|
Friday, March 29, 2019
New Online Course: Food Regulation in China
Monday, December 10, 2018
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Highly Concentrated Caffeine in Dietary Supplements
Products consisting of or containing only pure or highly concentrated caffeine have been linked to deaths and are deemed by FDA to represent a significant public health threat. FDA considers some of such dietary supplements to be adulterated under section 402(f)(1)(A) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
FDA, Guidance for Industry: Highly Concentrated Caffeine in Dietary Supplements (April 2018).
FDA, Guidance for Industry: Highly Concentrated Caffeine in Dietary Supplements (April 2018).
Tuesday, April 03, 2018
First FDA Mandatory Food Recall Order
On April 3, 2018, FDA issued its first mandatory recall order for a food product. The order was issued to Triangle Pharmanaturals LLC for all its all food products containing powdered kratom. The order came after several products were found to contain Salmonella, and the company refused the agency’s request for a voluntary recall.
The Food Safety Modernization Act gave FDA the authority to issue a mandatory recall when a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe food after being asked to by FDA. These requests by FDA are titled, “Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall,” but are sometimes called the “last chance letter,” because the letter provides the company with a last opportunity to issue a recall before FDA enforcement action.
The Food Safety Modernization Act gave FDA the authority to issue a mandatory recall when a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe food after being asked to by FDA. These requests by FDA are titled, “Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall,” but are sometimes called the “last chance letter,” because the letter provides the company with a last opportunity to issue a recall before FDA enforcement action.
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Celebrating 20 years of advancing the understanding of food law at the Michigan State University Institute for Food Laws and Regulations
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Food Regulation, 2nd edition, is now available!
The second edition of Food Regulation is now available. It contains over 25 percent new material, particularly a rewritten import law chapter and revisions related to food safety regulation, health claims, and food defense. The text provides an in-depth discussion of the federal statutes, regulations, and agencies involved in food regulation. After an introduction to the history of food regulation, it covers current food regulations, inspection and enforcement, international law, and more.
With explanation of the policies and food science behind the law, the text is designed for both food scientists and lawyers. Yet the book remains accessible to students and professionals alike. This is an excellent text for food science and food law and a practical reference for food industry professionals, consultants, and others.
I hope you find it appetizing. If you would like more information, the Table of Contents is available here. A copy of Chapter One is available here.
To order from Amazon, click here
.
.
To order the iBook, click here.
Monday, November 21, 2016
VQIP Guidance Released
FDA has just released its Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Qualified Importer Program.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) directed FDA to create the
Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP), which is a voluntary,
fee-based program that is intended to expedite the review and
importation of food for participants in the program.
To be
eligible to participate in the VQIP, an importer must be importing food
from a facility that has been certified by a third-party auditor
accredited under FSMA and such certification must accompany the imported
food. An importer that wishes to participate must submit a notice and
application to FDA. The specific requirements for participation are
outlined in the FDA guidance document.
A hat tip to David Acheson on his excellent summary and comments, You Can Now Expedite Entry of Your Imported Foods … If You Meet All Eligibility Criteria.
To be
eligible to participate in the VQIP, an importer must be importing food
from a facility that has been certified by a third-party auditor
accredited under FSMA and such certification must accompany the imported
food. An importer that wishes to participate must submit a notice and
application to FDA. The specific requirements for participation are
outlined in the FDA guidance document.A hat tip to David Acheson on his excellent summary and comments, You Can Now Expedite Entry of Your Imported Foods … If You Meet All Eligibility Criteria.
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
FDA to Revise the Nutrient Content Claim “Healthy”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the start of a public process to redefine the “healthy” nutrient content claim for food labeling.
Under the food labeling rules, “healthy” and similar terms are generally an implied nutrient content claim. 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d). A food must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the “healthy” claim.
FDA acknowledges that the 1993 regulation for “healthy” as a nutrient content claim is in need of an update. The latest nutrition science and the current dietary recommendations, among other things, has shifted from recommending diets low in total fat to now draw distinctions among the types of fat (unsaturated fats vs. saturated fats and trans fat) in the diet.
