NY Calorie Posting Law Upheld

In a decision released today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the constitutionality of New York City’s calorie-posting requirement for certain restaurants. The Court ruled that the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 does not pre-empt the city’s regulation, and it held that the posting requirement does not violate the free speech rights of New York State Restaurant Association members. For the complete ruling: http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/Calorie%20decision.pdf.

Mitigating Liability

I had the pleasure to meet Kenneth Odza last week at the “Who’s Minding the Store?” seminar at Seattle University. Mr. Odza’s specialty is food liability defense law. He publishes a useful blog on this subject, the Food Liability Law Blog. You can subscribe via RSS feeder or email.

A recent blog entry talked about how meat grinding logs can mitigate supermarket liability. In one case, an salmonellosis outbreak was tied to ground beef from a supermarket chain. The meat producer could not be identified largely because the supermarket chain did not keep clear grinding logs. “For no reason other than poor record keeping, the supermarket chain, not the meat producer, bore responsibility for the outbreak (and any resulting liability). . . . Meat grinding logs can be vital tools in defending against and mitigating liability claims attributed to ground beef (especially those related to E. coli, BSE, Salmonella, etc.).”

To Mr. Odza’s advice, I would also add that keeping cooking temperature logs can similarly be vital. I once cleared a grocery store of a salmonellosis case because it had clear cooking temperature logs. Logs also can and should be an important tool for management to ensure that delegated tasks are be carried out by employees.

New FDA Food Labeling Guide

FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has published a new version of “A Food Labeling Guide.” This is an excellent basic guide to food labeling. Most frequently raised questions have been answered in easy to read, question-and-answer format.

The document note: “FDA receives many questions from manufacturers, distributors and importers about the proper labeling of their food products. This guidance is a summary of the required statements that must appear on food labels under these laws and their regulations. To help minimize legal action and delays, it is recommended that manufacturers and importers become fully informed about the applicable laws and regulations before offering foods for distribution in the United States.”

For the complete guide: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/2lg-toc.html. For a complete list of all of FDA’s Food and Cosmetic Guidance Documents: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/guidance.html.

Food Safety Conference at Seattle University Draws Experts from the US and Abroad

Posted on April 7, 2008 by Bill Marler

Seattle University School of Law hosts an in-depth conference titled “Who’s Minding the Store: The Current State of Food Safety and How It Can Be Improved” on April 11th and 12th, 2008. Participants include international, national and local representatives of government, the food industry, consumer organizations, scientists, and the media.

Recent years have seen a plethora of food warnings and recalls, raising new questions about the quality and integrity of our existing system for assuring food safety. Seattle was the epicenter of the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak that sickened 600 and killed four 15 years ago. In addition to explaining how the present system works, this program is intended to discuss how changing consumer preferences are affecting the development and distribution of food, examine whether federal, state and industry oversight roles are changing, and discuss how the regulatory and judicial processes can be most efficiently balanced.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire will present the keynote address. Featured speakers include Dr. Richard Raymond, Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture, and Dr. Patricia Griffin, Chief; Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

In addition, the conference brings together international experts, including Jorgen Schlundt of the World Health Organization, Qiu Yueming of the China National Institute of Standardization, Deon Mahoney of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Chris Griffith of University of Cardiff Wales, and Dr. Canice Nolan, of the EU.

For a detailed agenda and registration, visit:
http://www.law.seattleu.edu/cle/archive/2008/foodsafety.

2007-2008 H. Thomas Austern Memorial Writing Competitions -- Deadline is June 13

The FDLI H. Thomas Austern Memorial Writing Competitions encourage law students interested in the areas of law that affect foods, drugs, devices, cosmetics and biologics. Additionally, winning papers will be considered for publication in the Food and Drug Law Journal. Entrants must be currently enrolled in a J.D. program at any of the nation's law schools. To learn more about the 2007-2008 Writing Competitions, download the brochure.

FARM BILL ACTION ALERT -- IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED

The following Action Alert was sent to National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)Board of Agriculture Assembly and the Councils on Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching and Governmental Affairs. I encourage you to consider adding your voice in concern over funding for the "Research, Teaching, and Extension" Title of the Farm Bill.

Below the Action Alert is a plea to the Farm Bill Conferees that provides additional information that you can may find useful.

ACTION ALERT – HOUSE and SENATE CALLS/EMAILS NEEDED - IMMEDIATELY!

TO: Board on Agriculture Assembly
Council on Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Council on Governmental Affairs

As you know, (see: www.create-21.org/alerts/02-13-2008.htm) the top Farm Bill priority for the land-grant system is mandatory funding for research, extension, and teaching.

Current documents from the House-Senate Farm Bill conference show a $1.244 billion reduction in such funding -- a 75% reduction in the "Research, Teaching, and Extension" Title. No other title in the Farm Bill received such a large percentage reduction.

We need you -- and your researchers, extension personnel, graduate students, and any other parties willing to help -- to immediately call and/or email your senators and representatives. Please urge them to communicate with the Agriculture Committee leadership in their respective chamber. (Senators Harkin and Chambliss or Representatives Peterson and Goodlatte)

WE NEED TO INUNDATE CAPITOL HILL WITH OUR CALLS AND EMAILS!

The message follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear (Senator/Representative):

I am calling/writing to express my strong concern with regard to the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill.

While it is encouraging to hear of progress being made which would bring the conference to a conclusion, I am distressed by indications that existing mandatory "Research Title" funding for land-grant research, extension, and teaching will be all but wiped out.

Over the past many years, I have heard senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle talk about the need for more funding, not less.

Additional university funding is absolutely necessary to combat the growing problem of obesity; to find new conservation techniques for preserving soil and water; to develop methods to provide more plant and animal production at less cost (to the farmer, the consumer, and the environment); and to find ways to feed our citizens and people in the rest of the world.

The most recent conference documents indicate a reduction of $1.244 billion from the Research Title — a cut of over 75%!

This would appear to be the largest percentage cut from the baseline of any title in the Farm Bill. And, it would be far below what either House or Senate Bills contained when originally passed.

We recognize that difficult decisions lie before the conferees. But these massive cuts to the Research Title are inconsistent with the increase in overall Farm Bill spending and are disproportionate to that being contemplated in other titles of the bill (such as trade and crop insurance).
The challenges facing rural America and the nation’s nutrition-challenged populations have never been greater — and neither have the opportunities to meet these challenges. We cannot address these and other problems without an enhanced investment in land-grant research, extension, and teaching.

