FDA

A New Year! a New You!: Update Your Look on Regenerative Healing Law

January 2, 2017
Bioethics, FDA, Health, Patents

Angela Fralish, MJLST Invited Blogger

Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice for the Supreme Court remarked that in this age of science, we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law, because a judge is not a scientist and a courtroom is not a scientific laboratory. Further, our decisions should reflect a proper scientific and technical understanding so that the law can respond to the needs of the public.

Human regenerative healing from embryonic stem cell research has sparked many debates on the public’s needs. On one hand, this research has the ability to relieve great suffering and even death, but on the other hand, it is accompanied by the using and destroying of human life. Moral controversy is a dark cloud looming over any courthouse looking to rule on the science of regenerative healing.

Legislative measures have ebbed and flowed with presidencies. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have used executive orders to either expand or reduce federal funding of regenerative healing. President-Elect Trump’s policy is unknown. According to an NPR article issued in November 2016, “his campaign said little about research and development in general, or health research in particular.” This will be an important point in the near future as a Swedish scientist broke taboo in September of this year by altering healthy human embryos. Further, the NIH plans to lift the ban on regeneration in chimeras in early 2017. As it stands, the federal perspective towards future regenerative healing technology remains unclear.

The most recent executive response has been the Cures Act signed on December 13th of last year by President Obama. Sections 3033-3036 support an expedited FDA review of regenerative therapies and demand an update to regulatory law. Practically speaking, this means that clinical trials will be shortened to get the product on the market faster. While some worry this change will compromise ethics, others worry about the United States ability to keep up with a global market. Dr. Brenda Canine quotes, “If concerted long-term investments in research are not made, America will lose an entire generation of young scientists.”

One established principle in regenerative healing is ownership rights under intellectual property law. Challenges have been made on the grounds that researchers are attempting to patent “life,” but courts have allowed ownership rights to certain cell lines. Dr. Nicholas Zachariades wrote in his article titled Stem Cells: Intellectual Property Issues in Regenerative Medicine that “with respect to the stem cells and their use in the field of regenerative medicine, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has recognized inventions involving stem cells as patent-eligible subject matter.” He cites to Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) where the plaintiff sued WARF for the patent being too broad, but lost because they lacked standing. WARF maintains a valid patent for “in vitro cell culture.”

Keeping up with science will continue to be a challenge. While it is against norms to destroy healthy embryos, there is a pressing need for the U.S. to compete in a global market. Hopefully, researchers, lawyers and politicians will eventually find a way to merge ethical, legal and federal funding policies related to stem cell research and regenerative healing into a solid legal foundation.

Industry Giants Praise FDA Draft Guidance on Companion Diagnostics

October 26, 2016
FDA, Personalized Medicine, Pharmaceuticals

Na An, MJLST Article Editor

In July 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft guidance document titled “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product.” The new draft guidance aims to serve as a “practical guide” and assist sponsors of drugs and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) in developing these two products simultaneously. So far, FDA has received six public comments on the draft guide which are mostly positive, with Illumina calling the document “worth the wait,” and Genentech claiming it “crucial for the advancement of personalized medicine.”

A companion diagnostic includes a medical device, in this case an in vitro device, which provides safety and efficacy information of a corresponding drug or biological product. It is a critical component of precision medicine, the cornerstone of which is the ability to identify and measure biomarkers indicative of the patient’s response to a particular therapy. Approximately, a quarter of new drugs approved over the past two years were a drug-IVD companion. However, the codevelopment process is complicated by the fact that these two products may be developed on different schedules, subject to different regulatory requirements, and reviewed by different center at the FDA. The long-awaited draft guidance was in the works for more than a decade and intended to help sponsors and the FDA reviewers navigate these challenges.

In this draft guidance, FDA reiterates its general policy that IVD devices should receive marketing approval contemporaneously with the authorization of the corresponding therapeutic product. FDA states that “the availability of an IVD with ‘market-ready’ analytical performance characteristics . . . is highly recommended at the time of initiation of clinical trials intended to support approval of the therapeutic product.” FDA also recommends: “Using an analytically validated test is important to protect clinical trial subjects, to be able to interpret trial results when a prototype test is used, and to help to define acceptable performance characteristics for the development of the candidate IVD companion diagnostic.” The new draft guidance provides much more information about the technical and scientific aspects of the development process. For example, the draft guidance details the use of IVD prototype tests for the purpose of testing the drug early in the development, considerations for planning and executing a therapeutic product clinical trial that also includes the investigation of an IVD companion diagnostic, the use of a prospective-retrospective study approach, the use of training and validation sample sets, and the use of a master file for the therapeutic product to provide data in support of the IVD companion diagnostic marketing application.

