Food and Agriculture

Recalling History With the FDA’s Safety Alerts

April 4, 2017
FDA, Food and Agriculture, Pharmaceuticals

MJLST Guest Blogger, Tommy Tobin

[Editor’s Note: MJLST is pleased to welcome back Tommy Tobin for another series on Food and FDA law. This is #1 of 3 in April. You can find his earlier posts here.]

The FDA’s Safety Alerts for Human Medical Products provide insight on how the agency is protecting the American consumer. For example, through the agency’s online list of alerts, consumers are warned against using suppositories that claim that they can cure cancer. Such alerts harken back to the agency’s origins at the turn of the twentieth century.

While Dr. Harvey Washington Wiley is not a household name to most Americans today, his legacy is felt each day in our households. Dr. Wiley spent decades calling for increased protections for consumer safety. His “Poison Squad” experiments pitted healthy young volunteers against food additives to determine the effects on health. With the passage of federal legislation in 1906, the organization that was to become the FDA was on its way to its modern-day role.

One of Wiley’s remarkably prescient articles was his 1914 co-authored piece “Swindled Getting Slim,” which he wrote after leaving government service. Even at that time, Dr. Wiley found that “the whole list of obesity-cures would strain credulity to the breaking point.” Rallying against fakes, frauds, and fad diets, the piece warned the public about purveyors of weight-loss remedies that presented “simple old-time frauds under new names and new auspices, with marvelous scientific explanations of how they do the work.”

One of the products that Dr. Wiley had in his cross-hairs was the titular “Get Slim.” In his article, Wiley wrote that “Pink lemonade costs five cents a glass at the circus, but when you buy it in the form of ‘Get Slim,’ $1 is the price of a ‘twelve days’ dose.’” Not only was “Get Slim” expensive, it was also dangerous. A 1916 issue of Good Housekeeping updated readers about the story:

In the January, 1914 Good Housekeeping was published an article by Dr. Wiley and Anne Lewis Pierce entitled “Swindled Getting Slim.” In it the true character of several so-called obesity-cures was made plain, among them “Get Slim,” manufactured by Jean Downs, of New York City. The demand for “Get Slim” rapidly fell off, and the manufacturer, convinced that Good Housekeeping had caused it by calling her “cure” a fake, brought suit for $50,000. After various delays…the case was brought to trial…December 15th, 1915. Two days were spent in taking testimony, Jean Downs telling how she made the stuff and several chemists and biologists testifying that, if made as she said she made it, it was more dangerous than Dr. Wiley had said. In his charge to the jury Justice Lehman said that a magazine was within its rights in criticizing a preparation offered to the public and that unless they thought the publication of the article was inspired by malice they must find in favor of the defendant. The jury so found. Thus endeth “Get Slim.”

One of the ways the modern-day FDA carries on the work of Dr. Wiley is to warn the public against dangers lurking in their household products. For example, the FDA has issued numerous Safety Alerts against products with undisclosed drug ingredients—including several weight loss products—in recent years.

“Pink Bikini” and “Shorts on the Beach” were capsules marketed by Texas-based Lucy’s Weight Loss System. These weight loss products were the subject of a nationwide recall in 2016 when the FDA found that their ingredients included several active, undisclosed pharmaceutical ingredients. These included Sibutramine, an appetite suppressant withdrawn from the American market years earlier because it created cardiovascular risks, and Phenolphthalein, a known carcinogen which also had been disallowed due to serious health concerns. In its safety alert, the FDA noted that the offending pills should “not be consumed.”

In 2014 alone, the FDA noted over 35 public notices and recalls for products with undeclared drug ingredients. This is in addition to warnings and recalls related to consumer dangers with bacterial contaminations, glass particles, and other issues with dozens of nutritional, drug, and medical device products.

To date this year, the FDA has warned the public that certain injectable products labeled “latex free” contained latex, which could be life-threatening for those with allergies. In addition, the FDA issued a Safety Alert for certain male sexual enhancement supplements, including one with the name XtraHRD, for containing active drug ingredients. Without proper identification, consumers may take such products without knowing they contained drugs.  As such, consumers are advised not to take these capsules and to return any in their possession to the company for a refund. In considering the danger to the public, the Safety Alert noted “Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. [Erectile dysfunction] is a common problem in men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of products to enhance sexual performance.”

