Food and Agriculture

Beef (and Residual Hormones?). It’s What’s for Dinner.

November 6, 2022
Agencies, Agriculture, Animal Law, Environment, FDA, Food and Agriculture, Health, Industry, Public Safety

Kira Le, MJLST Staffer

The beef industry in the United States has been using hormones, both natural and synthetic, to increase the size of cattle prior to slaughter for more than a century.^[1] Capsules are implanted under the skin behind a cow’s ear and release specific doses of hormones over a period of time with the goal of increasing the animal’s size more quickly. Because the use of these hormones in the beef industry involves both drug regulation and food safety regulations, both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are responsible for ensuring the safety of the practice and regulating its use.^[2] According to the FDA, “scientific data” is used to establish “acceptable” safe limits for hormones in meat by the time it is consumed.^[3] Agricultural science experts support the fact that the naturally-occurring hormones used in beef production, such as estrogen, are used in amounts much smaller than those that can be found in other common foods, such as eggs and tofu.^[4] However, the debate within the scientific community, and between jurisdictions that allow the sale of hormone-treated beef (such as the United States) and those that have banned its importation (such as the European Union), is still raging on in 2022 and has led to significant distrust in the beef industry by consumers.^[5] With the release of research earlier this year presenting opposing conclusions regarding the safety of the use of synthetic hormones in the beef industry, the FDA has a responsibility to acknowledge evidence suggesting that such practices may be harmful to human health.

Some defend the use of hormones in the beef industry as perfectly safe and, at this point, necessary to sustainably feed a planet on which the demand for meat continues to increase with a growing population. Others, such as the European Union and China, both of which have restricted the importation of beef from cattle implanted with growth-promoting hormones, argue that the practice threatens human health.^[6] For example, a report out of Food Research Collaboration found that a routinely-used hormone in United States beef production posed a significant risk of cancer.^[7] Such a finding is reminiscent of when, in the not-too-distant past, known carcinogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) was used in U.S. cattle production and led to dangerous meat being stocked on grocery store shelves.^[8]

This year, research published in the Journal of Applied Animal Research discussed the effects that residual hormones left in beef and the environment have on human health in the United States.^[9] Approximately 63% of beef cattle in the United States are implanted with hormones, most of which are synthetic.^[10] Despite organizations and agencies such as the FDA assuring consumers that the use of these synthetic hormones in cattle production is safe, the residues that can be left behind may be carcinogenic and/or lead to reproductive or developmental issues in humans.^[11] Furthermore, the National Residue Program (NRP), housed in the USDA, is not only the “only federal effort that routinely examines food animal products for drug residues,” but also only examines tissues not commonly consumed, such as the liver and kidney.^[12] Researchers Quaid and Abdoun offer the example of Zeranol, a genotoxic synthetic hormone used in beef production in the United States that activates estrogen receptors, causing dependent cell proliferation in the mammary glands that may result in breast cancer.^[13] They also noted the problem of residual hormones found in the environment surrounding cattle production locations, which have been found to reduce human male reproductive health and increase the risk of some endocrine cancers.^[14]

Also this year, researchers published an article in the Journal of Animal Science claiming that despite the “growing concern” of the effects of residual hormones on human health, including the earlier onset of puberty in girls and an increase in estrogen-related diseases attributed to the excessive consumption of beef, research shows that cattle treated with hormones, “when given at proper administration levels, do not lead to toxic or harmful levels of hormonal residues in their tissues.”^[15] The researchers concluded that the hormones have no effect on human health and are not the cause of disease.^[16]

Perhaps it is time for the FDA to acknowledge and address the scientific disagreements on the safety of the use of hormones – synthetic hormones, especially – in beef production, as well as reassure consumers that players in the agriculture industry are abiding by safety regulations. Better yet, considering the currentness of the research, the inconsistency of the conclusions, and the seriousness of the issue, formal hearings – held by either the FDA or Congress – may be necessary to rebuild the trust of consumers in the U.S. beef industry.