The best opportunity to do that is in this Farm Bill.

Please do not let the outcome of this Farm Bill be the destruction of existing Research Title funding. If you cannot find ways to enhance funding, I urge you to at least protect the current land-grant funding baseline.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a tremendous stake for the land-grant system in a positive outcome. We need you and all of your faculty, staff, graduate students, and outside supporters to make these calls and emails!

Thanks, as always, for your assistance.

PLEA TO FARM BILL CONFEREES:

DO NOT KILL THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BASELINE

Based on limited available information, we are of the understanding that the tentative agreements reached by House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff on the Research Title of the Farm Bill will, if ratified by the Conferees, result in three significant fiscal impacts regarding agricultural research:

1. It eliminates current law Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) funding – a net loss in the Farm Bill of $1.6 billion in budget authority ($1.244 billion in budget outlays)
2. It creates two or three new targeted mandatory research programs for specialty crops, organics, and energy. No figures are available but the total is approximately $200 million over five years.
3. It terminates these targeted programs in 2012. This will result in ZERO dollars in the Committee baseline for agricultural research in FY 2012 and the future.

This course of action would be a huge step backwards for the federal commitment to agriculture, nutrition, energy and related research – with permanent negative repercussions far beyond the five year life of the Farm Bill.

• REPEALS MORE THAN $1.2 BILLION (OUTLAYS) IN MANDATORY AG RESEARCH FUNDING: The tentative agreement would abandon funding for the IFAFS program provided in current law in the amount of $200 million per year for eight fiscal years (2010 through 2017). This would repeal $1.6 BILLION in mandatory research budget authority (and $1.244 Billion in outlays) over the 10 year budget baseline of the bill.


• TARGETED RESEARCH FUNDS ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE: While the tentative agreement reportedly includes some mandatory funding targeted to specialty crops, organics, and renewable energy, the total amount of new mandatory research funds made available are more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN CURRENT LAW.
  
  


• KILLS LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO AG RESEARCH BY REPEALING PERMANENT LAW BUDGET BASELINE: Not only does the tentative agreement specifically terminate IFAFS funds beginning immediately, it would eliminate the new, targeted funds in FY 2012. This means that the budget baseline for all of these agriculture research priorities will be ZERO when the next Farm Bill is written in 2012. Specialty crops research baseline = ZERO. Renewable energy research baseline = ZERO. Organics research baseline = ZERO. IFAFS research baseline = ZERO. This would reverse more than 10 years of effort in building the budget baseline for agricultural, nutrition, renewable energy, and related research.

HOW YOU CAN HELP!

PRESERVE THE BUDGET BASELINE FOR MANDATORY AGRICULTURE RESEARCH FUNDING BY:

1. PROVIDING MANDATORY FUNDS THROUGH FY 2012. DO NOT MAKE BASE FUNDING “SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS” IN THE FARM BILL.

2. MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR IFAFS AT THE HIGHEST AMOUNT POSSIBLE—ESPECIALLY IN FY 2012.

Aspartame safety study

Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2008) 62, 451–462; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866; published online 8 August 2007 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html

This study explored the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain.  Aspartame and its breakdown compounds may disturb the brain concentrations of catecholamines.

 

Lapses in FDA's inspections for fresh spinach safety

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Oversight and Government Reform Committee has released a report from finding significant lapses in the FDA’s current inspection regime for packaged fresh spinach: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080312103036.pdf.

"Humane Society Sues USDA over mad-cow safety rules"

“Humane Society Sues USDA over mad-cow safety rules”

Ilan Brat et al., Wall Street Journal (Feb. 28, 2008) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120416641582098803.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (subscription required)

The Humane Society filed suit last week against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over a purported loophole in regulations meant to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Under USDA regulations, “downer cattle” that cannot stand or walk on their own are generally prohibited from entering the human food supply because inability to walk is a symptom of BSE. But in July 2007, USDA issued a regulatory exception to that rule, allowing federal veterinarians to determine case-by-case whether to permit non-ambulatory cattle that become injured following an initial inspection.

“It’s an inconsistent policy in the sense that the timing of the animal going down is irrelevant in terms of the food-safety or animal-health issues,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society. USDA declined comment on the pending litigation. According to Ron DeHaven, chief executive of the American Veterinary Medical Association and former administrator of animal testing at USDA, three main safeguards protect humans from eating BSE-infected meat, which can lead to a fatal brain affliction. First, hundreds of thousands of high risk cattle have been tested by USDA since 2003 (with only one in a million diagnosed with BSE); second, USDA generally prohibits downer cattle; third, USDA prohibits feed containing brain, spinal-cord tissue and other parts that could contain BSE. Immediately prior to filing suit, the Humane Society released a video showing workers at a meat plant in California processing downer cattle for human consumption; the video prompted the recall of 143 million pounds of beef.

[The complaint by the Humane Society filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is available at: http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/hsus-v-schafer-usda-complaint.pdf.]

Cloned Food - Son of Frankenfood?

From an interesting article in The Economist, Son of Frankenfood?:

“IT IS beyond our imagination to even find a theory that would cause the food to be unsafe.” With that ringing endorsement, Stephen Sundlof, the chief food-safety expert at America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this week declared food derived from the offspring of cloned cows, pigs and goats to be safe for human consumption. The decision came just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publicly reached the same conclusion. . . . [Emphasis added.]

Nonetheless, there seem to be lingering innuendo that cloned food may be unsafe. For example, take the untrue statement from the (inappropriately named) Center for Food Safety, “In January 2008, the FDA essentially told the public that the meat and milk from cloned livestock are safe for human consumption. FDA's action flies in the face of widespread scientific concern about the risks of food from clones . . .” http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloned_animals.cfm.

Can anyone think of a remotely plausible theory or scenario that would cause the food to be unsafe?

Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables

Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37) [Page 10037-10038]

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a final guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables'' (the fresh-cut guidance or guidance). Previously, FDA announced the availability of the fresh-cut guidance as a ``draft final'' document, pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the information collection provisions in the guidance. FDA is publishing this notice to announce that the fresh-cut guidance is now final. The text of the guidance has not changed from the previously published draft final version. The fresh-cut guidance complements FDA's current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements for foods by providing specific guidance on the processing of fresh-cut produce. The fresh-cut guidance and the CGMP regulations are intended to assist processors in minimizing microbial food safety hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and vegetables sold to consumers and retail establishments in a ready-to-eat form.

Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease

Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37) [Page 9938-9947]

[Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0090] (formerly Docket No. 2006P-0393)

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the health claim regulation entitled ``Soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD)'' to add barley betafiber as an additional eligible source of beta-glucan soluble fiber. Barley betafiber is the ethanol precipitated soluble fraction of cellulase and alpha-amylase hydrolyzed whole grain barley flour. FDA is taking this action in response to a health claim petition submitted by Cargill, Inc. FDA previously concluded that there was significant scientific agreement that a claim characterizing the relationship between beta-glucan soluble fiber of certain whole oat and whole grain barley products and CHD risk is supported by the totality of publicly available scientific evidence. Based on the totality of publicly available scientific evidence, FDA now has concluded that in addition to certain whole oat and whole grain barley products, barley betafiber is also an appropriate source of beta-glucan soluble fiber. Therefore, FDA is amending the health claim regulation entitled ``Soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of CHD'' to include barley betafiber as another eligible source of beta-glucan soluble fiber.

Naturally Confused

Naturally Confused By Neal D. Fortin, Food Product Design (02/12/2008)

Merriam-Webster defines “natural food” in 13 words. New federal rules can be expected to add a few more.

Since 1982, USDA policy has defined "natural" as a product that contains no artificial flavoring or coloring, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient. FDA has been urged to define "natural" by regulation, but has declined. Recently, USDA initiated a rulemaking on "natural" to resolve growing controversy. . . .

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/hotnews/naturally-confused.html

Who's Minding the Store? - The Current State of Food Safety and How it Can be Improved

Who's Minding the Store? - The Current State of Food Safety and How it Can be Improved - Friday and Saturday, April 11 & 12, 2008
Food Safety conference at Seattle University, Organized and Co-Sponsored by: William D. Marler, Marler Clark LLP PS, and Kenneth M. Odza, Stoel Rives LLP
Marlerblog:
"Few subjects draw more immediate attention or concern than the safety of the food we eat. Recent years have included a plethora of food warnings and recalls, raising new questions about the quality and integrity of our existing system for assuring food safety. Seattle was the epicenter of the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak that sickened 600 and killed four 15 years ago. In addition to explaining how our present system works, this program is intended to discuss how changing consumer preferences are affecting the development and distribution of food, examine whether Federal, state and industry oversight roles are changing, and discuss how the regulatory and judicial processes can be most efficiently balanced. Participants include international, national and local representatives of government, the food industry, consumer organizations and scientists."
For more information and registration:
Seattle University School of Law

Recall. Food &Toy Safety: An American Crisis

Recall. Food &Toy Safety: An American Crisis by Susie Hoeller

From a reader's review: "A much needed contribution to a critical discussion. Susie Hoeller has a written a timely and important book about an issue as fresh as today's headlines. Clear, urgent and articulate, she lays out in detail what producers and consumers need to know about food and consumer product safety in the age of globalization.

"Readable and well-reasoned, the book is useful not only to those seeking bottom-line information, but to students of modern commercial and trade practices. This book belongs on the shelf of anyone who buys, makes or sells food or anything else, for that matter. Well worth the investment both of time and money."

New Dietary Supplement Adverse Event Reporting

New dietary supplement requirements went into effect December 22, 2007, requiring new reporting and recordkeeping for adverse events associated with dietary supplements. You may read more about the requirements in the FDA draft publication:

Questions and Answers Regarding Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act Draft Guidance (Oct. 2007) available at: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/07d-0388-gdl0001.pdf.

Law and Self-Regulation: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Sales in Schools

Michelle M. Mello et al., American Journal of Public Health (free abstract) http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2006.107680v1 (as of 10/10/07)

Study examines laws and industry self-regulation of sugary drinks in schools.

"Hot Topics in Food Law"

On October 17th, the American Bar Association will host a CLE teleconference on "Hot Topics in Food Law". The program is terrific, is just 90 minutes and your CLE credits can be completed from the comfort of your own desk.
The program hits a number of Hot Topic issues in the emerging area of Food Law, including litigating food contamination cases, class actions regarding labeling, allergens in food, and new food technologies, including cloning and genetic engineering.
If you are new to this emerging area and want an introduction to hot topics in Food Law, this is a great program. Even if you are a season veteran in Food Law and Litigation, this program will quickly update you on the newest and hottest issues.
Don’t let your Food Law knowledge go stale! The registration link is below, and a PDF detailing the program is attached.
http://meetings.abanet.org/aba_timssnet/Meetings/tnt_meetings.cfm?action=long&primary_id=CET7HTI&webtextid=31300&Subsystem=MTG&related_prod_flag=0

Prof. Roberts on Role of Regulation in Minimizing Terrorist Threats

Michael T. Roberts (Venable LLP, Professor at IFLR, teaching Food Regulation in Asia) has published The Role of Regulation in Minimizing Terrorist Threats Against the Food Supply: Information, Incentives, and Penalties, 8(1) Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 199-223 (2007). The article is posted on the Agricultural Law Center website at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/articles/roberts_regulation.pdf. The article begins:

Ringing alarm bells as he announced his resignation as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson posited: “I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not . . . attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do.” The seeming ease of a terrorist attack on the United States food supply evokes the obvious question of what steps should be taken to minimize the threat. Determining what steps should be taken and implementing those steps naturally turns our attention to the government’s important role in protecting the safety of the nation’s food supply from terrorist attacks.

FDA Announces Final Rule Establishing cGMPs for Dietary Supplements

June 22, 2007

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced its final rule establishing current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) for dietary supplements.

In the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), Congress gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services and, by delegation, FDA authority to issue regulations establishing cGMPs for dietary supplements. The cGMPs will require that dietary supplements are produced in a quality manner, are not adulterated with contaminants or impurities, and are accurately labeled to reflect the ingredients in the product. The cGMPs apply to all domestic and foreign companies that manufacture, package, or hold dietary supplements intended for sale in U.S. commerce, including those involved with the activities of testing, quality control, packaging, labeling, and distributing.

In a companion document, FDA is also announcing today an interim final rule

(IFR) that outlines a petition process for manufacturers to request an exemption to the cGMP requirement for 100 percent identity testing of specific dietary ingredients. If the manufacturer can provide sufficient documentation that the supplier maintains appropriate in-process manufacturing controls and has consistently produced the dietary ingredient over a period of time, the manufacturer may be exempted from the testing requirement. FDA is soliciting comment from the public on the IFR. There will be a 90-day comment period.