While FDA is receiving comments and reconsidering the regulation defining “healthy,” FDA states, “Because the rulemaking process can sometimes be lengthy, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion in the interim with respect to some of the existing criteria for the nutrient content claim “healthy” if the alternative nutrient criteria described below are met.”
FDA Guidance: Use of the Term “Healthy” on Food Labels and FDA’s Enforcement Discretion
Specifically, FDA’s Guidance announces that it intends to exercise enforcement discretion for products labeled as “healthy” that are not low in total fat, provided that: (1) The amounts of mono and polyunsaturated fats are declared on the label and (2) the amounts declared constitute the majority of the fat content.
The definition for “healthy” also includes a nutrient contribution criterion. Healthy dietary patterns not only restrict nutrients that increase risk of chronic disease, but also help assure nutrient adequacy to ensure sufficient intake of nutrients that are important in sustaining body function and reducing the risk of disease. The current definition of “healthy” focuses on foods providing a good or excellent source of nutrients for which there had been public health concern in 1993: vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and dietary fiber.
Nutrient intakes have shifted over time, however, and vitamins A and C are no longer nutrients of public health concern. FDA now recognizes vitamin D and potassium as nutrients that should be encouraged in the diet, in addition to iron, calcium, and fiber.
Therefore, FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion when the food contains less than ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber, but the food contains at least 10% of the DV per RACC of vitamin D or potassium.
FDA has requested information and comments docket number FDA–2016-D–2335 FDA also asks for input on issues related to the “healthy” claim, including:
Under the food labeling rules, “healthy” and similar terms are generally an implied nutrient content claim. 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d). A food must meet certain requirements to be eligible for the “healthy” claim.
FDA acknowledges that the 1993 regulation for “healthy” as a nutrient content claim is in need of an update. The latest nutrition science and the current dietary recommendations, among other things, has shifted from recommending diets low in total fat to now draw distinctions among the types of fat (unsaturated fats vs. saturated fats and trans fat) in the diet.
While FDA is receiving comments and reconsidering the regulation defining “healthy,” FDA states, “Because the rulemaking process can sometimes be lengthy, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion in the interim with respect to some of the existing criteria for the nutrient content claim “healthy” if the alternative nutrient criteria described below are met.”
FDA Guidance: Use of the Term “Healthy” on Food Labels and FDA’s Enforcement Discretion
Specifically, FDA’s Guidance announces that it intends to exercise enforcement discretion for products labeled as “healthy” that are not low in total fat, provided that: (1) The amounts of mono and polyunsaturated fats are declared on the label and (2) the amounts declared constitute the majority of the fat content.
The definition for “healthy” also includes a nutrient contribution criterion. Healthy dietary patterns not only restrict nutrients that increase risk of chronic disease, but also help assure nutrient adequacy to ensure sufficient intake of nutrients that are important in sustaining body function and reducing the risk of disease. The current definition of “healthy” focuses on foods providing a good or excellent source of nutrients for which there had been public health concern in 1993: vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and dietary fiber.
Nutrient intakes have shifted over time, however, and vitamins A and C are no longer nutrients of public health concern. FDA now recognizes vitamin D and potassium as nutrients that should be encouraged in the diet, in addition to iron, calcium, and fiber.
Therefore, FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion when the food contains less than ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber, but the food contains at least 10% of the DV per RACC of vitamin D or potassium.
FDA has requested information and comments docket number FDA–2016-D–2335 FDA also asks for input on issues related to the “healthy” claim, including:
- Is the term “healthy” most appropriately categorized as a claim based only on nutrient content?
- What types of food, if any, should be allowed to bear the term ‘‘healthy?”
- What nutrient criteria should be considered for the definition of the term “healthy?”
- What are the public health benefits, if any, of defining the term “healthy” or other similar terms in food labeling?
- What is consumers’ understanding of the meaning of the term “healthy” as it relates to food?
Thursday, July 07, 2016
United States v. Decosters Decision
Yesterday, July 6, the Eighth Circuit upheld the United States v. DeCoster three-month prison sentences and $100,000 fines for Austin “Jack” DeCoster and Peter DeCoster, respectively the owner and chief operating officer of Quality Egg, LLC. Over the years, several salmonellosis foodborne illness outbreaks were associated with eggs from DeCoster farms. In a 2010 outbreak that resulted in the present case, nearly 56,000 were sickened.