Notes

[1] Synthetic Hormone Use in Beef and the U.S. Regulatory Dilemma, DES Daughter (Nov. 20, 2016), https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/synthetic-hormone-use-in-beef-and-the-us-regulatory-dilemma/.

[2] Id.

[3] Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals, U.S. Food and Drug Admin (Apr. 13, 2022), https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/steroid-hormone-implants-used-growth-food-producing-animals.

[4] Amanda Blair, Hormones in Beef: Myths vs. Facts, S.D. State Univ. Extension (July 13, 2022), https://extension.sdstate.edu/hormones-beef-myths-vs-facts.

[5] See Julia Calderone, Here’s Why Farmers Inject Hormones Into Beef But Never Into Poultry, Insider (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.businessinsider.com/no-hormones-chicken-poultry-usda-fda-2016-3 (discussing the debate within the scientific community over whether the use of hormones in animals raised for human consumption is a risk to human health).

[6] New Generation of Livestock Drugs Linked to Cancer, Rafter W. Ranch (June 8, 2022), https://rafterwranch.net/livestock-drugs-linked-to-cancer/.

[7] Id.

[8] Synthetic Hormone Use in Beef and the U.S. Regulatory Dilemma, DES Daughter (Nov. 20, 2016), https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/synthetic-hormone-use-in-beef-and-the-us-regulatory-dilemma/.

[9] Mohammed M. Quaid & Khalid A. Abdoun, Safety and Concerns of Hormonal Application in Farm Animal Production: A Review, 50 J. of Applied Animal Rsch. 426 (2022).

[10] Id. at 428.

[11] Id. at 429–30.

[12] Id. at 430.

[13] Id. at 432–33.

[14] Id. at 435.

[15] Holly C. Evans et al., Harnessing the Value of Reproductive Hormones in Cattle Production with Considerations to Animal Welfare and Human Health, 100 J. of Animal Sci. 1, 9 (2022).

[16] Id.

Animal-Product Substitutes – Does It Really Matter What We Call Them?

February 4, 2019
Climate Change, Food and Agriculture

Nick Hankins, MJLST Staffer

Fake meat is getting good, really good. The ImpossibleTM Burger 2.0, developed by Impossible Foods Inc., is a big upgrade from its 1.0 counterpart. The 1.0 has been referred to as a “good replacement for a bad burger” and compared to an “OK Sizzler steak” –not the type of reviews to make turncoats out of meateaters. The 2.0, on the other hand, was hailed as “a triumph of food engineering,” “a burger that could truly wean people off their meat lust,” and (probably most flatteringly) “a well-massaged Kobe ribeye.” Importantly, the latest Impossible Burger has real meat qualities, it can be juicy and red in the middle along with a texture containing small chunks like real beef.

Aside from being an obviously capable meat substitute, the Impossible Burger has the potential to get people to eat less beef and that’s good news because beef isn’t exactly environmentally friendly. In fact, beef is responsible for 41% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions, which account for 14.5% of total global emissions. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that changing our diets (including eating less meat) could contribute 20% of the effort necessary to keep global temperatures from risings 2°C above pre-industrial levels. So switching out regular burgers for ImpossibleTM ones might be one step in the right direction toward fighting global warming.

It turns out that not everyone is on board with meat substitution products, like the Impossible Burger. In February of last year, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture calling for official definitions for the terms “beef” and “meat.” USCA argued, in its petition, that “[c]urrent labeling practices may cause consumer confusion in the market place.” However, it doesn’t look like this petition has gone very far. Unlike the U.S., France actually passed legislation that banned foods based largely on non-animal ingredients from being labeled as if they were. Recently, in response to lab grown meat (meat that is synthetically grown and not a vegetable substitution like the Impossible Burger) Terry Goodin, Indiana General Assembly representative, has put together a bill that aims to ensure that lab grown meat makers do not try to sell synthetic meat as the animal-grown original.

Manufacturers of meat alternatives argue that the ability to name their product after its meat analogue is important for branding their products to provide appropriate expectations to consumers. Names for animal product replacements like Soylent and “aquafaba” (a vegetable based egg replacement) simply don’t have the branding power to be super marketable. Considering that last year United States residents were projected to eat a record amount of meat, we might not want to bar meat alternatives from potential branding strategies just yet. In any case, it might not be worth a 20-year naming-rights battle, like the one currently being waged against dairy replacement products.

FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy: The Right to Remain Silent on Added Sugars

November 5, 2018
Administrative Law, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Christina Petsoulis, MJLST Staffer

As of 2017, obesity rates in the United States reached 38.9%. It is without a doubt that poor diet is a major contributing factor to obesity prevalence. More specifically, diets consisting of convenience foods containing high amounts of added sugar serve as significant exposures leading to obesity and other comorbidities. A recent study reported that sugar was added to 66% of packaged foods.

While the sugar industry is quick to blame lack of physical activity for America’s obesity rates, research is clear that diets high in refined sugar increase the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, fatty liver disease, cognitive decline and some cancers.

Though the linkages between food and obesity have been well established in scientific literature for some time, it is not until now that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has seriously recognized the importance of diet quality in chronic disease prevention.

On March 29, 2018, FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gotlieb, announced the Nutrition Innovation Strategy (NIS). Some of the key elements highlighted in the NIS include: modernizing claims, modernizing ingredient labels, modernizing standards of identity, implementing the nutrition facts label and menu labeling, and reducing sodium. The agency stated that it would be “committed to finding new ways to reduce the burden of chronic disease through improved nutrition.”

Gotlieb’s press release introducing the initiative seems to take a different perspective despite the agency’s intended goal.

In Gotlieb’s statement, he started by explaining the critical importance of a healthy diet in human health. He first introduced the importance of informed consumer choice as it relates to transparent labeling, then dove into the issue of “standards of identity.” Using milk as a key example, he explained that plant-based alternatives to cow’s milk, such as soy and almond-based beverages, labeled as “milk” create major public health concerns, including cases of kwashiorkor (protein deficiency disorder), and rickets (vitamin D deficiency disorder). He then went on to cite a case where a child was diagnosed with rickets as a result of parents assuming a soy-based beverage they fed their child contained the same nutritional qualities as cow’s milk. While the issue of standards of identity is relevant to public health nutrition in the context of protein deficiency and other forms of malnutrition, these issues have little relevance to obesity, or any other chronic disease for that matter.

It is surprising to see that Gotlieb’s press release does not highlight any of the important factors contributing to obesity in light of the initiative’s supposed goals. The worry, of course, is that the FDA is tip-toeing around food-industry players and, namely, the sugar industry in efforts to avoid conflict. The sugar industry is known for its aggressive efforts to shift blame for obesity on poor diet to lack of physical activity and poor consumer choice. For example, it was recently discovered that the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to produce favorable results in their nutrition research on sugar’s role in heart disease.

While FDA has addressed the issue of sugar content through “added sugars” labeling requirements finalized in May 2016, little has been done to address sugar content in packaged foods. Serious efforts need to be taken to reduce sugar content in foods on the market to address the obesity epidemic

The Atlantic Mackerel Plight: Roadblocks to Prevent Overfishing

October 22, 2018
Food and Agriculture, Uncategorized

Yvie Yao, MJLST Staffer

Atlantic mackerel, like sardines and herring, are small forage fish. Not only are they vital prey for seabirds and larger fish like bluefin tuna and cod, but also essential for the survival of ocean wildlife.

Although Atlantic mackerel are resilient to fishing pressure and bycatch risk, scientists announced this year that fishing activities along the coast have added too much pressure to the population of mackerel. That being said, Atlantic mackerel is overfished. On February 28, 2018, the federal government, unsurprisingly, declared that the catching cap for mackerel had been reached and the mackerel fishing season was officially closed for the rest of this year.