Written comments may be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 or on line at:

http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments

Additional information regarding the cGMPs is available through the CFSAN website at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/supplmnt.html.

Practice Pointer: Don't Insult the Judge

In a recent case in Florida, a lawyer actually told a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." Check out the transcript: http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/05/atl_practice_pointers_dont_ins.php

We Are All the Mitten State - FDA Preemption and the Lipstick Problem

Professor Henry Greenspan (Psychologist, U Mich) has posted an article on the TortDeform Blog focusing on efforts to make FDA standards preemptive. He presents reasons why FDA regulations should not pre-emption state tort actions (as Michigan law does with drug injury cases—Michigan is the Mitten state). The lipstick problem is the focus on reforming FDA as the means to resolve criticism of FDA preemption of states.

[M]ore central to the issue of FDA preemption, there remains a wide range of potential delinquencies relevant in civil litigation but over which the FDA – even in its most "revitalized" incarnation – has no authority whatsoever. Staying with Vioxx, for example, we learned that there was an orchestrated campaign to threaten and intimidate academic researchers who did not see things the company's way. Tactics like those may profoundly influence what does and does not become known about a drug's safety, but they have nothing to do with whether a company is "in compliance" with FDA regulations. They are not within the FDA's jurisdiction at all.

We have also learned that data may be skewed, even excised, in ways that impact what is published in major medical journals. These are the sources of information upon which physicians rely. Again, however, the FDA has no authority whatsoever over the editorial policies of those journals. Indeed, in a now well known article about Celebrex published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – in which, it turned out, half the data was simply left out – the most seasoned medical reviewer at the FDA, Dr. Robert Temple, noted "when the JAMA article comes out and confirms the hype, that probably has more impact than our labeling does." Unfortunately, even if we had the most "revitalized" FDA imaginable, there would remain very large arenas for potential intimidation, misinformation, and hype.

That is why there is no FDA reform conceivable – and even less what was just passed by the Senate – that would substitute for the accountability that civil liability makes possible. The two systems complement each other; they do not cover the same ground. And that is why, when the FDA preemption gang starts to invoke that bill to suggest that FDA's problems are now solved, we should not be distracted. We should not confuse the pig, when there is one, with the lipstick.

You can read the whole article at: http://www.tortdeform.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/873.

Gluten factory had a toxic history

By Don Lee and Abigail Goldman
May 9, 2007

XUZHOU, CHINA — Before Mao Lijun's business exported tainted wheat products that may have killed American pets, his factory sickened people and plants around here for years.

Farmers in this poor rural area about 400 miles northwest of Shanghai had complained to local government officials since 2004 that Mao's factory was spewing noxious fumes that made their eyes tear up and the poplar trees nearby shed their leaves prematurely. Yet no one stopped Mao's company from churning out bags of food powders and belching smoke — until one day last month when, in the middle of the night, bulldozers arrived and tore down the facility.

It wasn't authorities that finally acted: Mao himself razed the brick factory — days before the investigators from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration arrived in China on a mission to track down the source of the tainted pet food ingredients.

In the end, Chinese authorities caught up with Mao and arrested him. And Tuesday, after weeks of denials, China acknowledged that Mao's company and another Chinese business had illegally exported wheat and rice products spiked with melamine, a chemical used in making plastics and fertilizers. That chemical is banned in foods in the U.S.

For the rest of the story: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-petfood9may09,1,5484365.story?ctrack=1&cset=true (requires free membership).

Food Safety Hearing

The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture will hold a hearing to review the impact of imported contaminated food and recent food safety emergencies on food safety and animal health systems, at 11:00 a.m. ET on May 9, 2007. The hearing will be held in Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building. For more information, visit http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/schedule.html.

"Panel urges schools to replace junk foods"

Washington Post (04/26/07) Sally Squires

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released a report proposing bans on soft drinks, sugary snacks, and other junk foods sold in schools to combat obesity in children. The recommendations, drafted at the request of Congress, were the first to address the issue of “competitive foods,” snacks and drinks often sold to raise money for schools, and which compete with healthier cafeteria offerings. IOM said less-nutritious offerings should be replaced with fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy products, and whole-grains. The recommendations also suggest that the calorie content of snacks and drinks be limited to no more than 200 per portion, and that schools switch to items that contain no trans fat, lower levels of sugar and sodium, and no more than 35 percent of calories from fat. IOM also suggests a ban on sports drinks, soft drinks, and caffeinated drinks, calling for schools to provide free, safe drinking water or allow students to buy nonfat or low-fat milk or 100 percent juice. J. Justin Wilson, of the Center for Consumer Freedom, called the recommendations “misguided,” warning that the report jeopardizes the classroom birthday party. But “Children eat 30 to 50 percent of their calories at schools on school days,” said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “When parents send their kids to school with lunch money, they don’t want to worry that it will be spent on Cheetos and Gatorade.”

To read the text of the IOM report, Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way toward Healthier Youth, visit http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/30181/42502.aspx.]

Food Labeling Workshop

Food Labeling Workshop

The Henry Center · July 19-20, 2007 · Lansing, Michigan

This workshop presents the FDA requirements for food labeling. The workshop format and materials are designed to provide a user-friendly approach for those new to food labeling and also provide a thorough system and reference for those experienced with food label design and review. The workshop format allows time for questions. The focus is practical, and students are encouraged to bring problem labels for hands-on review.

For more information, click here.
Register Online

Registration Form (PDF)

or call IFLR at (517) 355-8295

"The Federal food safety system: A primer"

"The Federal food safety system: A primer"

Congressional Research Service (CRS) (Feb. 14, 2007).

Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the U.S. food supply, which many experts say is among the safest in the world. Nevertheless, critics view this system as lacking the organization and resources to adequately combat foodborne illness, which sickens an estimated 76 million people and kills an estimated 5,000 each year in this country. The 110th Congress may face calls for a review of federal food safety agencies and authorities, and proposals for reorganizing them. Among the issues likely to arise are whether reform can improve oversight, and the cost to industry, consumers, and taxpayers. This report provides a brief introduction to the system and the debate on whether reorganization is needed.  The report is available at http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22600_20070207.pdf

Spinach in the Hot Spot: Should We Irradiate Our Food?

Food Irradiation Meeting (3/7). The National Academies of Science will host “Spinach in the Hot Spot: Should We Irradiate Our Food?” on March 7, 2007, in Washington, DC. For more details, visit http://www8.nationalacademies.org/publicmeeting/meetingview.aspx?meetingid=209.