The draft guidance has received high marks from industry giants. Illumina said the draft “has been a long time coming, eagerly anticipated, but worth the wait.” Yet, the gene sequencing giant also seeks more clarity from FDA on risk assessments and expectations for analytical validation prior to investigational IVD use in trials. “There is an opportunity here for FDA to add clarity on this important decision making process. We suggest this discussion on significant risk versus nonsignificant risk determinations be expanded and put into an appendix with examples. This is a unique opportunity for FDA to help sponsors get this process right,” Illumina says. On a similarly positive note, Genentech called the draft “crucial for the advancement of personalized medicine,” and supplementary to two previous guidance documents on next generation sequencing. In addition, Genentech notes that the scope of this IVD and drug co-development draft guidance “is limited, and therefore it does not address the requirements for development of complementary diagnostics or the challenges of co-development using high-throughput technologies such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) based test panels, which are an increasingly attractive tool for both developers and providers.” AstraZeneca, on the other hand, seeks more clarity on guidance on complementary diagnostics and clarifying between “patient enrichment” and “patient selection” and the resulting considerations on determination of significant risk uses of investigational devices.

We eagerly wait for FDA’s view of these comments and impacts of the guidance on the codevelopment of a drug-IVD companion.

Three’s a Crowd: Identifying the Shifting Parental Rights in Three-Parent Babies

October 3, 2016
Ethics, FDA, New Technology, Regulatory

Daniel Green, MJLST Staffer

Once again, science is spurring the law to adapt in ways it never could have predicted. A baby boy was recently born with genetic material of three different people. Aside from being born slightly premature, the now three-month-old child is very healthy. Even though three-parent techniques have been used before, this child marked the first healthy birth.

Given the obvious religious, safety, and ethical disputes behind such a medical procedure it may seem unclear as to why anyone would want to go through with it. The answer, however, avoids the arguments that the procedure is simply done to “play God” or for polyamorous relationships. The mother underwent the treatment to ensure both the happiness of parents and the health the child.

In this instance, the mother carried genetic defects identified to cause Leigh syndrome. This disorder which affects the brain resulted in the mother having had four pregnancy losses in addition to the death of two previous children at the ages of 8 months and 6 years. Leigh syndrome is caused by defects in a cells mitochondria, and the three-parent treatment was able to bypass the damaged mitochondrial DNA.

The process involves implanting the mother’s DNA into an egg from a donor. The egg has the donor’s main genetic DNA removed prior. The egg is then fertilized with sperm from the father. This process allows the DNA from the mother to pass down virtually unchanged since “mitochondrial DNA makes up less than 1% of the total cellular DNA.” However, small amounts of the donor’s mitochondrial DNA are still left throughout the child’s body.

The treatment was done in Mexico involving a team of fertility specialists from the United States and Great Britain. The procedure took place in Mexico since the treatment used has not yet been approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, but this may not be the case for long due, in part, to recent successes. Another indicator of this possible change is that the treatment has already been approved in Britain.

Given this rapidly changing landscape, the law, in particular regarding parental rights, needs to somehow catch up quickly on an incredibly complex topic. As the donor parent will only be contributing 37 genes out of the total 22,000, it is likely that a donor’s right will be the most contested. Given the precedent already set forth, courts may adopt one of several strategies if and when three-parent babies are no longer barred in the United States.

The donor parent has no legal claims: This would be similar to the mostly commonly accepted view concerning to sperm donors. In most states, if a sperm is donated through a licensed medical professional then the donor loses all legal claims to the child unless the parents are married. It seems logical that the treatment of an egg donor, in a three-parent situation, would be similar given what the term “donor” implies. Great Britain, which has already approved the three-parent treatment, has already adopted a stance similar to this. However, states are in contention regarding of parental rights and even custody of traditional style egg donors. Given the distribution of DNA it may be easier for a court to rule against the egg donor, but this is still very unclear.