To prevent overfishing of a species, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that local fish councils create a rebuilding plan as soon as possible, not to exceed 10 years. Conservative practices endorse setting a shorter rebuilding timeline with lower catch levels so that the species can recover as quickly as possible. Setting longer timelines with higher catch levels is risky. The species might be commercially inviable sooner than the projection and the council is less likely to reach its goal of rebuilding the under-stocked population. Moreover, low stock of the species is likely to negatively impact healthy and sustainable living of its predators in the ocean system.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been effective since it was first passed in 1976. Two amendments in 1996 and 2006 furthered the interest of fishery conservation, requiring local councils to place all overfished stocks on strict rebuilding timelines and mandate hard limits on total catches. These science-based provisions have recovered 44 fish stocks around the country and have generated $208 billion in sales in 2015 for fishermen.

However, this effective ocean fishery conservation law is facing challenges. On July 11, 2018, the House passed H.R. 200: Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. The bill, if it becomes law, would change rules about requirements to rebuild overfished stocks and allow councils to consider changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing communities when establishing annual catch limits.

Recreational fishing and boating industry groups vehemently support this bill. They argue that the proposed changes would give alternatives to local councils to manage fish stocks, save taxpayers money, and modernize the management of recreational fishing.

Environmentalists and commercial fishermen oppose this bill. They argue that the proposed bill would let local councils rehabilitate them as fast as practicable, rather than rebuilding stocks as fast as possible, leading to looser regulation. The bill would also remove annual catch limits for short-lived species and ecosystem-component species, where forage fish including Atlantic Mackerel fall into the category. This backtrack from science-based policy would further delay restocking of forage fish and might even drive some species to commercial extinction.

It is unknown whether H.R. 200 will be passed in the Senate. Another companion bill S.1520, Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017, envisions the same goal as H.R. 200. Will we be able to eat Atlantic Mackerel in the next ten years? The answer is uncertain. Regardless, the vote against such bill is a chance to “affirm that science, sustainability, and conservation guide the management of our ocean fisheries.”

“Juuling”: Gen Z’s Alleged Addiction May Mean Major Legal Problems for E-Cigarette Companies

October 6, 2018
Corporate Ethics, Ethics, Food and Agriculture, Health, Product Liability, Public Health

By: Jack Kall, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Vol. 20 Staffer

With every new week comes new headlines regarding Gen Z and their latest craze. After years of Millennials being cast as the generation responsible for everything wrong in the world, (Business Insider’s list of 19 things Millennials are killing, including everything from homeownership, banks, football, and oil to beer, napkins, cereal, and bars of soap; NPR describing how Millennials are killing Applebee’s; Forbes claiming Millennials might kill home-cooked meals and kitchens) it seems the media has found a new culprit, Gen Z! Gen Z’s supposed addiction to e-cigarettes, specifically to the JUUL brand, is common among the headlines.

Depending on how you define the generation, Gen Z includes anyone born in the years starting with 1995–2000 and ending between 2014–25. Pew Research has yet to name or define the end date of Gen Z, but it defines the “Post-Millennial generation” as those born 1997 and later.

No matter how you define Gen Z, it includes high school students, many of whom are under the legal tobacco consumption age of 18. High schoolers have been a major reason for both the rise of e-cig popularity and for giving JUUL Labs major market share in the e-cig industry. Browse through social media pages popular within the Gen Z community and you’ll inevitably see numerous posts about “Juuling.” However, Gen Z isn’t alone in its supposed obsession with e-cigs, as Leonardo DiCaprio (a member of Gen X) has long been known to appreciate vaping (e.g., 1, 2, 3).

JUUL Labs, which launched in 2015, has been repeatedly investigated for targeting minors through its advertising and sued for targeting teens with false claims of product safety. In 2017, Consumer Reports found that teens who vape are seven times more likely to turn to regular cigarettes. Additionally, the CDC has declared e-cig use among young people a public health concern.

As further research is published, JUUL should expect be the main target of continued legal action. One current case, a nationwide class action with ten named plaintiffs aged above 13, alleges in part that JUUL’s decision to market through social media was aimed at soliciting those under the legal smoking age. Another case, filed on behalf of a high school sophomore, alleges that JUUL is commonplace among his school, including use “on the school bus, in the bathrooms, outside of school and even in class.”

JUUL Labs will hope to continue to have success while under major legal scrutiny for its marketing practices. JUUL, importantly, hopes it can continue to show growth following its impressive financial valuation (most recently raising $1.2 billion in a financing round that valued the company at over $15 billion).