Clones overdue on the menu

Clones overdue on the menu
by Henry I. Miller (fellow at the Hoover Institution)

The FDA’s preliminary decision last week to permit the consumption of food from cloned animals is a good one. If anything, it’s long overdue, because scientists have known for years that the clones are indistinguishable genetically, biochemically and nutritionally from the parent. As one farmer who owns a pair of clones of a prize¯winning Holstein cow observed, they are essentially twins of “a cow that was already in production.”

http://www.iflr.msu.edu/

European Union Food Law Update By Nicole Coutrelis (June 2006)

European Union Food Law Update By Nicole Coutrelis (June 2006). Originally published in the Journal of Food Law & Policy 2 J. FOOD L. & POL�Y 493 (2006)

Are the States Preempted from Banning Trans Fat?

Are the States Preempted from Banning Trans Fat?

The states are clearly preempted on the labeling requirements for trans fat. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempts state requirements on labeling that are not the same as the federal requirements.

The states are also preempted from banning trans fat from ALL foods because that would interfere with interstate commerce. That is, a state cannot be the Crisco Cop and stop the shipment of trans fat into the state, when FDA has approved trans fat. In addition, a ban on trans fat from all food would be a direct conflict with federal law, which approves foods that contain trans fat. Basically, a state cannot stop the manufacturing, transportation, or distribution of foods containing trans fat.

In the case of New York City, however, the city was clever enough to claim that they are not regulating commerce, but only regulating food preparation at the point of consumption. This is an area that the FDCA never mentions. The NYC trans-fat ban may be preempted, but NYC has raised a colorable argument. In addition, the courts have traditionally been sympathetic to any law that protects the health or safety of the citizens—which, after all, is a traditional power left to the states. FDA authority to regulate food is based on the Commerce Clause, not the power to regulate food safety.

By the way, the National Restaurant Association (NRA) has threatened legal action to overturn trans fat bans, but so far nothing has come of it. The NRA probably don't want the bad publicity of being the identified as the supporter of killer fat. Here is NRA's site for trans fat legislation around the United States http://www.restaurant.org/government/state/nutrition/bills_trans_fat.cfm.

www.iflr.msu.edu

What is Natural?

Some links on "natural" claims:

Kraft Florida lawsuit information re: Capri Sun "natural" claim
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200701081.html
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/complaint.pdf

Wikipedia article (High Fructose Corn Syrup):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

USDA Public Meeting Notice - Product Labeling: Definition of the term "Natural" (Dec. 12, 2006):
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2006-0040.pdf

USDA/FSIS Public Meeting on the Definition of the term "Natural" summary information:
http://www.americanbakers.org/documents/FSIS_Natural.pdf

http://www.iflr.msu.edu/

FDA Proposes Osteoporosis Health Claim for Calcium, Vitamin D

FDA Proposes Osteoporosis Health Claim for Calcium, Vitamin D

FDA is proposing a rule that would allow new health claims indicating the potential for foods and dietary supplements containing calcium and vitamin D to reduce the risk of osteoporosis. Adding vitamin D to the proposed claim updates an existing approved health claim showing the relationship between calcium intake and osteoporosis.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01543.html

Your Ignorance, Their Bliss

The Gourmet holiday issue, overwhelmingly dominated by cookie recipes and seasonal food, also contains an surprising piece, Your Ignorance, Their Bliss,”by Michele Kayal. “If Congress passes the National Uniformity for Food Act, many state-required food regulations will be replaced with less stringent ones set by the FDA. Can this really be a good idea?” See: http://www.epicurious.com/gourmet/toc.

The article’s point: The Food and Drug Administration, already facing added duties in protecting the national food supply against acts of terrorism, could have to take over the duties of food labeling and standards from individual states. The National Uniformity for Food Act would replace stronger state food labeling and safety standards with weaker, federally mandated rules. Moreover, the rules would need to be researched and imposed by an agency whose resources have been increasingly cut back, even as its duties have expanded.

A chart with the piece tells the story of the incredible shrinking FDA:

BUDGET

2003: $47.6 million

2006: $30 million

2007: $25 million

FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

2003: 950

2006: 881

2007: 817

Thanks to James Norton and the “The Grinder” for the lead on this story.

Neal D. Fortin

www.iflr.msu.edu

Pasteurized milk: Built Ford Tough

Pasteurized milk: Built Ford Tough
Brae Surgeoner, Commentary from the Food Safety Network (Nov. 22, 06) www.foodsafetynetwork.ca.

In May 1943, Edsel Bryant Ford, son of auto magnate Henry Ford, died at the age of 49 in Detroit, of what some claimed was a broken heart.
Biology, however, decreed that Ford died of undulant fever, apparently brought on by drinking unpasteurized milk from the Ford dairy herd, at the behest of his father's mistaken belief that all things natural must be good.

Scores of consumers across North America have adopted what they believe to be a simple approach to good health including the consumption of raw, unpasteurized milk; many are willing to pay between $4.50 and $20 a gallon for what they perceive as the creamier taste and finer flavor.
In the U.S., 28 states permit the sale of raw milk under varying restrictions, but in

Canada, it has been prohibited under the Food and Drug Regulations since 1991. In an article published in 2005 concerning Canada’s rising black market for raw milk, a producer who agreed only to be interviewed if his identity was concealed, told a CTV reporter, “What we're providing is milk at its purest. I would say customers beg for the milk. It’s not even asking. They beg for the milk.” He further claimed that some of his customers drove upwards of 200 kilometers to buy his raw milk products – mostly city dwellers.

On Tuesday, health and law enforcement officials raided Michael Schmidt’s biodynamic farm near Durham, Ontario, armed with a search warrant and power to confiscate his computer hard drives, his milk equipment, and milk products. All of this part of an investigation into Schmidt’s distributing raw unpasteurized milk products.

Schmidt is no stranger to controversy. In 1994, the Owen Sound Health Unit raided his farm, seizing $800 worth of unpasteurized dairy products – charges were laid under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Yet, for 12 years now Schmidt has continued to sell his raw milk. His clientele includes 120 families in the Toronto area - about 200 kilometers away.

This past September, two children who drank raw milk from a Whatcom County dairy in Washington State became ill with E. coli O157:H7. At the same time, four children, including two 8-year-olds in San Diego County, California were hospitalized with E. coli infection after consuming raw milk products. Despite this, raw milk advocates are adamant that if drinking raw is milk wrong, they don’t want to be right.