Public health and safety is at the core of the FDA’s mission. The FDA’s modern-day efforts toward this mission honor its roots as well as the work of Dr. Wiley and others.

Ensuring Quality and Avoiding Bad Eggs: Food Executives, Food Safety and Criminal Sanctions

February 22, 2017
Criminal Law, FDA, Food and Agriculture

MJLST Guest Blogger, Tommy Tobin

[Editor’s Note: This post is last and #4 in a series on current FDA issues. You can find the previous post here, here and here.]

Food can—and all too often does—make people sick. Anyone who has suffered from food-borne illness would be unlikely to want to repeat the experience. The safety of our food relies in large part on compliance with food safety protocols. From Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle to today, the processing and manufacturing of food is rife with stories of poor practices leading to public health problems.

Maintaining the safety of the nation’s food supply is an ongoing challenge for regulators and businesses. The FDA requires that food be processed or produced using good manufacturing practices, or else risk food being labeled “adulterated” as it was produced under “unfit” conditions. Producing food in such a way as to avoid being “contaminated with filth” seems like a worthwhile goal.

Ensuring food safety sometimes means throwing away product, but it can be a matter of life and death. For example, Listeria concerns prompted Blue Bell Ice Cream to remove all of its product from store shelves in 2015. Three deaths were reported from the ice cream. In the midst of its food safety issues, Chipotle closed all locations across the US on February 8, 2016 to focus improving food safety protocols.

What happens when individuals upend the delicate balance of food safety? In the wake of several high-profile trials, food executives charged with food safety violations may be walking on eggshells. As Food Safety News put it, “Not so long ago, errant food industry managers and executives did not have to worry about going to jail. But they do now.”

What changed? In part, peanut butter, cantaloupe, and eggs. These products might seem like an unlikely combination, but these foods—or rather some of the companies behind them—demonstrate the “New Normal” in food safety enforcement.

Taking peanut butter first, a nationwide Salmonella outbreak sickened hundreds of Americans and killed nine. Stewart Parnell, the executive behind the Peanut Corporation of America, approved shipments of peanut butter that his company had tested positive for Salmonella and those that were known to be “partially covered in dust and rat crap.” Instead of jettisoning product for public safety, he instead demanded, over email, that “[expletive deleted], just ship it. I can’t afford to loose [sic] another customer.” According to the Washington Post, prosecutors sought a life sentence, but he was ultimately sentenced for 28 years. One man, quoted by the Post, whose mother had died due to the peanut butter said, “As far as I’m concerned, he’s a murderer.”

As for cantaloupe, Eric and Ryan Jensen—two Colorado brothers—pled guilty to six counts arising from their role in a 2011 Listeria outbreak. According to the FDA, the Jensen brothers knew they were putting the public at risk by not sufficiently washing their produce and maintaining the fruit in “unsanitary conditions.” As a result, the deadly cantaloupes were linked to 147 hospitalizations and 33 deaths. You read that right; 33 lives were ended due to contaminated cantaloupe.

With regard to eggs, the DeCosters of Quality Egg, LLC may have presented the courts with the most significant responsible corporate officer liability ruling in over forty years, according to the venerable FDA Law Blog. Jack DeCoster and his son Peter, the owner and COO of the company, respectively, were sentenced to three month’s imprisonment for their part in food safety outbreaks that caused an estimated 56,000 Americans to fall ill.

As noted in the Eighth Circuit opinion upholding the prison sentence, the company pled guilty to bribing a food safety inspector and introducing misbranded and adulterated eggs into interstate commerce. The opinion details the conditions at Quality Egg’s Iowa operations in August 2010:

The FDA inspected the Quality Egg operations in Iowa from August 12–30, 2010. Investigators discovered live and dead rodents and frogs in the laying areas, feed areas, conveyer belts, and outside the buildings. They also found holes in the walls and baseboards of the feed and laying buildings. The investigators discovered that some rodent traps were broken, and others had dead rodents in them. In one building near the laying hens, manure was found piled to the rafters; it had pushed a screen out of the door which allowed rodents into the building. Investigators also observed employees not wearing or changing protective clothing and not cleaning or sanitizing equipment.