Snortable Chocolate Fails the Smell Test, but What Exactly Is It?

July 13, 2017
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Tommy Tobin, MJLST Guest Blogger

Snorting chocolate does not sound like a good idea. In fact, it sounds downright crazy. Enter the aptly named “Coco Loko.”

As reported by the AP, Coco Loko is a cocktail of cacao powder and common energy-drink ingredients, such as guarana and taurine. Marketed by a company called Legal Lean, the product makes several bold claims and promises, including feelings similar to ecstasy and “a steady rush of euphoric energy that is great for party goers to dance the night away without a crash.” Oddly, that promised effect is juxtaposed with promises of “calm focus” and “natural relaxation.”

Legal Lean advises users to “consume responsibly.” Warnings include the all too familiar boilerplate that product statements have not been evaluated by FDA and that the products are not intended to diagnose or treat any disease. A notable product warning also advises potential customers that Coco Loko is “not recommended for children or pregnant women.” Legal Lean also notes that the product “may impair your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.” It is certainly helpful that the company recognizes that snorting a chocolate concoction up one’s nose may result in health issues and is warning potential consumers accordingly. Self magazine summarized the situation succinctly: “If it sounds like a bad idea to snort what basically amounts to glorified hot chocolate mix, you’re right.”

As the Huffington Post recently put it, “snortable chocolate exists now, for some reason.” The mere fact that this product exists raises myriad questions, not least of which is what the product actually is and how it will be regulated.

According to ABC News, FDA is currently weighing whether the product falls within its jurisdiction and is currently “not prepared to issue a determination regarding whether and how this product is subject to FDA jurisdiction at this time. In reaching that decision, FDA will need to evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use.”

While the intricacies of regulatory classifications are enough to make one crazy, Coco Loko’s regulatory future remains to be seen. As the administrative law bloodhounds at FDA continue their work sniffing out the proper classification for this product, here are some preliminary thoughts.

Is Coco Loko a Food?

Strictly speaking, probably not. The statutory definition of food, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (f), is not tremendously helpful here. The statute’s most applicable definition defines “food” as an article used for food or drink for man or other animals. Snorting something through one’s nose is not generally how most people consume their food or drink, especially as the nose is woefully devoid of taste buds.

Legal Lean may argue that an alternative use of the product is as a hot chocolate mix. Presumably, the Coco Loko powder could be used as a drink when dissolved in hot water. Even so, the company markets the product as “infused raw cacao snuff.”

The product’s marketing as “snuff” is highly suggestive that the company does not consider that the product is meant to be food, given that “snuff” is taken through the nose. Put differently, the company may huff and puff that the product is a “food,” but in the end, the stuff is “snuff” by their own admission.

Is it a Drug?

Possibly. Coco Loko is likely not a “drug” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (g). One applicable definition of “drug” includes items “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.” Such an intention is expressly disclaimed by the makers of Coco Loko.

Another definition of “drug” applies to “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals,” with a carve-out for foods and dietary supplements. Coco Loko does promise a rush of serotonin and endorphins, as well as “increased overall happiness.”

The structure or function claims made by Coco Loko could make it a “drug” if it is found to be neither a food nor dietary supplement. Put another way, the product appears to be an inhaled stimulant, and regulators could plausibly put it in the category of “drug” given the claims the product is making, in the case that the product does not fit in other categories.

Is it a Dietary Supplement?

It depends. Regulators could label Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff). Just as the definition of “food” was quite broad, so too is the statutory definition of “dietary supplements,” which helpfully notes that the term:

“1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:

(A) a vitamin;

(B) a mineral;

(C) an herb or other botanical;

(D) an amino acid;

(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or

(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).”

Given the inclusion of cacao in the product, a colorable claim could be that Coco Loko contains a dietary substance used by man to supplement the diet. That said, is someone actually supplementing their diet by inhaling through their nose? Not being a doctor myself, I can only surmise that the snorted chocolate may have a circuitous path from the nose to one’s stomach—if it ends up there at all.