Health authorities cannot continue to turn a blind eye to such a defiant attitude. In December 2005, 18 people in Washington and Oregon, including six children were infected with E. coli O157:H7 after drinking an unlicensed dairy’s raw milk – two of the kids almost died. Closer to home, four cases of E. coli linked to unpasteurized milk were reported to Ontario health officials in April 2005; in this case, from an individual who routinely sold raw milk from the back of a vehicle parked in the city of Barrie. There are too many other such cases to mention. Additional outbreaks are listed at: www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/article-details.php?a=2&c=6&sc=35&id=384

Raw milk drinkers believe the pasteurized milk found on grocery store shelves lacks the essential enzymes and nutrients necessary to absorb calcium -- yet research shows this is simply not the case. The only things lacking in pasteurized milk are the bacteria that make people -- especially kids -- seriously ill. Adults, do whatever you think works to ensure a natural and healthy lifestyle, but please, don't sneak around and break the rules to impose your dietary regimes on your kids.

Brae Surgeoner is a research assistant with the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph.
bsurgeon@uoguelph.ca www.foodsafetynetwork.ca

South Korea will follow OIE risk standards for beef, may allow bone-in beef in 2007

South Korea will follow OIE risk standards for beef, may allow bone-in beef in 2007, Pete Hisey, Meatingplace.com (22.nov.06)

South Korea promised to reconsider its restrictions on U.S. beef if the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) formalizes a change in risk standards when it meets in May 2007. Last May, the organization said it was considering changing the methods for determining the safety of beef in view of the spread of bovine spongiform encepthalopathy from those based on prevalence of the disease in a market and the age of animals meant for export to an overall risk assessment of each market.

That assessment would be made on variables such as strength and longevity of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, slaughter and processing procedures, surveillance testing plans and the like. If the OIE were to decide to switch to such a standard, South Korea said it would be willing to reconsider its import standards, the Korea Herald reported. That would presumably mean an end to a 30-month rule on age and a ban on bones, since most bones are not considered to be specified risk materials. The latter is a key consideration for the United States, since two-thirds of shipments to South Korea prior to the BSE crisis were bone-in beef ribs, used in barbecue rib dishes, which are a national favorite.

A russian roulette of food poisoning in American states

A russian roulette of food poisoning in American states
Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service (Nov. 21, 06)
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=FATALFOOD-11-21-06
More than 50,000 people, according to this story, got sick or died from something they ate in a hidden epidemic that went undiagnosed by the nation's public health departments over a five-year period. An investigation by Scripps Howard News Service was cited as finding that Americans play a sort of food-poisoning Russian roulette depending on where they live. Slovenly restaurants, disease-infested food-processing plants and other sources of infectious illness go undetected all over the country, but much more frequently in some states than others.
Scripps studied 6,374 food-related disease outbreaks reported by every state to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004. The causes of nearly two-thirds of the outbreaks in that period were officially listed as "unknown."
The findings translate into an alarming potential for tragedy. If health officials are unable to connect illness to food, victims who might eat from the same poisoned source cannot be warned. If food is known as the culprit, but the specific disease lurking within is not diagnosed, the victims may get even sicker or die without proper treatment.
The poor track record of so many state labs also raises chilling questions about their ability to spot or deal with a food-borne terrorist attack.
Families of children who got sick during the five-year period in the study tell heart-rending stories of heroic efforts they made to convince the medical establishment they were victims of food illness. Todd Nelson, a Continental Airlines pilot and father of a 19-month-old girl who died of E. coli, was quoted as saying, "My daughter's death would have been listed just as a 'stroke' and swept under the rug. But I wanted to know what my daughter really died of. And I wanted somebody to blame."
The Nelson family believes Ana Leigh Nelson ate infected hamburger meat from a popular Minnesota restaurant in 2002. The family demanded further private tests that confirmed a rare strain of E. coli and then demanded that the medical examiner change her death certificate to correctly report death from complications of food poisoning. The study found that Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska are virtually blind to outbreaks of food sickness, rarely detecting that scattered illnesses have common food causes.
In Alabama, Florida and New Jersey, the cause of food poisoning is almost never found, even when it is known that dozens or hundreds of people became violently ill or died from something they ate, according to the Scripps study. Alabama was the worst in the nation, diagnosing only 5 percent of its reported outbreaks. Alabama State Epidemiologist John Lofgren was quoted as saying, "It's a real struggle. We've never identified a virus at the state level." After learning of the study's findings, Kentucky officials ordered changes to their disease-reporting system. "We really hadn't been categorizing food- and waterborne outbreaks," admitted Kentucky Epidemiologist Kraig Humbaugh.
During the five-year period studied, Florida reported only seven people sickened by E. coli outbreaks, a suspiciously low number for a state of its size. The story goes on to say that although the Scripps study found that the quality of the nation's network of public health departments varies alarmingly, there were some bright spots. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Hawaii do a good job of diagnosing disease outbreaks.
Wisconsin came out on top in the study by diagnosing the cause of 90 percent of its food-poisoning cases. Wisconsin also was the first state to detect and report September's deadly E. coli outbreak from infected raw spinach grown in California and shipped nationwide. The outbreak killed at least three people and sickened at least 199 others.
But the study found little to celebrate overall since most outbreaks go undiagnosed. Federal officials and public health experts agreed with the findings and conclusions of the Scripps study. Tom Skinner at the CDC's Atlanta headquarters after reviewing some of the study's findings, was quoted as saying, "Our surveillance systems were designed to ring a bell when there is a problem. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. Could they be better? Absolutely yes. We've already come a long way, but certainly, we can do better than this."
Skinner offered no explanation when asked why the CDC didn't warn underperforming states and local health departments.
Ewen Todd, director of the Food Safety Policy Center at Michigan State University, was quoted as saying, "The CDC, like most government agencies, is pretty conservative. Why would they want to rock the boat? It takes someone who is independent to say: 'This is crazy.' "
Todd agreed that the quality of public health is erratic in the United States and that the state health programs are especially poor in the South, adding, "Our laboratories are pretty good. But, overall, the whole public health system is not working very well. There are no national standards for the surveillance and reporting of food illnesses."

The United States vs. E. Coli, et al.

The United States vs. E. Coli, et al.
16.nov.06, The Legal Television Network
Henry I. Miller, http://tinyurl.com/ty2y7

Can the feds combat the germs? Since the first reports of an outbreak of E. coli-related illnesses traced to fresh, bagged spinach, this deadly strain of bacteria has led to three deaths and approximately 200 illnesses nationwide. According to the federal government, food poisoning linked to these and other microorganisms afflict 76 million Americans and claim 5,000 lives.

