic dip in tomato sales in 2008 (due to the FDA's accusation that tomatoes were to blame. It turned out it was peppers.)

As near to impossible as it is to pinpoint the source of food borne illness, today's ruling makes it clear that at least as far as the FDA's work is concerned, people matter more than profits. Today's ruling protects the FDA's legitimate attempts to investigate food borne illness and its origins, as well as squashing any tomato grower's illusions of grandeur.

Maya Missaghi, J.D. expected January 2015, William Mitchell College of Law
photo credit: licensing.pixels.com

Could a label help find E.coli before your stomach does?

 Research is well underway in Alberta, Canada, to develop a "smart label" that can sense the presence of certain bacteria, including infamous E.coli, in a food package, and change color to warn consumers and producers alike.

So suddenly your meat package would turn from blue to white or get all cloudy and you'd know that you've just barely missed ingesting E.coli, Listeria or Salmonella. Cool, huh?
So two small problems: this is being done in Canada, not the States (yet), and the scientists at University of Alberta still need to do more testing, get government approvals and move on from the lab to product manufacturing. But they're on the right track.

Alberta has had a host of food illness outbreaks recently, E.coli and Salmonella carried by pork, sprouts and chia seeds being the latest. We here in the US have had our share of recent food safety failures: children on both the West coast are dying from E.coli infection complications. And the thing is, it's really hard to figure out where it came from. You basically have to let it get really widespread to be able to confirm the source. Great. Good plan.

So the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency decided to give Dominic Sauvageau, a chemical engineer and researcher in biotechnology, and his team of researchers $220,000 to develop a way to improve the situation. "Smart labels" is their hopeful answer. Not only will this alert consumers should contaminated food get that far in the distribution process, but the technology would also allow food processors to identify weak links in their procedures just by seeing the labels change color at a certain point in the process.

“If there’s a sensitive step in food processing, this technology can help identify exactly where is the sensitive part of the process,” Sauvageau said. “The ideal situation is to never get to the point where you need a recall.”

Wouldn't that be nice.

In case you're wondering how to avoid contamination for now and not freak out about eating your meat and vegetables: here is what the Mayo Clinic advises you to do (I'd listen, they seem to know what they're doing, right?).

So hopefully some day soon we'll have not just Canadian coins popping up across the border, but smarter food labels as well, and optimistically far fewer horrendous headlines about children dying from eating their vegetables.

Maya Missaghi, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law
Photo credit: http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1910584-stock-footage-student-medical-technican-working-with-a-microscope-and-test-tubes-in-laboratory.html

Taking News on Sodium with a Grain of Salt

                                 

A recent New England Journal of Medicine study reconfirmed the notion that a diet high in salt increases rates of heart attacks, heart failures and strokes. But "high in salt" was defined as more than 7 grams of sodium a day (just as a reference, our bodies need only about 200 milligrams of sodium a day.) How on earth do people manage to ingest that much sodium?!
Clearly, it's not just from adding more than a generous pinch of salt to their home-cooked meals for taste. As As a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital points out, salt adds up through a variety of food choices, including:

-fast foods (yes, fries)
-“convenience foods” like frozen dinners or snacks
-canned food (except canned fruit)
-condiments such as ketchup and pickles
-cheese
-soup

I'm guessing bacon would count, too.

But does that mean  that most of us need to avoid eating delicious French cheese and French fries? Say it ain't so!

It ain't so. As with most things, moderation is the key and avoiding extremes is the ticket.

The very same New England study that reconfirmed the "lots of salt is bad" result also examined subjects on really low sodium diets (less that 3 grams per day). And guess what. When compared with those who consumed 3-6 grams per day (a moderate amount of sodium), people who consumed less than 3 grams of sodium per day had an even higher risk of death or cardiovascular incidents than those who consumed more than 7 grams per day.

So as usual, let's not freak out and avoid salt entirely; let's also not order supersize fries, either. Instead, let's enjoy our food and strive to make well-educated and rational food choices. Now where's that bacon?


Maya Missaghi, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law
Photo credit: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-pile-of-french-fries-potato-wedges-with-herbs/476147039

D.C. Circuit Court Allows USDA Country of Origin Labels for Meat

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations that mandate country of origin labels on meat. The case arose when a group of trade organizations, including the American Meat Institute, representing collectively "big meat," sued in opposition of the regulations.