More on the nose, US News & World Report notes that the product’s label includes B vitamins, ginkgo biloba, blood flow-improving amino acid L-Arginine, as well as energy drink staples guarana and taurine. So, it would seem that Coco Loko would meet the vitamin and amino acid test.

Other aspects of the “dietary supplement” definition in 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff) include that the item must not represent itself for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet. “Dietary supplements” must also be labeled as such. If its labeling does not call it a “dietary supplement,” Coco Loko cannot be a “dietary supplement.” According to Ars Technica, Legal Lean is already marketing Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement.”

Incorporated by reference into the § 321 (ff) definition of “dietary supplements” is the requirement that the product be intended for ingestion under 21 U.S.C. § 350 (c)(1)(B). That section requires products be “intended for ingestion in tablet, capsule, powder, softgel, gelcap, or liquid form.” While Coco Loko is a powder, it is unlikely that it is “ingested” in the typical meaning of that term. The statutory provision also provides an alternative definition for items “not intended for ingestion in such a form” that are otherwise “not represented as conventional food and is not represented for use as a sole item of a meal or of the diet.” Both incorporated definitions are predicated on “ingestion,” and Coco Loko’s method of intake is unlikely to fit the plain meaning of “ingestion.”

By analogy, a suppository also bypasses the mouth when they are taken into the body. Even so, suppositories generally go into one end of the alimentary canal—rather than the sinuses or the lungs. Moreover, neither suppositories nor this inhaled chocolate are “ingested.” No less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition of “ingest” that equates ingestion with the introduction of material into the stomach or mouth.

Coco Loko faces an uphill battle getting a “dietary supplement” label given that is probably not “ingested” or intended for ingestion. According to the FDA Law Blog, “FDA has consistently taken the position that articles not intended for ingestion do not qualify as dietary supplements.” In the end, FDA may find that “ingestion” is distinct from insufflation, or the act of breathing something into the body.

Even if Coco Loko is labeled as a “dietary supplement” and met other aspects of the § 321 (ff) definition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342 (f), could conceivably find that it presents a “significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” While unlikely, the Secretary has the authority to declare a dietary supplement so unsafe that it poses “an imminent hazard to public health or safety.” That said, do not hold your breath for such a declaration—if you do, it’d be harder to inhale the chocolate.

Concluding Thoughts

While the safety and propriety of snorting crystalline chocolate powder through one’s nostrils is up for debate, FDA is hard at work sniffing out the proper regulatory classification of Coco Loko.

My preliminary thought is that Coco Loko might be labeled a “dietary supplement,” given its ingredients. On the other hand, its method of delivery—through the nasal passage—is not one typically seen in dietary supplements and is unlikely to fit the “intended for ingestion” prong of the incorporated statutory definition.

Alternatively, FDA may label the product a “drug,” especially with its “structure or function” claims. Either way, if you think I’m going to go snort chocolate anytime soon—you’re loko.

What’s in That? the Dilemma of Artificial Flavor, Natural Flavor & Artificial Color

April 30, 2017
FDA, Food and Agriculture, Regulatory

Zach Berger, MJLST Executive Editor

By law, most food is required to display nutritional information; if a product bears nutrient content or health messages, it must comply with specific requirements. However, as questioned by J.C. Horvath in volume 13 of MJLST, do these requirements really help consumers? For example, how often do you see “contains artificial flavor” or something similar listed on your groceries? The use of the non-descriptive descriptor phrases such as “artificial flavor,” “natural flavor,” and ‘artificial color” are common on food labels, yet do not help the average consumer. These phrases can substitute for over 3900 different food additives. The difference between artificial and natural flavors is much more technical than meaningful as both contain chemicals. The distinction comes from the source of the chemicals. In reality, there is little difference between the two, as both are made in a laboratory by a trained professional, a “flavorist,” who blends appropriate chemicals together in the right proportions.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does regulate these additives, but once a substance is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) it may be added to anything without further testing for any unexpected chemical interactions with other ingredients. Examples of ingredients that fall under GRAS[1] range from beef tallow, lard, and gelatin to ambergris a “waxy substance generated in the digestive system of and regurgitated by sperm whales” and Lcystine, “a dough conditioner often derived from duck feathers or human hair.” Basically, these non-descriptive descriptors don’t tell the consumer anything useful, so companies allowed to use these stand-ins?