This new biological enemy isn't linked to Al Queda. Yet, while cases of food poisoning normally fall within the province of the Food and Drug Administration and Center for Disease Control, these germs are now under investigation by the FBI.
With billions of germs lurking within our borders, the G-Men may need to add a few more agents.

Federal officials investigating the spinach outbreak have narrowed their search to a handful of ranches in California’s Salinas Valley and appear to be focusing on wild hogs as the cause of contamination. The outbreak seems to be over and Popeye’s favorite food is making its way back onto store shelves and restaurant menus. But will consumers buy it? Americans may want their spinach back, but they also want an answer to an important question: On whom can we rely to protect us from future outbreaks of contamination and food-borne illness?
First, it’s clear we can’t rely on growers of fresh produce to protect us 100 percent of the time. Modern farming operations – especially the larger ones -- already employ strict standards and safeguards designed to keep food free of pathogens. And most often they work: Americans’ food is not only the least expensive, but also the safest, in the history of humankind.

However, there is a limit to how safe we can make agriculture, given that it is an outdoor activity and subject to all manner of unpredictable challenges. If the goal is to make a field 100 percent safe from contamination, the only solution that guarantees this is to pave it over and build a parking lot on it. But we’d only be trading very rare agricultural mishaps for fender-benders.

It has also become painfully clear that we can’t rely on processors to remove the pathogens from food in every case. This most recent outbreak of illness demonstrated that our faith in processor labels such as “triple washed” and “ready to eat” must be tempered with at least a little skepticism. Processors were quick to proclaim the cleanliness of their own operations and deflect blame toward growers. But all of those in the food chain share responsibility for food safety and quality.

In fairness to processors, there is ample evidence to suggest that no amount of washing will rid all pathogens from produce. The reason is that the contamination may occur not on the plant, but in it. Exposure to E. coli or other microorganisms at key stages of the growing process may allow them to be taken into the plant and actually incorporated into cells.

Citing this, advocates of food irradiation have stepped forward to claim that their technology can provide the assurance consumers demand and deserve. To be sure, irradiation is an important tool to promote food safety and is vastly under-used, largely due to opposition from the organic food lobby and government over-regulation.

But irradiation is no panacea. Although it quite neatly kills the bacteria, it does not inactivate the potent toxins secreted by certain bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium botulinum. This is a distinction you’d keenly appreciate should you become infected.
So, if consumers can’t be protected by growers or processors or even irradiation, what can protect them?

There is technology available today that can inhibit microorganisms’ ability to grow within plant cells and block the synthesis of the bacterial toxins. This same technology can be employed to produce antibodies that can be administered to infected patients to neutralize the toxins, and can even be used to produce therapeutic proteins that are safe and effective treatments for diarrhea, the primary symptom of food poisoning.
But don’t expect your favorite organic producer to embrace this triple-threat technology, even if it would keep his customers from getting sick. Why? The technology in question is biotechnology, or gene-splicing -- an advance the organic lobby has vilified and rejected at every turn.
For organic marketers, the irony is more bitter than fresh-picked radicchio. The technology that affords them the best method of safeguarding their customers is the one they’ve fought hardest to forestall and confound.

Perhaps in the wake of at least three deaths and 200 illnesses from the recent E. coli outbreak (and also one of Salmonella typhimurium), the organic lobby will rethink its opposition to biotechnology. Perhaps they will undertake a meaningful examination of the ways in which this technology can save lives and advance their industry.

I’m not betting the farm on it. After all, admitting you’re wrong is hard. Blaming others is easy.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. Barron’s selected his most recent book, "The Frankenfood Myth..." one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.

Food Allergens Labeling Webcast

The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) went into effect on January 1st, 2006 requiring food processors to identify, in plain, common language, the presence of any of the eight major food allergens: Milk, Egg, Peanut, Tree Nut, Fish, Shellfish, Wheat, and Soy. The addition of this new regulation along with the existing stringent standards for food safety have left many food processors scrambling to thoroughly understand the impact and how best to achieve compliance.

In this webcast, Catherine Copp, Policy Advisor with the Office of Regulations and Policy at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, will present background details of FALCPA and the FDA's implementation activities, clarify some common misperceptions of FALCPA, discuss the buzz from consumers and the food industry, and provide insight into the FDA's future activities concerning FALCPA. You will also hear from Scot McLeod, Senior Vice President with Ross Systems, who will present case studies on Ross Customers Litehouse Foods, Berner Foods, and ACME Spice and how they’ve addressed the requirements of FALCPA.
Webcast: Addressing the Evolving Requirements for Food Allergen Labeling
Wednesday, December 6; 2pm (EST)

HEALTH COURTS & ADMINISTRATIVE COMPENSATION: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAFETY ENHANCEMENT

This Forum was webcast live November 8, 2006. An archived webcast will be avaliable for one month at http://cgood.org/healthcare-events-70.html.

“At the Forum on Health Courts and Administrative Compensation, academics, state legislators, lawyers, consumer group representatives, insurance industry leaders, and other interested parties gathered to discuss the potential for new alternatives to medical injury litigation, particularly health courts. Health courts would not only provide more consistent financial compensation to injured patients, but could also help to prevent future medical errors and promote a more reliable system of medical justice—one that both patients and doctors can trust.”

GRAS substances database

FDA posted their Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Database online. This database allows access to opinions and conclusions from 115 SCOGS reports published between 1972-1980 on the safety of over 370 Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) food substances. The database allows users to search for the SCOGS opinion and conclusion, and includes the United States Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) citation for those GRAS food substances that have been codified in the CFR. The SCOGS conclusions were made by scientific experts outside of FDA. The complete background of the Select Committee is described in the History of GRAS and SCOGS that is also posted on the site. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opascogs.html.

Neal Fortin has accepted appointment as the Director of the Institute for Food Laws & Regulations

Neal Fortin has accepted appointment as the Director of the Institute for Food Laws & Regulations (IFLR) at Michigan State University. As Director, Professor Fortin will lead the IFLR and its International Food Law Distance Education Certificate Program. IFLR offers region and topic-specific food law courses taught by an international network of food science academic and legal professionals. Students from over 80 countries have participated in these courses via the Internet.

“With globalization increasing,” said Director Fortin, “an understanding of the legal complexities of food regulation is vital to the free trade of food and agricultural products across national boundaries.”

