Food Freedom: "Downer" animal treatment, National Meat Association v. Harris

Federal preemption is the legal issue here, but treatment of animals is the reason it matters.  Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, it is illegal to sell meat from animals that were sick or that died other than by slaughter. (Title 21, U.S. Code, sec. 644.)  What this essentially means, is that "downed" animals have to be inspected to determine whether they're sick or just tired before they can be slaughtered and used for food.

The U.S. Supreme Court just heard arguments about a California law that would bar "the purchase, sale and butchering of animals that can’t walk and require[] slaughterhouses under the threat of fines and jail time to immediately kill nonambulatory animals," according to an AP article published in the Washington Post.

The legal issue is whether the federal law preempts this state law, which is stricter.  The case is National Meat Association v. Harris.  The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law on the grounds that it was preempted.  The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction.  The National Meat Association petitioned for cert, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.  So the Supremes just heard arguments this week.

I haven't read all the briefs yet, but I intend to.  Preemption issues are more interesting than they seem at first.  (See my Findlaw article about labeling farmed salmon.) The freedom of a state to make its own laws is really what is at stake, and California has a history of passing laws that go beyond federal legislation.
 Some useful links:

Legal Information Institute summary (an excellent explanation of the issues and the arguments prepared by two law students)
9th Circuit opinion

Petitioner's Brief
Brief for non-state respondents ( several animal rights groups)
Brief for state respondent

Amicus brief: Chamber of Commerce of the United States

Amicus brief: Professors of Preemption (law professors specializing in these kinds of issues)

Amicus brief: swine veterinarians, pork producers, & farmers union (huh? the pig doctors are on the same side as the bacon makers?)

So why are the pig doctors on the same side as the bacon makers?  If downed pigs are euthanized immediately, verterinarians don't get to examine them while they're alive.  The argument is that it is easier to identify infectious diseases in live animals, and this helps veterinarians identify and stop infectious disease outbreaks.  I don't have enough information to know what I think of this argument. 

But I'm pretty sure we should not eat pigs anyway.

Starbucks will sell juice

Starbucks is going to start selling juice.  From the L.A. Times,

"The coffee king on Thursday finalized its $30-million purchase of San Bernardino-based Evolution Fresh Inc., an artisanal fruit and vegetable juice maker created by Jimmy Rosenberg, the founder of Naked Juice.

Starbucks said it would begin offering juices, made with a process called high-pressure pasteurization, from the company in stores." 

Personally, I don't much care.  I've decided to be frugal and only drink coffee and juice that I get out of my refrigerator (OJ from concentrate, for what it's worth, and cold process coffee from wherever).  But I'm curious about "high-pressure pasteurization."  So I looked it up.  Here's a fact sheet from Ohio State University Extension.  High pressure processing, as it suggests, subjects the food to really high pressure -- up to 87,000 pounds per square inch, according to the fact sheet.  And this is more than enough to squish the life out of any bacteria present in the food. 

Of course, it would tend to kill ALL bacteria, and probably squishes cells that are not separate organisms, but since it does not use heat, it doesn't "cook" the food.  The food still seems fresh.  It doesn't work with everything, of course.  from the Ohio State fact sheet:

"At the moment, HPP is being used in the United States, Europe, and Japan on a select variety of high-value foods either to extend shelf life or to improve food safety. Some products that are commercially produced using HPP are cooked ready-to-eat meats, avocado products (guacamole), tomato salsa, applesauce, orange juice, and oysters."

Oysters?

Food Freedom: Is SOY cruel and unusual punishment?

This is not about any particular individual's cooking; I just want to make that clear.  It seems some prisons use too much soy in their cooking for the preferences of some prisoners.  In at least two states, prisoners have sued, arguing that the soy-based meals constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

From Huffington Post:

Florida prisoner Eric Harris, 34, currently serving a life sentence for sexual battery on a child, has filed a lawsuit that claims serving soy-laden meals to inmates is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Harris claims that the meals of processed and blended soy foods "have caused painful gastrointestinal cramping" which threaten the health of Harris' thyroid and immune system.

In a similar case in Illinois, a District judge recently denied summary judgement. From Weston A. Price Foundation, which represents the plaintiffs:

WASHINGTON, DC. October 25, 2011.  Honorable Judge Harold Baker of the United States District Court for the central district of Illinois has ruled that litigation challenging the use of soy foods in Illinois prisons will go forward. In his September 9, 2011 ruling, Judge Baker denied motions by the State and Wexford Health Sources for a summary judgment in their favor, thus bringing the case closer to trial. The ruling emphasized the importance of scientific and medical testimony at the trial. . . .