The Food industry is generally reluctant about releasing all of its ingredients in order to prevent competitors from easily replicating their product. However, “the information that would actually be useful to consumers tends to be categorical information. Things such as whether or not the product conflicts with dietary restrictions or contains artificial hormones or genetically engineered products. The goal of food labeling is clarity for the consumer and the use of the non-descriptive descriptor phrases are anything but clear; for the average consumer, they may as well not even be on the packaging. To make labeling more informative, Horvath recommended “FDA-mandated universal allergen warnings and front-of-pack labels to better educate consumers.” Whatever the solution is, it is time to end the use of non-descriptive descriptors.

[1] 21 C.F.R. 182.1–.99

What’s in That? the Dilemma of Artificial Flavor, Natural Flavor & Artificial Color

April 30, 2017
FDA, Food and Agriculture, Regulatory

Zach Berger, MJLST Executive Editor

[1] 21 C.F.R. 182.1–.99

What’s Shaking? Sodium Warnings Upheld in NYC Restaurants

April 18, 2017
FDA, First Amendment, Food and Agriculture, Litigation

MJLST Guest Blogger, Tommy Tobin

[Editor’s Note: This is the last in guest blogger Tommy Tobin’s latest series on Food and FDA law. You can find the earlier posts here and here.]

New York’s intermediate appellate court recently upheld a salt shaker. In the February 10, 2017 decision, the court found that New York City could require chain restaurants to mark certain dishes with a “salt shaker” icon, warning consumers that the food contained considerable amounts of salt.

In June 2015, the City issued notice of its intent to require foodservice establishments to warn diners about high salt menu items. After considering over 90 comments and a public hearing, the city adopted its “Sodium Warning” Rule, effective December 1, 2015. In adopting the Rule, the City noted that cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death in the City and that higher sodium intake was related to increased blood pressure. Further, New York City residents regularly consumed more than the daily recommended amount of sodium and restaurant food was a “primary source” of the salt in New Yorkers’ diets.

The Rule requires chain restaurants—defined as foodservice establishments with 15 or more locations that offered similar menu items—to note food items or meal combinations containing the daily recommended amount of sodium with a specific warning. The warning mandates that a salt shaker icon be placed next to applicable menu items. It also required the following language be displayed at the point of purchase, explaining that the icon “indicates that the sodium (salt) content of this item is higher than the total recommended limit (2300 mg). High sodium intake can increase blood pressure and risk of heart disease and stroke.” The Rule imposes a $200 penalty for non-compliance.

Writing for a unanimous five justice panel, Justice Gesmer ruled against the National Restaurant Association, which had as members more than half the chain restaurants that would be affected by the Rule. The Association challenged the Rule on three grounds, arguing that it violated the separation of powers, was preempted by federal law, and infringed upon its members’ First Amendment rights.

Regarding the separation of powers, the Association argued that City’s health department had exceeded its authority and encroached upon legislative functions in making the Rule. The court was explicit in rejecting the Association’s argument, finding that providing health-related information was the “least intrusive way” to influence citizens’ decision-making. The Rule provided further information to consumers regarding health risks and left it to the diners themselves to decide their dietary choices. The court found that the City has “always regulated” restaurants as necessary to promote public health and did not exceed its authority in adopting this Rule. The court also noted that the same chain restaurants are subject to the City’s calorie content warnings for high-calorie menu items

The Association further argued that the City’s Rule was preempted by federal law, which requires nutrition labeling on grocery store foods. The court rejected this argument as the federal law in question, the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), contained provisions excluding certain warnings and foods from its preemptive effects. Relying on 21 U.S.C. § 343(q) and Second Circuit’s decision in New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 124 (2nd Cir. 2009), the court found that the NLEA permits states and localities to establish nutrition labeling for restaurant foods, provided that they are not identical to federal requirements.