The donor parent has an equal claim to the child: California has already passed a version of a three-parent law, but this was mainly for same-sex couples who wish to have the donor on the birth certificate as well. However, the process leaves the door open for unintended parents, such as the donors, to assert claims over a child. In such a case, a court may find that, despite the objections of two parents, the donor has a right to be considered as a parent. Instances of this have already come up in traditional sperm and egg donation. Such conflicts could create a great degree of instability for the life of the child.

The parties agree through a contract prior to the treatment as to what claims exist: The last apparent possibility is that parties may be able to contractually agree what their family is to look like. This would likely create the most amiable way to go about the process, but it is time-consuming and still may run into problems with the existing laws of certain states.

Clearly, there is no solid answer regarding three-parent babies even though three-parent birth certificates are already becoming more common in the United States. It seems like it is only a matter of time before three-parent babies are introduced into the culture as well. This leaves the question as to whether the law will be ready in time so as to hopefully create a circumstance that, whatever the family may look like, is best for the child.

Biosimilar Licensing

April 14, 2016
Biotechnology, FDA, Intellectual Property

Jeff Simon, MJLST Staffer

On February 18^th, Sandoz filed a petition for certiorari appealing to the supreme court to revisit the Federal Circuit’s holding in Amgen v. Sandoz. Prior to Sandoz’s petition for certiorari, the Federal Circuit denied a rehearing of the case en banc back on October 16^th. Sandoz is seeking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s holding that it could not market Zarxio, the biosimilar equivalent of Amgen’s patented biologic Neupogen, until 180 days after Zarxio received FDA approval.

Sandoz will most likely take the stance that the Federal Circuit misinterpreted the BPCIA and particularly 42 U.S.C § 262(l)(8)(A). This paragraph states that a subsection (k) biosimilar applicant seeking approval under the BPCIA shall provide notice of marketing to the reference product sponsor (biologic brand manufacturer) not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the licensed biological product. According to Sandoz, the Federal Circuit incorrectly held that notice shall not be given prior to FDA approval of the biosimilar. The Federal Circuit noted that the statute uses the term “licensed” biologic product, implying that the biosimilar must first obtain FDA licensure before notice of commercial marketing can be given. Sandoz argued that the statute does not require the biosimilar applicant to stay notice until 180 days of licensure, and that such an interpretation would grant the reference product sponsor a six-month extension of exclusivity on the biologic product. Accordingly, Sandoz contends that such an interpretation would result in consequences unintended by the drafters of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, stating that if such was the intention of Congress, the BPCIA would have been drafted to include a fourteen-and-a-half-year exclusivity period. It’s important to note that the Federal Circuit was unanimous regarding its decision on 180-day notice of commercial marketing.

Earlier, Amgen declined to seek a petition of certiorari regarding the Federal Circuit’s holding that the Patent Dance provisions of the BPCIA are not mandatory. However, on March 24, 2016, Amgen asked the Supreme Court to review both portions of the Federal Circuit’s opinion, including its holding regarding the Patent Dance provisions of the Act. Amgen’s cross petition came in response the Sandoz’s petition for certiorari. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the information exchange and patent dispute resolution mechanisms of the BPCIA were not mandatory, and that a subsection (k) applicant may avoid these provisions subject to the consequences contemplated by the BPCIA.

Amgen v. Sandoz was the first case regarding these provisions of the BPCIA as Neupogen was the first marketed biologic to come of patent since the passing of the BPCIA. If the Supreme Court is to review the decision of the Federal Circuit, it may elect to delay until the decision of pending cases such as Amgen v. Apotex. Regardless, the possible grant of certiorari has important implications for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as a looming patent cliff is set for the biologics industry in the next 5 years.

The Threat of Antibiotic Resistance: The Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture and Proposed Regulations to Increase the Involvement of the Food and Drug Agency

February 17, 2016
FDA, Food and Agriculture

Jody Ferris, MJLST Staffer

Antibiotic resistance purportedly caused by the immoderate use of antibiotics in animals raised for human consumption is currently a hot button issue in the news today. It is an issue important to human health and to the food and agriculture industries. In her note, Slowing Antibiotic Resistance by Decreasing Antibiotic Use in Animals, Jennifer Nomura discusses this issue and makes recommendations regarding which government agency should regulate antibiotic use in animals and how it should best be regulated.