The IFLR International Food Law Distance Education Certificate Program was the 2003 Winner of the Excellence Award in College and University Distance Education from the American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC) under the leadership of its Founding Director Emeritus, Dr. P. Vincent Hegarty. The eight courses offered include an overview course on International Food Laws and Regulations, four region-specific courses—Food Regulation in the United States, European Union, Canada and Latin America—and three topic-specific courses—Codex Alimentarius (The Food Code), OIE (The World Organisation on Animal Health) and the IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) http://vu.msu.edu/preview/anr-ifl/.
“I am looking forward to working closely with colleagues in academia, agriculture and food industries, and government agencies,” said Director Fortin, “along with the non-governmental organizations important in international food law.”

Before joining the faculty full time, Mr. Fortin was an attorney concentrating in food and drug law, food safety, food labeling, ingredient evaluation, and advertising. Mr. Fortin is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Michigan State University College of Law, where he teaches food and drug law, and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, where he teaches a course on nutrition law and policy. Previously, Neal Fortin was manager of the food service regulatory program for the Michigan Department of Agriculture. In this role, he was the primary drafter of the Michigan Food Law of 2000, which streamlined Michigan’s food safety requirements and strengthened and updated food safety standards for changes in science.

Professor Fortin holds a Juris Doctor, Summa Cum Laude, from the Michigan State University College of Law. He holds Bachelor of Science degrees from the University of Michigan and Newman University.We are delighted that Director Fortin will apply his many talents to the administration of the IFLR. Please join us in congratulating Neal Fortin in his new capacity. He can be contacted at 404 Agriculture Hall, by phone at 517-355-8295, or via email at fortinne@msu.edu.

Vitamin A and osteoporosis

Vitamin A and osteoporosis
It has long been known that high doses of vitamin A can cause liver abnormalities. Now researchers are examining an excess intake of vitamin A as a potential risk factor for osteoporosis. Animal, human, and laboratory research suggests an association between greater vitamin A intake and weaker bones. The large doses of vitamin A may impair the ability of vitamin D to promote calcium absorption. The high doses are associated with reduced bone mineral density and increased risk of hip fracture. There is no evidence of an association between beta-carotene intake, especially from fruits and vegetables, and increased risk of osteoporosis.
In the 1970s, FDA considered writing regulations for some mega-dose vitamin products because of their potential health risks. The supplement industry waged a lobbying effort against the FDA’s attempt, and the Proxmire Vitamin and Mineral Amendment of 1976 expressly prohibited the FDA from establishing maximum limits on the potency of any vitamin or mineral.
“Osteoporosis, a disorder characterized by porous and weak bones, is a serious health problem for more than 10 million Americans, 80% of whom are women. Another 18 million Americans have decreased bone density which precedes the development of osteoporosis. Many factors increase the risk for developing osteoporosis, including being female, thin, inactive, at advanced age, and having a family history of osteoporosis. An inadequate dietary intake of calcium, cigarette smoking, and excessive intake of alcohol also increase the risk.” http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp#h7.

Law professor to head up institute at MSU
People News by Vickki Dozier, Lansing State Journal (Oct. 20, 2006) available at: http://tinyurl.com/ycht4h. Neal Fortin has been appointed the director of the Institute for Food Laws & Regulations at Michigan State University. As director, Fortin will lead the institute and its International Food Law Distance Education Certificate Program. The institute offers region and topic-specific food law courses taught by an international network of food science academic and legal professionals. Students from more than 80 countries have participated in these courses via the Internet.

Before joining the MSU faculty full time, Fortin was an attorney concentrating in food and drug law, food safety, food labeling, ingredient evaluation, and advertising. He is also an adjunct professor of law at the MSU College of Law, where he teaches food and drug law, and an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, where he teaches a course on nutrition law and policy. Previously Fortin was manager of the food service regulatory program for the Michigan Department of Agriculture, where he was the primary drafter of the Michigan Food Law of 2000, which streamlined Michigan's food safety requirements and strengthened and updated food safety standards for changes in science.

E. coli attorney calls on spinach industry to pay victims' medical bills

E. coli attorney calls on spinach industry to pay victims’ medical bills
20.sep.06
from a press release
SEATTLE, WA -- William Marler, a nationally-recognized food safety advocate and attorney, today called on the spinach industry “to do the right thing and immediately pay the medical bills for the victims of this most recent outbreak traced to E. coli-contaminated spinach.” Marler noted that, in other large outbreaks, companies such as Jack in the Box, Odwalla, Chi-Chi’s and Sheetz advanced medical costs for outbreak victims whose illnesses were traced to their food products.
To date, the Food and Drug Administration has reported that 131 people have been confirmed as victims of the outbreak, 20 victims developing hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a potentially lethal complication of E. coli O157:H7 infection. “With such devastating injuries, and so many of them,” Marler continued, “I hope that the people responsible for this outbreak will stop trying to shift the blame or think of more excuses. The FDA has warned the lettuce and spinach industry repeatedly about its problems and deficiencies.” Marler noted that this latest outbreak is the twentieth outbreak since 1995 associated with lettuce or spinach.
Marler’s Seattle-based law firm, Marler Clark (www.marlerclark.com), is representing 31 victims of the outbreak, including twelve people who developed HUS. The firm has filed three lawsuits to date—in Utah, Oregon, and Wisconsin.*
Background: Since 1993, Marler has represented thousands of victims of E. coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis A, Listeria, Shigella, Campylobacter and Norovirus illnesses in over thirty States. In 1998, Marler and his current law partners formed OutBreak, a non profit food safety organization. Marler dedicates one-fourth of his time to travel to food-industry conferences, giving speeches about how to prevent foodborne illness litigation.
US District Court for the District of Oregon Case #306-CV-1313JO, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case #06CV977, and District of Utah, Case #206CB00787BSJ.

Health Claims, Healthy Trends: Navigating the Legal Thicket

Health Claims, Healthy Trends: Navigating the Legal Thicket, Neal Fortin, Food Product Design (June 2006) available at: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/661regs.html.The opportunities to make health claims are far greater than ever before. But do not forget: The area remains a legal thicket. Become fully informed about applicable laws before marketing foods with health claims.

Is a Picture Worth More Than 1,000 Words?

Is a Picture Worth More Than 1,000 Words? The Fourth Amendment and the FDA’s Authority to Take Photographs Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Neal D. Fortin, 1 Journal of Food Law and Policy 239-268 (Fall 2005), also available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=910581.