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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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>