According to Nomura, antibiotics that had been used to treat animal diseases are also being utilized for growth purposes. She says that, “it is now common in the United States for farm animals to be fed low doses of antibiotics on a daily basis.” The species in which antibiotic use is most common are pigs and poultry. She states that “[b]ecause farmers have been feeding antibiotics to animals for so many years, animals are becoming resistant to the effects of these drugs.” She also states that it is also possible for the antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals to pass to humans and that, “as humans become resistant to antibiotics, health care for treatable diseases becomes more costly. Antibiotic resistance can lead to hospitalization, longer-term care, and potentially even death.” However, despite the grave risk that antibiotic resistance poses, Nomura states that “no direct connection has been established” between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans. Some studies have showed a causal link between the two.

Over the course of her note, Nomura argues convincingly that the primary authority for the regulation of antibiotic use is the Food and Drug Agency in connection with the United States Department of Agriculture and the Center for Disease Control, along with the World Health Organization and the European Union. She proposes that the Food and Drug agency should enact a full scale ban on the animal use of any antibiotic that is also used in the human population. Her note also suggests that the Food and Drug Agency should then establish a monitoring program to keep an eye out for any threats posed to human health through the continued use of antibiotics that would not be covered by the ban.

One regulation that has since been promulgated by the Food and Drug Agency since Nomura authored her note, is the Veterinary Feed Directive rule. This rule will require agricultural producers to get prescriptions for the animal use of antibiotics “considered important to human health, such as penicillin or sulfa” (see Nikki Work’s article Veterinary Feed Directive Will Impact Whole Livestock Industry, But Many Aren’t Aware of the Regulation at http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/20358154-113/veterinary-feed-directive-will-impact-whole-livestock-industry#). The rule will be fully implemented on Jan. 1, 2017.

While the above regulation does not go so far as Nomura’s proposal to ban all antibiotic use in animals when the medications may also used for human health purposes, it is a step in the direction of increased oversight of antibiotic use by the Food and Drug Agency. It will certainly be interesting to follow future regulations in this area as they appear on the horizon, and how the Veterinary Feed Directive impacts antibiotic use and food production.

Major Medical Institutions Allegedly Failing to Report Clinical Trials

December 16, 2015
Drug Policy, FDA

Jessica Jayasuriya, MJLST Managing Editor

The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 requires that parties responsible for clinical trials submit clinical trial inform to the Director of NIH no later than one year after either the end date or the estimated end date of the trial.

However, several sources are alleging that Stanford University, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of California San Diego, and other major medical research institutions are failing to submit their clinical trial results within the deadline, and sometimes even at all.

The public database created by the legislation was intended to help the public, particularly medical professionals, scientists, and other researchers, to quickly access the latest findings on human testing of drugs, medical devices, and the like.

Institutions’ failure to turn in their results, however, is directly counteracting this legislative purpose. This is particularly concerning because doctors may not be getting critical information including adverse events in drug trials.

Interviews with the offending institutions indicate that the primary reason for these deadline lapses on the institutions’ end is due to being too busy and a lack of funding. Memorial Sloan Kettering, however, specifically stating it submitted some of its reporting in order to finish medical journal articles related to its trials. On top of institution failures to submit, is clear that the NIH is compounding the issue by failing to follow up on clinical trial deadlines.

Experts interviewed by the sources have further expressed concern that pressure from sponsoring drug companies may also be part of the reason why these clinical trials are not coming to light.

Just Not Mayo

December 2, 2015
Competition, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Nolan Hudalla, MJSLT Staffer

In August 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to Hampton Creek Foods, the makers of the popular vegan mayonnaise substitute “Just Mayo.” This letter informed the company that its product had a misleading name and label imagery, because, by FDA regulation, mayonnaise must contain one or more eggs. This opinion by the FDA was in response to a high-profile lawsuit brought against Hampton Creek by Unilever (the makers of Hellmann’s Mayonnaise) and a similar class action filed in Florida state court, both alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. But, in an era of healthier alternatives – a world of Whole Foods, Thanksgiving Tofurky, and even eggless mayo – is the FDA missing the point? Instead of relying on food recipes enshrined in agency regulations from the 1970’s to identify whether an eggless substitute is mayonnaise or not, maybe the FDA needs to modernize its definitions instead.