The regulations require meat packaging (not including packaged hamburger) to include a label listing the meat's country of origin. The regulations further require that labels list all countries where processing of the meat took place. If, for example, a cow was born in Canada, but raised and processed in the United States, the regulations require the label state "born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United States." Industry opposed the measure, at least in part, because the regulation will force costly changes in the processing stage. Industry practices today allow meats from different countries to mix together during processing. The regulations, thus, make it difficult for industry to maintain business as usual. The court did not find the industry perspective convincing, while also noting increasing consumer demand for more transparency in food production methods. The court also cited food safety concerns regarding co-mingling of meat from different sources as a basis for its decision.

The decision further deals a blow to commercial speech advocates, and provides a win for consumer and public health advocates. In the decision, the court refused to extend commercial speech protection to include industry claims that country of origin labeling infringed freedom of speech.

Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/109091

FDA in No Rush to Heighten Regulations on Antibiotics in Animal Feed

The Second Circuit recently held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have to take action to regulate antibiotics in livestock feed. The decision reverses a lower court decision, which mandated the FDA proceed with hearings to determine whether to withdraw approval of the use of penicillin and tetracyclines as a ingredient in feed. The Second Circuit decision also reversed the lower courts holding that the FDA actions when it denied two petitions demanding hearings on the matter were arbitrary and capricious.

The FDA approved the use of penicillin and tetracyclines, both antibiotics, in animal feed in 1977. Although expressing some concern about the negative impact of that use--especially in regard to the potential impact of its widespread use on creating antibiotic resistant bacteria that could transfer to bacteria affecting humans-- the FDA decided not to take action. Instead, the FDA decided to await further studies.

Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/780707.

Big Gulps are Back in NYC

Court Decision

On June 26, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (that's its highest court) finally released its decision regarding former New York City Mayor Bloomberg's controversial soda ban. The decision puts an end outright to the ban, satisfying some, but the the chagrin of many public health advocates.

The court struck down the soda ban, enacted under the auspices of the rule making authority of the New York Department of Public Health, because the regulation exceeded the health department's regulatory authority. The reason why: the prohibition on soda size constituted lawmaking.

The ban disallowed the serving of sugary drinks in food service establishments in portions exceeding 16 ounces. Of note, the portion size limits did not apply to supermarkets and convenience stores for the simple reason that the health department lacked jurisdiction. 

After determining that the health department lacked authority to enact law, the court held that the soda size restrictions constituted lawmaking, and thus exceeded the authority of the department. The ban attempted "to resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends." Comparing the ban to regulations on tobacco, the court held that because the soda ban required the weighing of purely policy questions, it was a legislative matter. Since legislative matters must be left to legislative bodies, the health department exceeded its authority.

Somewhat ironically, the court used fact that the department attempted to assuage the sugary beverage industry by not enacting an outright ban of all sodas against the health department, concluding that striking such a balance indicated the legislative nature of the regulation.

Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law. 

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/4030

Fast Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity

STUDY

As noted by Edible Progress, a new study connects a child's ability to recognize brands selling processed foods high in fat and sugar (think fast food logos) with that child having a high Body Mass Index (BMI). In other words, children who who can recognize "junk food" brands are more likely to be obese.

To some this might seem like a relatively commonsense connection. Children who eat more fast food know more about that food. Children who eat more fast food also will tend to be more overweight than those who do not. Nevertheless, it is a significant finding in the context of marketing unhealthy food to children. Children are routinely exposed to advertisements for unhealthy food on television and in schools (although the latter might be changing because of new proposed regulations under the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act. The study's findings provide evidence that suggests such exposure could have a real impact on children's health.

The United States has no laws restricting advertisements aimed at children. To some this might seem like a matter of parental responsibility, but it is worth noting that, as of 2007, over 30 countries have laws in place that limit television advertisements aimed at children. According to Consumers International, Brazil recently banned all advertisements aimed at children, deeming them "abusive." (here's the text for those of you who can read Portugese).

Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/156284

The Secret Ingredient is...Wood Pulp?

In the last day or so, The Los Angeles Times, Quartz, and the International Business Times have all noted that many foods, including fast-food items, include wood pulp among their listed ingredients.

According to the L.A Times, among the fast-food items that include wood pulp, or "cellulose," are McDonald's Fish Filets and Taco Bell's Beef  (The information is available on the companies' websites).

The FDA notes that cellulose is not digestible, but nevertheless recognizes many forms of it as "GRAS," or generally recognized as safe.


Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/104063

Fun with Food Labels

 Kim Ode and Rick Sennott of the Minneapolis Star Tribune went grocery shopping with me last week.  Here is Kim's story from the Sunday Variety section:

Grocery shoppers face a growing array of percentages, vitamins, adjectives and health claims up and down the aisles. The information is emblazoned on the packaging if it’s something the producer wants to tout, or in the smallest typeface allowable if the facts aren’t so encouraging. 

Not that some shoppers even care. 

“A lot of people shop only by price and flavor,” said Donna Byrne, a professor of law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul where she teaches food law. She’s not judging, really; for many, price has to be a consideration. 

 Read more 

Of course, I had to go buy five copies for my mother. DMB

Haagen-Dazs Ice-Cream Recall

RECALL

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Nestle USA, owner of Haagen-Dazs ice cream, has issued a recall. The reason for the recall is mismatched packaging. Some containers of ice cream labelled as "Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream" contain "Chocolate Peanut Butter Ice Cream."

The recall notice states that Nestle is recalling 10,000 packages in the Eastern U.S., including in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

A consumer reported the mislabeled product to Nestle.

Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, peanuts are a "major food allergen" and must be included on a product's label.


Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.


Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/#/?q=ice%20cream

EVENT: "Is the GRAS process broken?"

The Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI), a non-profit based in Washington D.C., is hosting a conference: "Is the GRAS process broken?" The event is set for July 23, 2014 in Washington, D.C. FDLI describes the event as a forum for dialogue, where experts"will explore whether there are holes in the system and the efficacy of the GRAS determination procedures."

FDLI is seeking attorneys, regulatory affairs specialists, scientists, public health professionals, academics, and consultants to attend the event.

Teleconference is available.

"GRAS" is an acronym for "generally recognized as safe." The standard applies to FDA approvals of food substances, under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). Food substances that meet the standard are not subject to premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law

Photo Credit: http://morguefile.com/archive/#/?q=tall%20grass&sort=pop&photo_lib=morgueFile

What does "Natural" mean anyway?

The American Agricultural Law Association, on its Ag & Food Law Blog, recently wrote on the topic of "natural" labels on food:

"Consumer Reports National Research Center released a poll revealing that 59 percent of consumers check to see if they are buying “natural” products even though there is 'no federal or third-party verified label for the term....'"

Moreover, Consumer Reports indicated that more than 80 percent of consumers think that the labeling of food as natural should connote that the food is free of artificial ingredients, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms.

So far, the FDA has chosen not to exercise its authority to define "natural."

Consumer Reports is currently seeking signatures for a petition to the FDA requesting that the FDA prohibit the use of the term "natural"on food labels.

Neil Pederson, J.D expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Pom Wonderful v. Coca Cola

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The Supreme Court recently released its decision in Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Co.

Pom Wonderful, which sells an array of pomegranate juices, sued Coca Cola for alleged unfair competition due to false and misleading product descriptions. In short, Pom alleged that Coke's description of one of its "Minute Maid" juices, labelled as "pomegranate blueberry," was false and misleading. The reason: Coke's product contains no more than .3% pomegranate and .2% blueberry, in spite of the prominence of the juices on the label. This, in turn, Pom alleged, results in unfair competition with its own line of pomegranate blueberry juice, which contains higher percentages of pomegranate and blueberry. Pom Wonderful asserted the claim under § 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125), which allows private parties to assert civil claims for unfair competition.

"The Fate of Our Nation Rests On School Lunches"

Famous chef and activist Alice Waters, recently wrote for Time on the topic of the National School Lunch Program. Her main point, that the foods we choose to provide to children through school lunch is an issue central to confronting America's obesity epidemic.

Data compiled by the USDA's Economic Research Service illustrates just how high the stakes are in terms of the nutrition content of meals we provide at our nation's schools. in 2013, Nearly 50 million children were eligible to receive breakfast and lunch under the National School Lunch Program.

Providing meals to children should be recognized as a huge success in terms of feeding hungry children. With the increasing role of the National School Lunch Program in children's lives, however, it is important to also observe that this means that school lunch provides two out of three meals (or all meals for some children) for millions of children each day--much of it fast food.

As Waters notes: "[b]y allowing fast food culture into the cafeteria, we have effectively endorsed that industry’s values [and] helped facilitate the obesity epidemic."

Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/835470

FDA and EPA Issue Draft Advice for Seafood Consumption

The FDA and EPA recently issued draft advice on the recommended weekly consumption of fish and seafood (i.e. shellfish) for pregnant and breastfeeding women, women who might get pregnant, and young children.

The draft advice recommends consumption of 8-12 ounces of fish each week, which amounts to about 2 or 3 servings a week. The draft advice further recommends that individuals consume fish low in mercury, and avoid a handful of fish that are particularly high in mercury. Mercury, found in fish as methylmercury, is a neurotoxin.

The draft advice would update recommendations from 2004 to comport with the USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

According to the draft advice, the four categories of fish that have the highest reported levels of methymercury are: Shark, Tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, Swordfish, and King Mackerel.

To provide a comment to the FDA, click here.

Neil Pederson, J.D. Expected, William Mitchell College of Law

photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/skynoir/6876522468/">Sky Noir</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">cc</a>

Minneapolis bans styrofoam containers

Following cities like San Francisco, the Minneapolis City Council recently enacted a city ordinance that prohibits the use of styrofoam containers at restaurants.

The newly adopted language amends Title 10, Chapter 204 of the Minneapolis City Code, which actually already included a ban on styrofoam containers, but that had not been enforced. The new language updates alternative packaging options to include compostable packaging, and retains previous allowances for use of recyclable plastics, and returnable packaging.

The ordinance prohibits use of styrofoam to-go containers, as well as any other styrofoam containers, such as plates for serving food on site. If a restaurant serves food on recyclable containers on-site, it must include recycling bins; if it serves food on-site on compostable, it must provide bins for compost.

Violations constitute a petty misdemeanor, and are subject to a $50 fine for each day a business remains in violation.

Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmeidinger/2358761/">pmeidinger</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>

Farmer's Markets, SNAP benefits, and the Farm Bill

Farmers' markets provide one avenue for increasing access to healthy foods--especially fruits and vegetables. For instance, instead of shopping at local corner stores that often sell an abundance of junk food, the line of reasoning begins, individuals living in "food deserts"can purchase fruits and vegetables from local farmers' markets. One way to encourage the consumption of healthy foods available at farmers' markets is by providing for the use of SNAP, or "food stamps," at farmer's markets, which many farmer's markets around the country are beginning to do.

According to the L.A. Times, the "market match program" in California, a program that serves SNAP recipients, served over 38,000 families just last year. The program offers an additional incentive to SNAP recipients, providing $5 to those already spending $10 or more at a farmers' market.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642), general known as the 2014 Farm Bill, provides funding and creates programs that support the use of SNAP benefits at Farmer's Markets. Section 4011 of the Farm Bill paves the way for the modernization of SNAP transfers through providing for the development of mobile and internet transfer methods.

Related, Section 4012 opens the door for SNAP recipients to use their benefits to purchase Community -Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares.

"It isn't Club Pig, but . . ."

Cargill is giving pigs more space in response to consumer pressure, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

". . .The sows here at Cargill’s sprawling hog complex mill about in pens, snorting and jostling. Some just flop on the concrete floor to rest. It’s not Club Pig, but at least the ­animals get some room.

The move to group sow housing by Cargill and other U.S. pork firms reflects an important shift in thinking about animal welfare, from consumers to large food ­corporations. Consumers are increasingly interested in how their food is produced — including how animals are treated — while animal rights groups have ratcheted up pressure on the food industry. . . "

Read the rest of the article here:

Consumer pressure leads Cargill to give pigs more room, by Mike Hughlett

California Proposes Warning Labels for Sugary Drinks

The California State Senate passed S.B. 1000, the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, that would require that certain sugary drinks, including soda, include a warning label.  Akin to warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol, the label would state the following:

"STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay." [§ 111224.15(a)].

The warning requirement would apply to "sugar sweetened beverages," which the bill defines as nonalcoholic beverages containing "added caloric sweeteners."  The bill exempts drinks with less than 75 calories, drinks under 12 ounces, and all 100% fruit and vegetable juices, infant formula, dietary aids, and milk-based drinks [§ 111224.10(n)(1)-(2)].

According to a poll  by the Field Research Corporation, 74% of those polled supported requiring beverage companies to post warnings on sugary beverages that they contribute to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.

Fed Up: New Documentary on Obesity and the Food System

Fed up, by Stephanie Soechtig, is a documentary addressing the obesity epidemic in the United States. The documentary lays the blame of high obesity rates squarely on the amount of sugar in Americans' diets and is unapologetically critical of the food industry and government policies that the filmmakers argue are fueling the rise in obesity. "Everything we've been told about food and exercise for the the last thirty years is dead wrong," asserts the website for the film.

