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