In an effort to demonstrate just how committed the government is to keeping Just Mayo from poaching the traditional mayo market, consider the American Egg Board’s (AEB) response to Just Mayo. The AEB, a group appointed by the US Department of Agriculture, may have used public funds to conspire against Just Mayo. According to a Guardian article, “the government-backed egg lobby had organized a concerted effort to tackle Hampton Creek, a company described in leaked emails as a ‘major threat’ and ‘crisis’ for the $5.5bn-a-year egg industry.” This investigation led to the resignation of the AEB’s CEO Joanne Ivy. In addition, the FDA sent Just Mayo its warning letter despite an enormous show of popular support against the agency’s policy. Over 112,000 petitioners scrambled to sign a petition started by Food Network star Andrew Zimmern entitled “Stop Bullying Sustainable Food Companies,” to Unilever Chairman Michael Treschow. This public uprising boiled to the point that Unilever voluntarily dropped its initial lawsuit within two days of filing.

Even if the Florida state court suit amounts to nothing, this issue will not be over easy for the FDA. As demonstrated by the petition, consumer preferences are changing, and not just for mayonnaise. Similar battles are being fought over peanut butter, milk, yogurt, and ice cream. Retail sales of vegan products rose by over 6% last year, and 36% of U.S. consumers use milk or meat alternatives. This raises the question of whether it is really worth all of the government’s money and effort to maintain 1970’s ideas of food. Instead of deviling these modern alternatives, maybe the FDA should buy in too. After all, it’s just mayo.

Let’s Talk: The Cold & Flu Season & Personalized Medicine

November 13, 2015
Drug Policy, FDA, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health

Allison Kvien, MJLST Managing Editor

As we approach cold and flu season, it is time we all start thinking about properly taking care of ourselves. Many individual factors have been linked to your heath. A Newsweek article reported that people who get less than 5 hours of sleep a night are 4.5 times as likely to become ill. According to The L.A. Times, an elevated heart rate could mean that a cold is on the way. Finally, an article from Harvard found a link between your popularity and how early in the season you become ill (yes, really—and I guess this explains why I haven’t gotten the flu since I was a kid). While this is all helpful information, it represents only a few factors that contribute to a person’s overall health. Over the years, the practice of medicine has become more accepting of the concept that “one size does not fit all” and that patients may need more personalized medicine.

One interesting development in personalized medicine was ten years ago, in 2005, when FDA approved the first race-specific drug, BiDil. As Dorothy E. Roberts explained in her MJLST article, BiDil, is “a combination drug that relaxes the blood vessels, [and] was authorized to treat heart failure in self-identified black patients.” Many scholars and citizens alike have found the approval of BiDil controversial, for a variety of reasons, legal, political, ethical, and otherwise. It may be, however, simply one more step on the path to personalization of medicine for patients. As Roberts reported, “BiDil increased survival by an astonishing 43 percent. Hospitalizations were reduced by 39 percent.” Roberts’s opinion, however, was that BiDil should have been approved for all heart failure patients, regardless of race because there was no underlying genetic difference in African Americans that the drug relied on for its positive results. The economic results of the BiDil drug may prevent others from going developing race-specific drugs for a while, though; BiDil has been described as a “flop.”

Cold season medicine is normally pretty generic. Think: Airborne, Sudafed, Advil, and cough drops, my favorite of which are the less-than-pleasant tasting Fisherman’s Friends that completely numb your throat—seriously, try them. I think the concept of personalized cold and flu medicine is particularly interesting because our current cold season medicine is normally over-the-counter and generalized. Can you imagine a future where you pick up a cold medicine tailored specifically to your genetic background? Well, it may already be happening. Just two years ago, FDA approved personalized flu vaccines for three groups: the elderly, children, and those with allergies. These personalized vaccines may allow some groups of our population to receive them when they wouldn’t otherwise be able to, or to at least receive them more safely. Specifically for flu vaccines, anyway, this step in personalization may not also reflect increased overall effectiveness in preventing illness. But let’s not give you an excuse to not get your flu vaccine. Go get that flu shot that was made just for you!

Let’s Talk: The Cold & Flu Season & Personalized Medicine

November 13, 2015
Drug Policy, FDA, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health

Allison Kvien, MJLST Managing Editor

As we approach cold and flu season, it is time we all start thinking about properly taking care of ourselves. Many individual factors have been linked to your heath. A Newsweek article reported that people who get less than 5 hours of sleep a night are 4.5 times as likely to become ill. According to The L.A. Times, an elevated heart rate could mean that a cold is on the way. Finally, an article from Harvard found a link between your popularity and how early in the season you become ill (yes, really—and I guess this explains why I haven’t gotten the flu since I was a kid). While this is all helpful information, it represents only a few factors that contribute to a person’s overall health. Over the years, the practice of medicine has become more accepting of the concept that “one size does not fit all” and that patients may need more personalized medicine.