Fed Up is in theaters, as of May 9, 2014.  

Post by Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law

National Food Policy Conference April 22 & 23

The Consumer Federation of America presents the National Food Policy Conference each year.  It's an excellent event with great speakers.  Here is a link to the brochure.  There is a special student rate of $45 if you can get there and find lodging.

USDA Making Strides in National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs; Implementing Meal Standards and Proposing Professional Standards for School Nutrition Staff

A recent article on FarmFutures.com detailed new developments in meal standards and professional staff standards that are being implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The USDA has proposed changes to two of its core programs related to the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA).  The HHFKA’s main goal is to improve child nutrition in the US.  It authorizes funding and sets policy for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.  The USDA is proposing new professional standards for school nutrition staff in order to achieve consistent, quality meal standards in these programs that are designed to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.

Janey Thornton, Deputy Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services helps to clarify the goal of the new standards,

"These proposed standards will ensure that all school nutrition professionals meet the same national requirements as they prepare healthy meals served in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs."

In addition to requiring annual training for consistency among school nutrition professionals, the proposed rule will create minimum hiring standards for nutrition professionals and directors of state agencies; and will provide consistent, national standards for nutrition professionals and staff alike.

In order to ensure that the professionals are able to meet the required standards once the proposed requirements are in place, the USDA has worked directly with both school nutrition professionals and has presented information at the School Nutrition Association’s Annual National Conferences for two years running.  

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Julie Rea.

Grocery Manufacturers Association Seeks Federal Legislation against GMO-Labeling Mandates

Here is more information about the possibility of national GMO labeling (also blogged here)

Capital Public Radio reports on food industry lobbying groups that seek to federal legislation making the labeling of GMO foods voluntary, not mandatory, thereby preempting a state’s ability to adopt more rigorous policies related to the labeling of GMO foods.  One of those lobbying groups is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) (whose website offers visitors to “Get the Facts on GMOs” with reference to a  Fact Sheet promoting the benefits of food biotechnology provided by IFIC’s website).  The Capital Public Radio report quotes Louis Finkel (see link for bio), the Executive Vice President for Government Affairs for the GMA who states, “Government mandates a label to convey important information about health, safety and nutrition to consumers.  Any other mandatory label would just be confusing and misleading."

In that report, Finkel also states, “We shouldn’t be making food safety and labeling decisions through political campaigns on a state by state basis.  All Americans deserve to have a uniform system that they can rely on that’s based on sound science and based on our preeminent food safety authority which is FDA.”

But, according to Just Label It (referencing a survey conducted by The Melman Group), support for mandatory labeling of GMOs is nearly unanimous among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  It’s clear that much of the public is interested in knowing whether foods include GMO ingredients or not.  Just Label It also cites consistent surveys by other media sources, such as

•  93% believe GE foods should be labeled (10/10,Thomson Reuters PULSE™ Healthcare Survey, “National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food”)

•  96% believe genetically modified foods should be labeled (6/11, MSNBC)

•  95% of consumers believe GE foods should be labeled (11/08, Consumers Union, “Food-Labeling Poll: 2008,” p. 13)

•  94% believe genetically modified food should be labeled (9/10, Washington Post)

•  93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (6/11, ABC News)

So, while Finkel articulates a need for a uniform system of demonstrating food safety that’s not confusing or misleading to consumers, he seems to disregard that consumers by and large want foods with GMO ingredients to be labeled so that they’re NOT confused at the grocery store.

Finkel, also as a representative of the GMA, expressed opposition to grocery chain Whole Foods’s announcement in March of 2013 giving their suppliers five years to either source non-GMO ingredients or to clearly label products with ingredients containing GMOs.  Finkel’s response was that, “These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk.”  Again, he appears to express an interest in avoiding consumers being misled by such labeling, even though they want such labels.  Here’s a New York Times article covering the Whole Foods announcement and referencing comments either expressing praise (e.g., Just Label It), disapproval (e.g., Finkel’s), or ambivalence (e.g., Karen Batra of BIO, a biotech industry trade group representative) toward the decision by Whole Foods.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student David Gower

National GMO Labeling Standard?

The food world has been abuzz for the past several years in response to the increasing percentage of foods that are genetically modified (GMO).

