Food and Dietary Supplement Labeling Workshop March 5-6. 2024, Orlando, Florida

The Institute for Food Laws and Regulations (IFLR) is presenting a food and dietary supplement labeling workshop on March 5–6, 2024, at the Hilton DoubleTree Suites, Disney Springs, Lake Buena Vista (Orlando), Florida. 

What you will gain: 

• Insight into the FDA’s labeling regulations, policies, and enforcement priorities  
• Clarity regarding new and proposed rules and how to ensure compliance  
• Become more efficient in designing and reviewing labels 
• Bring this knowledge home to increase your team’s overall knowledge

For more information, visit www.iflr.msu.edu/labeling 

Need some support asking your supervisor to attend the Food and Dietary Supplement Labeling Workshop? We’ve developed this template with helpful talking points about the event and the benefits of your attendance.

Dannon Settles False Ad Suit for $35 Million

Noreen O'Leary reports that the law firm, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, secured a $35 million settlement with Dannon over allegedly misleading ads and labeling of  Activia and DanActive yogurt products. Under the stipulation of settlement, Dannon also agreed to change the way it markets and labels these products.

Now CSGR&R is pursuing a similar complaint against General Mills and its Yoplait Yo-Plus yogurt. The complaint against Yo-Plus alleges, "General Mills has no support for these claims, even though it states that it does, going so far as to claim it has clinical proof. General Mills' representations are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public."

A rep for General Mills, which began to market Yo-Plus in August 2007, said: "As a standing practice, we don't comment on pending litigation."

Noreen O’Leary also wrote, “Junk Science: 'Functional' foods promise good health -- but can they deliver?"

Maryland Bill Would Require Warning for Synthetic Food Colorings

Maryland S.B. 101 would require food manufacturers to place a warning label to foods that contain artificial color. This bill would require that, from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, food products that contain specific color additives include the following warning label:

“Warning: The color additives in this food may cause hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

The labeling requirement also applies to all menus and food advertising notices. Beginning January 1, 2012, the bill prohibits the sale, purchase, use, or selling of food products containing the specified color additives. Violators would be subject to the same penalties as those that apply to adulterated and misbranded foods.

The eight coloring specified in the bill are: FD&C Blue No. 1; FD&C Blue No. 2; FD&C Green No. 3; FD&C Orange B; FD&C Red No. 3; FD&C Red No. 40; FD&C Yellow No. 5; and FD&C Yellow No. 6.

All synthetic food coloring must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Seven of these colorings are fully approved by FDA as safe for use in foods.  FDA restricts the use of Orange B to casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages. (Citrus Red No. 2, which is not included in the bill, is restricted to being used on the skins of oranges not intended for processing.)

In its approval process, the FDA evaluates safety data to ensure that a color additive is safe for its intended purposes. Absolute safety of any substance can never be proven, therefore, FDA’s approval of  colorings and other food additives is made on the best scientific evidence available.  Recent studies (2) have suggested a relationship between artificial colors and hyperactivity in some sensitive children (but not all hyperactive children).  CSPI has petitioned FDA to ban these synthetic colorings.

NYC Menu Calorie Labeling Requirement Upheld

New York City requires all menu boards and menus in chain restaurants with 15 or more establishments nationally to bear calorie content information for each menu item. The New York State Restaurant Association challenged this regulations, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the challenge both on federal preemption and First Amendment grounds.

The appellate court held that the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), “does not regulate nutrition information labeling on restaurant food, and states and localities are free to adopt their own rules. The NLEA, however, does generally regulate nutrition content claims on restaurant foods, and states and localities may only adopt rules that are identical to those provided in the NLEA.”

The court also held the menu labeling requirement does not violate the First Amendment. In support of the purpose of the regulation the court cited in part on FDA’s amicus curiae brief and, “A 2006 FDA-commissioned report concluded that “obesity has become a public health crisis of epidemic proportions.”  The report is The Keystone Forum on Away-from-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity (2006). The Keystone Report also associated obesity with the consumption of high-calorie meals fast-food meals, the apparent link between obesity and frequent dining out, and the potential benefits of providing diners with calorie information. The court concluded that the purpose and the means used to achieve that purpose were reasonable.

Hat tip to Ricardo Carvajal.

Indiana's Menu Labeling Bill

Indiana House Bill No. 1207 would require food  establishments having 20 or more locations in Indiana to post both calorie and carbohydrate information “in a manner that allows consumers to consider the information when selecting an item or unit of food.”  These establishments would also have to make available to customers the amount of calories, fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, fiber, sugars, and protein in each food item.  Violations would be punishable by a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation per day.

Hat tip to Cassandra A. Soltis.

Caution: Eggs contain Egg

“Beware: The daft egg-box warning that contents 'may contain eggs'” reports Helen Dowd in the Mail online (Jan. 24, 2009):

In these health-conscious times food companies are increasingly keen to warn consumers if ingredients may cause allergic reactions.

 But one firm has gone a step further by advising shoppers that its boxes of eggs contain...egg.

 The Happy Egg Company’s six-pack of eggs – which features the company’s name and is decorated with a picture of an egg and a cartoon chicken – contains the message ‘allergy advice: contains egg’ inside the lid of the boxes. . . .

 The firm initially claimed that supermarkets’ strict labelling criteria were to blame for the overzealous warning.

 A spokesman said: ‘Some retailers insist on this information within their packs as part of a due diligence procedure. Any products deemed as potentially allergenic are included in this. A crazy world, but occasionally we have to do silly things to cover ourselves.’

Later The Happy Egg Company  admitted it had chosen to print the advice of its own volition – after the supermarkets involved said they only demand producers comply with the law – adding: ‘We have to state the obvious to cover all eventualities.’

But bizarrely, the company has not printed the warning in its boxes of ten eggs. . . .

The Happy Egg Company is sticking to its story that this labeling was to be precautionary.  However, this “Allergy Advice” is so ridiculously overzealous, I  am guessing that the label reflects its designer's wit. Moreover, this is from the United Kingdom, not the US. So you cannot blame this one on Bill Marler and US tort law. I can almost see this as a Monty Python skit. 

Thanks to Katherine Teodosic for alerting me to this one.

FDA Requires Specific Label Declaration of Cochineal Extract and Carmine

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule that requires food labels to specifically declare the presence of the color additives cochineal extract and carmine in the ingredient statement by their respective common or usual name, “cochineal extract” or “carmine.” Carmine must also be declared when contained in cosmetics.

The FDA is revising its requirements for cochineal extract and carmine in response to reports of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, to cochineal extract-containing food and carmine containing food and cosmetics. This action also responds to a citizen petition submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

The final rule is effective on January 5, 2011, but FDA states that it “will not object to voluntary compliance immediately.”

Hat tip to Ricardo Carvajal.

Proposed Serving Facts Labeling for Alcoholic Beverages

TTB proposes to require Serving Facts labeling on alcoholic beverages which would be similar to this Nutrition Facts labeling. The new rules would requires a statement of alcohol content as well. You can read more at Bevlog, where you can also seen an image of what the new alcohol beverage labels might look like.