One interesting development in personalized medicine was ten years ago, in 2005, when FDA approved the first race-specific drug, BiDil. As Dorothy E. Roberts explained in her MJLST article, BiDil, is “a combination drug that relaxes the blood vessels, [and] was authorized to treat heart failure in self-identified black patients.” Many scholars and citizens alike have found the approval of BiDil controversial, for a variety of reasons, legal, political, ethical, and otherwise. It may be, however, simply one more step on the path to personalization of medicine for patients. As Roberts reported, “BiDil increased survival by an astonishing 43 percent. Hospitalizations were reduced by 39 percent.” Roberts’s opinion, however, was that BiDil should have been approved for all heart failure patients, regardless of race because there was no underlying genetic difference in African Americans that the drug relied on for its positive results. The economic results of the BiDil drug may prevent others from going developing race-specific drugs for a while, though; BiDil has been described as a “flop.”

Cold season medicine is normally pretty generic. Think: Airborne, Sudafed, Advil, and cough drops, my favorite of which are the less-than-pleasant tasting Fisherman’s Friends that completely numb your throat—seriously, try them. I think the concept of personalized cold and flu medicine is particularly interesting because our current cold season medicine is normally over-the-counter and generalized. Can you imagine a future where you pick up a cold medicine tailored specifically to your genetic background? Well, it may already be happening. Just two years ago, FDA approved personalized flu vaccines for three groups: the elderly, children, and those with allergies. These personalized vaccines may allow some groups of our population to receive them when they wouldn’t otherwise be able to, or to at least receive them more safely. Specifically for flu vaccines, anyway, this step in personalization may not also reflect increased overall effectiveness in preventing illness. But let’s not give you an excuse to not get your flu vaccine. Go get that flu shot that was made just for you!

USDA Heightened Country of Origin Labelling Laws: Good Start, Can Be Tightened

April 25, 2015
FDA, Food and Agriculture

Vinita Banthia, MJLST Staff Member

The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) laws have long been debated and amended in the Unites States. COOL regulation dictates the degree to which a product’s label must indicate which countries were involved in the production of the product. Currently, a product’s countries of origin must be labelled for the all of its ingredients, with the exception of where the product has been processed. These standards apply to food such as meat that had been born and raised in the United States but contains elements that have been produced in other countries like China. Hence, all raw foods and its ingredients must be labelled, including “raw muscle cuts, ground commingled meat, or live imported animals are not excluded.”

However, if meat has been born and raised in the United States, and then shipped to China for processing, then shipped back to the United States for consumption, it does not need to be labelled as being processed in China. Except for locations of processing, meat must be labelled for the countries where the animal lived during its life, and where it was subsequently “raised, slaughtered, butchered, and prepared for sale.” These laws have become increasingly strict since changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) consumer information policies in 2009 and 2013.

The recent Note, Country of Origin Labeling Revisited: Processed Chicken from China and the USDA Processed Foods Exception published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, by Daniel Schueppert highlights the stringent COOL requirements for raw and live foods. The Note discusses the recent change in the USDA funding and regulation policies that allowed the United States to export chicken to China for processing, and then import it back in to the US for commercialization without labelling the meat’s journey. The agricultural industry and grocery stores have been largely opposed to the laws as requiring excessive labelling for non-processed meats. Canada and Mexico have challenged the U.S. COOL laws at the WTO, stating that the COOL requirements for non-processed meat are overly burdensome on Canadian and Mexican beef exporters, thereby creating an unfair advantage for U.S. domestic beef. In October 2014, the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico. Canada has threatened retaliatory actions if the U.S. does not relax its COOL laws.

In contrast, Schueppert argues that some, limited COOL standards should also be applied to meat processed in China. This position supports greater restrictions not only for non-processed and raw foods, but also for processed meats. In addition, Schueppert argues that the current definition of processed foods is too broad and over-inclusive, leading to potential safety concerns in non-processed products. This argument holds more ground that the views of industries and countries unwilling to invest greater resources in ensuring the safety and disclosure of products. The USDA should continue to take measures to ensure that meat products are increasingly safe and well-labelled for consumers.

Contact Information