Despite the fact that almost 90 percent of America’s corn and soybeans are genetically modified, there has been no requirement for companies to state on their label whether their product is GMO. That may change. According to Capital Public Radio, California and other states are now taking the fight for mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods to the federal level. Proponents for the labeling are pushing for a national standard to avoid state-by-state variances and confusion among consumers. Large food companies are trying to get ahead of the congressional game by proposing voluntary food labels. This way, companies could make the decision for themselves whether or not to use the labels as some groups such as Grocery Manufacturers Association fear that mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking that engineered ingredients are unsafe.

So what might mandatory labeling legislation mean for food producers? For one, there is likely to be a push for non-GMO agriculture in response to consumer demands. One example is companies like Whole Foods who now says it shelves more than 3,000 products that are certified non-GMO. And Illinois farmer Lynn Clarkson, who has been in the grain business for 40 years, describes his GMO free practices as a means to support the values his customers have expressed. Clarkson, and other GMO free farmers, are leading the trend in attention to consumer wants, needs, and preferences.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Alison Schmidt.

Sewer sludge -- crop fertilizer

Most people do not know that sewer sludge – anything flushed down their toilet or washed down their drain, enters into the making of their food through fertilizer. According to the Center for Food Safety, 

Beginning in the early 1990s, millions of tons of potentially toxic sewage sludge have been applied to millions of acres of America’s farmland as food crop fertilizer. Selling sewage sludge to farmers for use on cropland has been a favored government program for disposing of the unwanted byproducts from municipal wastewater treatment plants.

This fact – and its disgust factor – makes a good case for opting for organic foods. Organic foods at least require that fertilizer used to grow food comes from livestock instead.  Andrew McGuire of Washington State University explains that the sludge used in organic production is not so wonderful either:

 The USDA organic standards designate manure, whether from organic or non-organic livestock production, as an allowed “organic” fertilizer, presumably because it came from a living organism. This means that, in the U.S., organic farmers are permitted to use manure from non-organic feedlots, chicken houses, pig barns, and fish farms… Most of this manure comes from confined animal feeding operations, which are prohibited under organic standards…The manure is then used on many organic farms where it is often their main source of nitrogen. 

USDA guidance explains that only composted manure can be applied directly to crops.  Raw manure must be used, if at all, 90 to 120 days before crops are planted.   

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Sara Stoltz Eken.

A Medical Study Concludes that Sugar Consumption by US Citizens Increases Risk of Heart Disease

In a report published by the JAMA Internal Medicine organization, a study showed that while consumption of added sugar increased over the 90s to the mid 2000's and then decreased, US adults are still consuming greater than recommended levels of sugar in their diets. While the consumption of sugar certainly adds calories, and increases risk of obesity and diabetes type II, the study examined the link between cardiovascular diseases and sugar consumption, and concluded there is a positive correlation. In an entry on CNN's Health section:

Participants in the study who consumed approximately 17 to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed approximately 8% of calories from added sugar, the study authors concluded. 

This relative risk was more than double for those who consumed 21% or more of calories from added sugar, . . .” 

Dr. Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California of San Francisco's medical school, writes that these new findings “provide physicians and consumers with actionable guidance. Until federal guidelines are forthcoming, physicians may want to caution patients that, to support cardiovascular health, it’s safest to consume less than 15% of their daily calories from added sugar.” 

The article notes that there are no official US government guidelines on adding sugar to products. In fact, the FDA has classified sugar as a 'generally safe' ingredient, meaning manufacturers can add as much as they wish in a product.

This should provide more reason for cutting down on unhealthy foods is one's diet. The article does not mention if or how exercise could mitigate effects from high sugar consumption. The author of the piece, Ben Tinker, notes that fifteen other countries have tried 'sin taxes', raising the costs on sugary products. Dr. Laura Schmidt, states,“‘Sin taxes,’ whether on tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-laden products, are popular because they are easy to enforce and generate revenue, with a well-documented evidence base supporting their effectiveness for lowering consumption."

Unfortunately, there are no related sources explaining why Schmidt is so optimistic about their success. Numerous other sources have indicated that raising prices on tobacco and alcohol has shown no success in reducing consumption. Would a 'sin tax' on sugar be effective? 

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Andrew Wallace.

European “Whole Grain” definition published

According to the February 4, 2014, online journal Food and Nutrition Research, the most comprehensive definition of whole grain has been published. Based on a Science Daily article:

Historically, there's been no complete, legally endorsed definition of whole grain flour and products," explains Jan-Willem van der Kamp, corresponding author of the paper and Senior Officer of International Projects at TNO Food and Nutrition.