. . . The lawsuit claims that feeding of soy-laden food constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the Constitution, as well as a denial of plaintiffs’ liberty in violation of their due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. 

I like soy foods.  I often add soynuts to my hot cereal.  My daughter pours soymilk on her cereal or uses it in her chai tea lattes.  And I would never eat an animal.  But the Weston A. Price folks are convinced soy is bad for us, and they're not the only ones.  I haven't done any research on soy, but it is one of the eight allergens that must be labeled under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004.  If it's not cruel and unusual to feed a prisoner yucky food (e.g. nutraloaf), surely it is unacceptable to ignore individual food allergies . . .

Salmonella in dog treats?

The FDA is investigating the extent and types of salmonella in dog treats.  According to a Memorandum, dated October 24, 2011, during 2012 FDA will be collecting samples of dry dog treats -- um, cookies, milk bones, and all those chew sticks Maddie and Teva like so much.  This does not seem to be in response to any recent threat.

Nevertheless, if dog treats are contaminated with salmonella, dogs can get sick and so can their humans.  It's a good reminder to always wash hands after handling dog food (as well as human food).

Hat tip to Food Safety News.  I'm just reposting to get going on this blog.

Still Thirsty for Coke?

William Mitchell College of Law student Dan Johnson prepared this post

The Center for Science in the Public Interest ("CSPI") has petitioned the FDA to ban the "Caramel Coloring in Coke".  Here is their petition: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/caramel-coloring-petition.pdf.

 

CSPI argues that additives that cause cancer have no place in the food supply.  The center breaks down the chemicals in the coloring and cites multiple studies (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/ST_rpts/tox067.pdf), as evidence that the chemicals are cancer causing.  In addition, the State of California stating treats the coloring as a known carcinogen in that state (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/010711_4MEInotice.pdf).  CSPI argues that it is the FDA's job to protect consumers, so the Center believes this is a change that must be made.

 

Armed with all of this information, the Center makes their case for the FDA.

 

Thanks, Dan!

 

Want to get deathly ill at a funeral? Go to Wyoming.

William Mitchell College of Law student, Courtney Marshak, prepared this post.

 

The Wyoming state Senate recently approved House 8 Bill, known as the Traditional Food Act, during its first debate on the floor.  If the Act becomes law, people will be allowed to prepare food for public events without regulations such as packaging, labeling, licensing and inspection requirements.  Currently, those who plan to cook food at home and serve at public events are not exempt from these food safety rules.  If the bill passes, food will be allowed to be cooked at home for traditional events such as funerals, weddings, fundraisers and picnics free of regulation when the food is for families or nonpaying guests.

This sounds like a bad idea and State Senator Fred Emerich, R-Cheyenne, agrees.  Emerich voted against the bill. He recognizes that if a problem developed, it would be difficult to trace a food source without inspections.  Despite the fact that the director of the Cheyenne-Laramie County Health Department did speak against the measure at a recent Senate committee hearing, it appears the bill is likely to pass.  The Traditional Food Act has already passed the House. If the Senate approves it two more times the bill will go to Governor Matt Mead for his signature. 

Food cooked at home should stay at home.  Once the food enters the public arena, the public has the right to expect that the food they consume will be safe, just as they would at a restaurant.  Just because they are not paying for the food doesn’t mean they should be subjected to potentially life threatening hazardous foods.  The government should do what they can to make our food more safe, not less safe.  Wyoming residents, BEWARE.  Potluck food is bad enough without the increased threat of E Coli.

 

Thanks, Courtney!

Cert denied in Tyson Farms case

William Mitchell College of Law student, Phil Zarko, prepared this post.

Recently, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and will not hear a case from a Tennessee poultry producer against Tyson Farms, Inc.  The Supreme Court did not say why they will not hear the case, although the issue was not about whether there were violations, but (according to the Ag Law blog) “whether an injury to competition must be pleaded and proved to establish liability for violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, and also whether courts should have deferred to USDA decisions that a showing of injury is not required.”  Presumably that means that the plaintiff did not or could not show injury.

    In Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., the plaintiff poultry farmer filed an action against the poultry processing firm under the Agricultural Fair Practices Act (AFPA), alleging unlawful interference and discrimination based on his membership in a growers' association, and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), alleging that the firm engaged in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices and subjected him to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit by the District Court, holding that Terry failed to show on injury and therefore lacked standing to bring the case.

Thanks, Phil!