In a 2–1 decision, the appeals panel ruled that even though the DeCosters did not know that the eggs they shipped had Salmonella, they “are liable for negligently failing to prevent the salmonella outbreak” and that jail time is appropriate. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “punishes neglect where the law requires care.” See United States v. Park, 421 U.S. at 671 (the eponymous case for the Park doctrine, also known as the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine).
This case was notable for the number of amici on behalf of the DeCosters: The Washington Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Recently there has been a concerted push for abolishing strict liability from all federal law, including the Park doctrine of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
No matter how you feel about mens rea, the DeCosters are poor poster children for eliminating Park doctrine strict liability under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Strategically, a proposal to eliminate strict liability that applies to the Park doctrine stakes out a weak position. It defends wrongdoers whose negligence causes tens of thousands of serious illnesses. It defends wrongdoers whose negligence causes the deaths among the most defenseless, children and the elderly. Be prepare to answer the grieving mother who lost a child or the widow or daughter who lost her father, who was a decorated WWII veteran or decorated Korean War veteran.
In a 2–1 decision, the appeals panel ruled that even though the DeCosters did not know that the eggs they shipped had Salmonella, they “are liable for negligently failing to prevent the salmonella outbreak” and that jail time is appropriate. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “punishes neglect where the law requires care.” See United States v. Park, 421 U.S. at 671 (the eponymous case for the Park doctrine, also known as the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine).
This case was notable for the number of amici on behalf of the DeCosters: The Washington Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Recently there has been a concerted push for abolishing strict liability from all federal law, including the Park doctrine of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
No matter how you feel about mens rea, the DeCosters are poor poster children for eliminating Park doctrine strict liability under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Strategically, a proposal to eliminate strict liability that applies to the Park doctrine stakes out a weak position. It defends wrongdoers whose negligence causes tens of thousands of serious illnesses. It defends wrongdoers whose negligence causes the deaths among the most defenseless, children and the elderly. Be prepare to answer the grieving mother who lost a child or the widow or daughter who lost her father, who was a decorated WWII veteran or decorated Korean War veteran.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
>> Hurry, registration is limited!
Food Law Current Issues Seminar
Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
July 12-14, 2016
The MSU Food Law Current Issues Seminar provides practical education on current food legal and regulatory issues. The seminar covers cutting edge issues in international, transnational, and national food law and policy including FDA and E.U. food ingredient and safety regulations, U.S. advertising and labelling law, and globalized supply chain liabilities and management strategies. Speakers from the legal, food industry, and academic professions will present practical food law information and case studies.
This seminar is for a global audience in food regulatory work, including industry regulatory affairs, quality assurance, government officials, the legal community, advertising and marketing professionals, academics, and policy makers.
The course is offered in a collegial, intimate learning environment. Time will be allowed for questions and answers as well as informal discussions over lunch and coffee. In addition to the educational sessions, social activities are planned on a voluntary basis.
The cost for the course is $1345 until May 15th; after May 15th registration will be $1545.