The FDA concluded that Quality Egg had failed to comply with its written plans for biosecurity and salmonella prevention. One government expert reported that “there were minimal to no records from the poultry [ ] barns to indicate that company personnel [had] implemented the written plans [to eliminate salmonella].” The agency also discovered that the company’s eggs tested positive for salmonella at a rate of contamination approximately 39 times higher than the current national rate, and that the contamination had spread throughout all of the Quality Egg facilities. In October 2010 the FDA instructed Quality Egg to euthanize every hen, remove the manure, repair its facilities, and disinfect its barns to prevent the risk of another outbreak.

As responsible corporate officers, the DeCosters pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In their plea agreements, they stipulated that they “had not known that the eggs were contaminated at the time of shipment, but stipulated that they were in positions of sufficient authority to detect, prevent, and correct the sale of contaminated eggs had they known about the contamination.”

An important question before the Eighth Circuit panel was the requisite knowledge required for imposing criminal penalties, particularly imprisonment, on responsible corporate officials. In the cantaloupe and peanut butter cases reviewed above, each executive knew of food safety violations, but the record in this case did not reveal that the DeCosters had actual knowledge. The three judge DeCoster panel issued a three-opinion ruling, with the majority advancing a concept of responsible corporate officer liability arising from the FDCA and the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). Under Park, responsible corporate officials were prosecuted under a lower standard than normally used for criminal cases, whether under theories of negligence or strict liability.

The DeCoster majority noted that the FDCA and Park enabled criminal sanctions for responsible corporate officials for their own failure to prevent or remedy the conditions giving rise to the food safety claim. The judges in the majority agreed that vicarious liability was not applicable here, instead it was the executives’ own duty to be aware of, to prevent, and to address potential violations of the FDCA that gave rise to criminal penalties. Writing in concurrence, Judge Gruender reasoned that the DeCosters “are responsible for their own failures to exercise reasonable care to prevent the introduction of adulterated food.” In the absence of actual knowledge, the DeCoster majority ascribed constructive knowledge to the DeCosters in running their operation. They “knew or should have known” of the unsanitary conditions and failed to address or prevent them.

Writing in dissent, Judge Beam reasoned that the DeCoster’s sentence was inappropriate. Judge Beam would reject negligence as an appropriate standard for corporate officer liability under the FDCA, substituting a mens rea requirement similar to that found elsewhere in criminal law. The dissent noted, “there is no precedent that supports imprisonment without establishing some measure of a guilty mind on the part of these two individuals, and none is established in this case” and that “no person associated with Quality Egg had knowledge of salmonella contamination at any relevant time.”

Given the three-opinion decision, the DeCoster case was appealed for an en banc rehearing within the Eighth Circuit, which was denied in September 2016. Petition for certiorari was filed in January 2017, and the case may make it to the Supreme Court.

Public health requires vigilance, especially on the part of those involved with producing and processing the nation’s food supply. The FDA and other food safety regulators work with businesses to maintain public health and safety. Unfortunately, all too often there are bad eggs whose decisions, or lack of awareness, may put the public at risk. Time will tell whether the Supreme Court weighs in on the proper standard for criminal liability for food safety violations in the wake of several recent high-profile cases.

Genetically Modified Foods and the Consumer Quest for Disclosure

February 14, 2017
Biotechnology, Food and Agriculture, Regulatory

Nicholas Ratkowski, MJLST Staffer

In 2000, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology (MJLST) proudly published its first issue, spanning a variety of issues between Patent Protection of Computer Programs to an analysis of the First Amendment through the lens of Jesse Ventura. One Note addressed how genetically modified foods (GMOs) should be labeled, if at all. In the seventeen years since MJLST’s inception, much has changed – how has the landscape of GMO labeling progressed?