The HEALTHGRAIN definition is the next step in reaching a precise, common understanding of what constitutes whole grain in food products -- from breads to pasta to breakfast cereals -- regardless of where they originate, adds van der Kamp.

The need for developing a more comprehensive, detailed whole grain definition was identified during the course of the HEALTHGRAIN EU project, an initiative intended to increase the use of whole grains and their health protecting constituents in food products for improved nutrition and health benefits.

  

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Ye (Lydia) Xu.

Is Organic Milk Healthier?

According to a study reported in the December 10, 2013, New York Times, organic whole milk contains more omega-3 fatty acids than conventional milk.  The research, which was largely funded by Organic Valley, was published in the journal PLOS One.  According to the Times’ article the study represents, “…the most clear-cut instance of an organic food’s offering a nutritional advantage over its conventional counterpart.”   Researchers in the study reviewed 384 samples of organic and conventional whole milk taken over 18 months and found that the organic milk contained 62 percent more omega-3 fatty acids.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Christine Jackson.

When “5-spice donkey meat” is tainted with Fox DNA…

Donkey meat, fox meat, you pick one.

You may pick neither. But for a lot of Chinese foodies, donkey meat is a delicacy. Fox meat? No way. But according to the BBC, a recent recall of a favorite snack “5-spice donkey meat” at Wal-Mart stores in China is bad news for the Wal-Mart customers: the supposedly delicate and yummy donkey meat was found to contain traces of fox DNA.

So how was fox DNA tested in the donkey meat? Wal-Mart says that it voluntarily tests food samples “beyond what is legally required in China.” The increased safety measures have been taken after Wal-Mart was troubled with contamination and mislabeling incidents, including a selling sesame oil and squid with hazardous levels of chemicals in 2012, and mislabeling of regular pork as organic in 2011. 

Food safety has become a very serious issue in China. Wikipedia explains that In 2008, infant formula tainted with melamine had sickened an estimated 300,000 people, including 54,000 hospitalized babies. China surely has food regulations, but they are complex and somewhat ambiguous.  Although the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) is presumably the state agency that oversees and enforces the food polices, there are many other agencies having overlapped duties and functionalities as SFDA. Effectually no single agency is responsible for all food safety regulations and enforcement. The inefficient enforcement of food law can also be attributed to the dilution of responsibilities under China’s multilevel government structure (state, provinces, and counties), implicit regulation-free industry policies, and legal underdeveloped system.

The latest update on the incident: Wal-Mart is reportedly used unlicensed suppliers of the donkey meat in Shandong province of China.  Wal-Mart’s finger-pointing may not effectively relieve it of liability, though. The inspection process, such as to ensure that vendors have all necessary permits including government inspection reports and business licenses, has to be established before a product goes on sale. Wal-Mart uses “special approvals” in China with suppliers it already does business with. Unfortunately, the approval process for suppliers is either governed by a relatively low standard, or no checks of suppliers have ever been involved in the approval process. 

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Dan Li.

Quartz: America’s health craze for fish oil is wiping out the world’s rarest shark

Photo by Zac Wolf / CC BY

An article by Gwynn Guilford, writing for Quartz discusses how the whale shark, an endangered species close to extinction, is being fished by Wenzhou Yueqing Marine Organisms Health Protection Foods Company, a factory in China at the rate of 600 sharks per year. The factory pays up to $31,000 per whale shark, and has a global network of fishing boats that will sell to them. (Source: Wildliferisk.org) Most other countries, including the United States, have banned the fishing of whale sharks. The factory in China exports at least 300 tons a year in oil leached from the livers of whale sharks, blue sharks and basking sharks. This oil is then blended with other ingredients at another location and sold in capsule form in the U.S. and Canada.

Whale sharks help feed the growing market for fish oil used in supplements and cosmetics sold in the US and Canada. “According to the Nutrition Business Journal, fish oil products generated about $1.2 billion in sales in the United States last year, making them among the most popular dietary supplements on the market.” (Source: New York Times Well Blog)

The recent popularity of fish oil supplements is due largely to their reported health benefits: “An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week—salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines—reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent.” (Source: Harvard School of Public Health)

Not all fish oil contains whale shark oil, and the fish oil products from this particular factory are a small proportion of the overall fish oil market. But the whale shark species is still being fished closer to extinction by this factory and other factories to satisfy consumer demand for fish oil.

