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