In 2000, the principal argument was whether or not GMOs should be specially labeled as such; the author references unexpected concomitant protein allergies and environmental effects as prime concerns. As of 2000, scientists had not identified any negative effects from consuming GMOs. The Note notes different approaches between Europe and the United States, with the former relying on strict disclosure requirements, and the latter ignoring the issue (for the most part). At the time of authorship, “[m]ore than 4,500 GM plants ha[d] been tested, and at least 40 ha[d] passed government reviews” and “as much as 70% of processed foods contain[ed] GM components. The Note “propose[d] that the most appropriate method of resolving the labeling issue involves developing a new, international, voluntary labeling standard for products that have not been developed through genetic engineering techniques or do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.”

Now to the fun part – has anything changed? The short answer is not really. In 2013, Connecticut became the first state to “successfully enact a law requiring food containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such, though it comes with the unusual requirement that four other states must pass similar legislation.” As of 2017, more than 70 bills across 30 states have been proposed in an effort to require labeling of GMOs. Only two states (Vermont and Maine) have joined Connecticut’s lead in forcing disclosure of genetically modified foods. Maine’s disclosure law requires disclosure, but is subject to a litany of exceptions. Vermont’s seems a bit more stringent, but is also easily circumvented. See §3043(d) and §3044 (for example, “Any processed food that would be subject to subsection 3043(a) of this title solely because it includes one or more materials that have been produced with genetic engineering, provided that the genetically engineered materials in the aggregate do not account for more than 0.9 percent of the total weight of the processed food”).

It is perhaps surprising then that GMOs remain mostly invisible to the average consumer in the United States, considering “[m]ore than 70 percent of Americans say they don’t want genetically modified organisms in their food” and “92 percent of Americans want genetically modified foods to be labeled,” according to a 2014 Consumer Reports survey. I’m not smart enough to tell you whether or not eating GMOs has any effect on health, much less whether that effect would be positive or negative. I can, however, posit a theory to explain this paradox, albeit not a novel one – the Pro-GMO lobby is simply too powerful for states to butt heads with in the courts on the taxpayers’ dime. With Monsanto leading the charge, the pro-GMO lobby has spent tens of millions of dollars to fight state-level labeling initiatives. In 2013, lobbyists spent $9,300,000 to prevent GMO disclosure requirements. In just the first quarter of 2014, lobbyist spent another $9,000,000. How can states compete?

If the U.S. ever makes the policy decision to implement widespread labeling requirements for GMOs, doing so will require federal legislation; states have been shown to lack the resources necessary to fight the purveyors of incomplete information that are GMO lobbyists. On the other hand, would labeling have any discernable effect on consumers? Maybe not, but I believe consumers should have the choice to pick what they eat, and how their food is sourced.

Recent Ninth Circuit Ruling an Important One for State and Local Governments Seeking to Regulate Genetically Modified Plants

December 4, 2016
Biotechnology, Food and Agriculture, New Technology, Public Health

Jody Ferris, Note & Comment Editor

Genetically modified plants (GMOs) are and have always been a hot topic in agriculture and food policy.  Since they were first developed, groups have been lobbying at various levels of government to impose regulations on how they are grown or to have them banned outright. A noteworthy decision has come down for those following legal challenges to GMO regulation. In Alika Atay et al. v. County of Maui et al., the Ninth Circuit court in Hawaii has ruled that state and local governments may regulate the production of GMOs in their jurisdictions.

The original suit was filed by GMO proponents after the County of Maui enacted a ban on genetically modified crops.  The court held that federal regulation of GMOs does not preempt state and local regulation after the variety is commercialized. This means that the United States Department of Agriculture holds jurisdiction over all GMO varieties prior to commercialization, which is the period during development and testing before the variety is sold on the market. According to the Ninth Circuit, after the variety is commercialized, however, state and local governments are free to enact regulations, including outright bans of GMO production, without the need to worry about federal preemption.

Interestingly, the county regulations in Hawaii that were at issue in the suit were nonetheless stricken down by the court because the State of Hawaii already has a comprehensive regulatory scheme which the court held to preempt county GMO regulations.  This outcome disappointed local environmental and anti-GMO groups due to their support of the new county level GMO restrictions.  However, the decision will help clarify the respective regulatory responsibilities between individual counties and the State of Hawaii. Despite the disappointment of these groups, the decision that there is no federal preemption on regulation of commercialized GMO varieties is an important one for many of the states in the Ninth Circuit, as there are counties in Washington and California, for example, which have also enacted bans on GMO production.