The court also examined the appellant’s First Amendment arguments. The Rule would compel commercial speech by placing the salt warnings on menus. Applying the Second Circuit’s New York Restaurant Association, the court examined this compelled commercial speech requirement under a lenient rational basis test. The court found that City’s intended purpose to improve consumer knowledge of potential health risks of salty foods was reasonable. Moreover, the Rule’s applicability only to chain restaurants was not arbitrary or capricious; instead, it was based on health considerations and to facilitate compliance.

The Rule upheld by the court provides advocates new lessons on how to nudge consumers in making point-of-purchase decisions to promote public health. Given the prevalence of cardiovascular disease across the country, additional jurisdictions may consider adopting provisions similar to the “Sodium Warning” Rule. Time will tell how future salt warnings might shake out.

The case is National Restaurant Association v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene et al., No. 2629, — N.Y.S.3d —- (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 10, 2017).

As Clear as Milk: Misleading Milk Marketing?

April 11, 2017
FDA, Food and Agriculture, Litigation

MJLST Guest Blogger, Tommy Tobin

[Editor’s Note: This is the second in guest blogger Tommy Tobin’s latest series on Food and FDA law. You can find his earlier post here.]

Milk and cookies are one of the quintessential American comfort food combinations. Even so, considerable controversy has arisen out of products being labeled and sold as “milk.” I guess that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

“Milk” has a precise regulatory definition under 21 C.F.R. § 131.110. Inter alia, “milk” is “the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows.” Leave it to the C.F.R. to make food sound delicious.

The Eleventh Circuit recently decided that a “skim milk” product could be sold as such. The Circuit’s March 20, 2017 decision in Ocheesee Creamery LLC v. Putnam examined whether a Florida statute barred the business from labeling its product “skim milk” if it did not contain Vitamin A. The court below had upheld that law, and the dairy appealed claiming infringement of its free speech rights. Using dictionary definitions and common sense, the panel ruled that the dairy’s use of the words “skim milk” to describe its skim milk would not mislead consumers.

As consumers walk around the grocery store, they may see other products labeled “milk.” As the AP declared, “fake milk” is one of America’s latest food fights. In addition to milk from cows, consumers may see products labeled as “milk” that are derived from almonds, soy, coconuts, or rice. Would consumers actually get confused between these “milk” products and cow milk? The Northern District of California said no.

In a 2013 decision in Ang v. Whitewave Foods Co., consumers brought suit asserting, inter alia, that products like “soymilk,” “almond milk,” and “coconut milk” represented fraudulent business practices and false advertising as they did not come from cows. The court found the claim utterly ridiculous, finding that the descriptions accurately described the nature of the products. The opinion reasoned that “it is simply implausible that a reasonable consumer would mistake a product like soymilk or almond milk with dairy milk from a cow. The first words in the products’ names should be obvious enough to even the least discerning of consumers.”

In 2015, the Northern District of California revisited whether “soymilk” would mislead a reasonable consumer. In Gitson v. Trader Joe’s, the federal court examined whether advertising a product as “soymilk” would violate the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The court first examined whether the use of “soymilk” was false or misleading, finding that the “reasonable consumer (indeed, even the least sophisticated consumer) does not think soymilk comes from a cow.” Second, the court analyzed whether “soymilk” ran afoul of the regulatory definition of “milk” discussed above. The court concluded that Trader Joe’s did not attempt to pass off its soymilk as “milk,” that is the soymilk was not purported to come from a cow.

While many might find the courtroom melee over milk to be melodrama, figuring out what’s in a name is more than making a mountain out of a molehill. It may matter to companies’ bottom lines.

From mayonnaise to margarine, food fights over standards of identity are likely to increase given the rate of innovation in the food industry and its creative marketers, according to the Food+Bev Law Blog. As noted there, “what you call a food clearly influences consumers’ opinions and purchasing decisions.” Time will tell how companies and consumers react to evolving identities and innovation throughout the food industry.

1 2 3 4 »

Food and Agriculture

Contact Information