Post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Michael Storlie

Food Safety News: Proposed Virginia Bill Would Exempt Homes and Small Farms From Food Safety Laws

Virginia House of Delegates member Robert Bell (R-Charlottesville) has proposed new legislation that would exclude all homes and small farms with less than 10 employees from all state food safety laws. Virginia House Bill 135 would require foods produced by exempted homes or farms to label their foods as products produced without state inspection.

According to an article on Food Safety News, "legislative experts say in recent years state lawmakers have made it easier to make and sell so-called cottage foods from home kitchens in as many as 40 states.”  The article goes on to explain that the movement to deregulate the production of “Cottage Foods” has grown over the past decade.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student John Carbone.

House Passes Farm Bill at Last, Senate Expected to Follow Suit

As reported in the New York Times, the House of Representatives passed a farm bill, 251 to 166, ending a two-year period of inaction.  The bill, which received bipartisan support, increases the amount the government pays toward crop insurance, but makes significant cuts to food stamps and direct payment farm subsidies.  From the Times article:

The new farm bill, which had been mired in partisan gridlock, makes fundamental changes to both nutrition and farm programs. It cuts the food stamp program by $8 billion, and about 850,000 households will lose about $90 in monthly benefits under the change.
…
Farm programs were not spared from the cuts in the new bill. The most significant change to farm programs is the elimination of a subsidy known as direct payments. These payments, about $5 billion a year, are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops, and the issue had become politically toxic over the last several years as farm income has risen to record levels.

Some critics of the bill call the cuts to SNAP benefits “draconian,” and the elimination of subsidies illusory, since the bill increases crop insurance benefits to farmers.

The House breakdown by district on the bill is here.

Here’s the bill from the House Committee on Agriculture’s website.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill and president Obama indicated he will sign it into law, as discussed here.

 This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Neil Pederson

Minnesota took over St. Paul’s food establishment inspections, citing “serious error”…Does that really make us safer?

Until recently, St. Paul, along with Minneapolis and a handful of suburban cities, had delegation agreements with the State of Minnesota allowing each city to conduct its own food safety inspections of restaurants. In July 2013, the city lost a court battle to continue the delegation agreement with the state. AMinn Post Story about the court's decision is here. Minnesota is now responsible for inspecting food establishments in St. Paul.

According to Ramsey County’s website, "Food Establishments" are defined in the Ramsey County Food Protection Ordinance (pdf) as restaurants, boarding houses, taverns, cafeterias, delicatessens, snack bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, caterers, clubs, public and private schools, day care centers, and similar establishments where food or beverages are prepared or served for consumption on the premises or immediate consumption off the premises.” This means the state now has many more establishments to inspect.

Ramsey County’s website details a tiered system for inspections; the length of time between inspections is based on the type of establishment being inspected. (for example, a high risk establishment includes “serves foods that require extensive processing on the premises, including manual handling, cooling, reheating, or temporary holding for service; prepares foods several hours or days before service; or serves menu items that are known to be common vehicles of food-borne illness.”) RamseyCounty FAQs are here.

The state revoked its delegation agreement with St. Paul citing “serious errors in inspection reports.” According to the StarTribune, the state told the city to more than double the number of inspections it was doing each month, asking for an increase 8.25 to 25 per month. St. Paul added employees and funding after failing the state’s evaluation of its inspection system. According to a PioneerPress article detailing city action, this apparently did not remedy the problem, and the state decided to step in.

As a resident of St. Paul, and of Minnesota, I am not sure which entity is better equipped to inspect food establishments. I could not find detailed information about the type of errors inspectors made in their reports, but it seems like the answer should hinge at least in part on exactly what the inspectors were missing.

 Local officials probably know the area more thoroughly than state officials. Most likely the city would be better able to build relationships with business owners, who have to deal with the city in other aspects of their businesses.  St. Paul theoretically would be more readily available to respond to concerns due to the smaller number of complaints it would have to respond to.

On the other hand, the state technically is in charge of food inspections; St. Paul and the other communities that have a delegation agreement had the privilege of being trusted to carry out these inspections to the state’s satisfaction. The state sets the standard. The state also is generally better funded, and can retain a greater number of experts in the field. A quick Google search shows that most states implement their own inspection standards and inspections; it appears to be the typical practice. The state may have been correct in revoking the delegation agreement.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Abby Lindekugel.