This decision will likely be an encouraging one for states wishing to enact their own regulations for how GMO varieties are grown and handled.  It is also encouraging for individual counties who wish to enact GMO bans or county level regulations, should state level regulations not be preemptive.  It will certainly be interesting to follow how state and local governments structure any future regulatory activities in light of this ruling.

Food “Hot Off the Printing Press”: Insights Into 3-D Printed Food

October 15, 2016
3-D Printing, Biotechnology, Food and Agriculture

Theodore Harrington, MJLST Managing Editor

Would you food hot off the 3D printing press? In Jaspers Tran’s article, 3-D Printed Food, he explores the potential legal issues surrounding the commercialization of 3D printed food. (see here).

The article suggests that “. . . the 3D printer may become the fundamental daily appliance in every household . . . .” The pros are easy to see—As the demand for food increases at an exponential rate, the ability to create food quickly and avoid the current environmental impacts caused by food production would be a game-changer. The benefits here are fairly obvious and easy to wrap our heads around. However, large barriers still remain.

A tougher point for me to grasp is Tran’s suggestion that 3D printing will solve issues related to malnutrition, particularly over-nutrition, or obesity. Tran seems to leap from personalized nutritional food (tailored to an individual’s exact nutritional needs) to an obesity solution. This reminds me of the old adage, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

Even if 3D printers end up in every household, my gut-feeling is that it will be a very long time before people are accepting of the idea of eating food that was just spit out of a machine (although there is a large amount of processing in today’s food, it goes on behind closed doors. Ignorance is bliss.). As Malcolm Gladwell suggests in his book Blink, the way we taste food is as much psychological as it is physical (see example of declining sales in a pork product when a life-like pig was placed on packaging instead of a cartoon pig).

Something to chew on.

The Large Effect of Food Advertising on Children

April 6, 2016
Food and Agriculture, Public Health

Zach Berger, MJLST Staffer

The goal of advertising is to persuade consumers to purchase the advertised product. Advertising, as a form of commercial speech, is given considerable legal protection. Despite these protections, and with the rise of obesity in the you of America, advertising has become a topic of debate in the past several decades. As discussed in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology article Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity: A Call to Action for Proactive Solutions by Roseann B. Termini, Thomas A. Roberto, and Shelby G. Hostetter, many theorists believe food advertising targets children “who are too young an immature to distinguish advertising puffery from truth.” Children have limited cognitive abilities, and assume the advertised food products are healthy. Without government regulation or parental intervention, these children can maintain these misconceptions and carry the unhealthy habits they developed at a young age into adulthood.

Unfortunately, the percentage of obese children has only gone up since the aforementioned article was written. According to a recent study, 20.5% of twelve to nineteen year olds are considered obese in the U.S., as well as 17.7% of children age six to eleven. As mentioned by Termini et al., food advertising can contribute to childhood obesity in several different ways: Time spent watching TV detracts from time that could be engaged in exercise, food advertisements encourage unhealthy choices, food products partnering with TV/movie characters encourages children to buy unhealthy products, and children snack excessively while watching TV. Although some companies have attempted to self-regulate, these attempts are not always successful.

Termini et al. suggested several solutions to limited the damage done to children by unhealthy food advertisements. These included: banning fast-food advertising on child-targeted TV, regulating food advertisements directed at children as well as the companies that produce them, eliminating tax breaks for food advertising, and increasing parental intervention. One such solution was recently reintroduced with the announcement of the Stop Subsidizing Childhood Obesity Act. This law would amend the tax code by eliminating tax deductions for advertising that is directed at children and which promotes unhealthy food and drink. The revenue this law would bring will go towards funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.” As the name states, this program provides fresh fruit and vegetables to all students at participating schools.

Overwhelming evidence suggests that the programs children watch on TV influences their eating habits. Although some of the onus is on the parents to supervise what their children eat, more consistent regulation of food advertising can help reduce childhood obesity. There is still a long way to go, but we need to be proactive if we want to have any chance of halting childhood obesity in its tracks.

3D Food Printing and Its Legal Complications

February 17, 2016
3-D Printing, Food and Agriculture

Riley Conlin, MJLST Staffer

According to a recent article in Bloomberg, the FDA has recently approved the use of a drug that was 3D printed for the first time. The first drug the FDA approved is Spritam, which was created by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals. The drug is to be administered orally to treat adults and children for epilepsy. The 3D printing process supposedly allows the pill to dissolved quickly, which means it will enable the pill to act faster in the case of an oncoming seizure. When this approval occurred several attorneys voiced concern, because of the intellectual property issues related to 3D printing. First, it would be difficult to determine the manufacturer of the drug, making the assignment of IP rights quite challenging. Second, because it would be difficult to determine the manufacturer, it would also be difficult to identify liable parties in potential litigation.

While there are undoubtedly legal issues related to 3D printing, a forthcoming article in the Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology Symposium argues that the benefits far outweigh potential legal issues that could slow the adoption of 3D technology in the area of food production. Symposium author, Jasper Tran, notes that there are “endless possibilities” associated with 3D food printing. First, the ability to print food has the potential to significantly impact the global food shortage crisis, because healthy food can be mass-produced via 3D printers. He also argues that 3D printing has the potential to reduce environmental harms associated with current food production. However, he does note that there are legal liability issues with 3D printing, including (1) short-term food poisoning on an individual scale or mass scale and (2) long term impacts of food printing. Despite these concerns, Tran argues the legal risks are far outweighed by the potential global benefits of mass-producing food via 3D printers.

As discussed in the Bloomberg article and in Tran’s note, 3D food and drug printing is the future. It is the responsibility of government organizations to take a proactive approach and attempt to enact rules and regulations that anticipate the new legal issues and challenges associated with the process.

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.

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.

Honeybee Protection in the Ninth Circuit

October 13, 2015
Environmental Law, EPA, Food and Agriculture

Ian Blodger, MJLST Note & Comment Editor

In Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. E.P.A., the Ninth Circuit recently took action to protect honeybees from dangerous chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The case is a unique situation because the great deference with which the court reviews the EPA’s pesticide approval decisions means these approvals are rarely overturned.

The EPA has the authority to approve pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA allows the EPA to deny approval for pesticide licensing if doing so would prevent unreasonable adverse effects, including risks to the environment. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). In approving the use of a new pesticide, the EPA may choose to approve the pesticide conditionally or unconditionally. Conditional approval essentially means the EPA has insufficient data to determine the overall effects of the pesticide, and will allow use of the pesticide for a limited time to determine its impacts. Unconditional approval indicates the EPA has sufficient data to know the pesticide’s environmental effects. The court reviews the EPA’s decision to approve a new pesticide “if it is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole” 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b).

This specific case centers around three new pesticides for which Dow Agrosciences sought approval. Each of these pesticides contained sulfoxaflor as its main ingredient. Following testing on individual bees, the EPA concluded sulfaxaflor was highly toxic to bees. After completing additional, though limited studies, the EPA concluded that there would be no way to determine the ultimate impact of the pesticide on the honeybee population unless the pesticide underwent testing under real world conditions. As such the EPA initially proposed to conditionally approve the use of sulfaxaflor pesticides while the agency collected additional data.

The EPA then reconsidered its previous conclusion, and decided to grant unconditional approval to the pesticide so long as certain mitigation measures were put in place. The EPA had no evidence as to the effectiveness of these measures.

Looking to this, the court determined that the record as a whole did not support the EPA’s decision to unconditionally approve the three sulfaxaflor based pesticides. The court’s decision rested on the fact that there was no evidence in the record suggesting the mitigation measures were sufficient to protect honeybees. As a result, the court vacated the EPA’s approval of the pesticides, and remanded the case to the EPA for further studies.

While this outcome does not prevent the EPA from conditionally approving sulfaxaflor, the Ninth Circuit’s analysis will hopefully serve as a reminder to agencies tasked with protecting valuable national resources to take their task seriously.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | My Account