For more information, click here
or
The Faculty
P. Vincent Hegarty PhD, Founding Director/Professor Emeritus, MSU, Institute for Food Laws and Regulation
Elizabeth H. Dickinson, JD, Chief Counsel to the FDA [invited]
Leslie Bourquin, PhD, Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University
Stuart Pape, JD, Shareholder, Polsinelli
Charles Breen, Senior Consultant, EAS Consulting Group
Ken Odza, JD, Corporate Counsel, Food Safety, Kellogg Company
Robert Prevendar, MPH, Managing Director, Global Supply Chain Food Safety, NSF International
Daniel Dwyer, JD, Partner, Kleinfeld, Kaplan and Becker, LLP
Tim Slawinski, Emerging Issues Specialist, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Howard Sklamberg JD, Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, FDA [invited]
Francesco Planchenstainer, JD, PhD, Senior Regulatory & Food Law Specialist at Mead Johnson Nutrition
Robert Hollingworth, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Entomology, Michigan State University
Bill Marler, JD, Managing Partner, Marler Clark
Hannah Chanoine, JD, Counsel, O’Melveny & Myers; Lecturer-in-Law, Columbia University School of Law
Jennifer McEntire, PhD, VP, Science Operations, Grocery Manufacturers Association
John Spink, PhD, Assistant Professor and Director of the Food Fraud Initiative, Michigan State University
Shawn Stevens, JD, Food Industry Counsel LLC
Adam Ekonomon, JD, Director and Assistant General Counsel, Marketing and Regulatory, The J. M. Smucker Company
Mary Engle, JD, Associate Director for Advertising Practices at Federal Trade Commission
Kimberly Wingfeld, Director, Science Policy, Labeling and Standards, Grocery Manufacturers Association
Latasha Robinson, Branch Chief of Labeling and Dietary Supplement Compliance, FDA [invited]
Steve Steinborn, JD, Hogan Lovells, U.S., LLP
Learn more about IFLR at: www.IFLR.msu.edu
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
FDA Extending Menu Labeling Compliance Date
FDA is extending the compliance date for its menu labeling rule by one year. Restaurants and other establishments covered by the menu labeling rule will have until December 1, 2016 to post calories and other information on their menus and menu boards, provide full written nutrition information in-store, and come into compliance with the rule’s other requirements.
The menu and vending machine labeling requirements are available here.
The menu and vending machine labeling requirements are available here.
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Oral Arguments in Challenge to VT Law on GE Labeling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear oral argument Thursday, October 8, in Grocery Manufacturers Assoc. v. Sorrell, on an appeal of the federal district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The injunction request was to delay effect of the new Vermont law. The law will require labeling of most foods that contain genetically-engineered ingredients. Unless enjoined, the law will take effect next July.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Neal Fortin's most recent publication, The U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act: Implications in Transnational Governance of Food Safety, Food System Sustainability, and the Tension with Free Trade, is available in the Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum current issue.
Friday, September 11, 2015
Forget GMOs, Label DNA!
A survey by economist Jayson Lusk at the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University found, unsurprisingly, that Americans remain skeptical of GMOs: 82 percent surveyed supported mandatory labeling of foods made with ingredients grown from GMOs. However, an astonishing 80 percent of those Americans supported mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA! (The difference between 82 and and 80 percent in this survey is statistically indistinguishable.)
My colleague, Ilya Somin, wrote up an interesting article about this, "Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”. His humorous take on DNA labeling follows:
My colleague, Ilya Somin, wrote up an interesting article about this, "Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”. His humorous take on DNA labeling follows:
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
FDA to update guidance on food ingredient safety assessment
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun the process of updating its current guidance on food ingredient safety assessment, commonly referred to as the Redbook, and is requesting input from the public. The agency is interested in developing a framework that incorporates the assessment of ingredients present in various products regulated by the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). Examples include food additives, food contact substances, ingredients that are generally regarded as safe (GRAS), new plant varieties, dietary supplements and new dietary ingredients, cosmetic ingredients, as well as unavoidable chemical contaminants other than microbial pathogens.
The FDA is particularly interested in comments on:
- Which parts of the Redbook should be updated, and how the FDA should prioritize updates.
- The scope of the revised guidance, and what other guidance documents could be addressed or incorporated by reference.
- New assays, test methods, and endpoints that could be useful for safety assessment, with justifications for why and how these proposed new methods should be considered.
- Key studies and considerations for study interpretation for each of the regulatory categories of food and cosmetic ingredients and chemical contaminants overseen by CFSAN.
- Ways to make the guidance more useful to stakeholders.
- Ways to make its processes and criteria for safety assessment clearer to stakeholders.
The comment period ends on May 11, 2015.
Press release
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Consumer Reports Touts Dearies not Theories in Favor of Mandatory GMO Labeling
Sherlock Holmes in the 2009 movie stated, “It is a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit to theories instead of theories to suit facts.” When one forms theories before having the data, one grows attached to one’s “dearies” and increases risk of confirmation bias.
The March 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine features an article with an ostensible intent to help consumers “sift through the facts” about the purported health and environmental effects of genetically modified organism (GMOs). Unfortunately, the article cites theories that lack supporting facts and in the end only adds to the fog surrounding modern biotechnology.
For instance, Consumers Union opines that, “the jury is still out on the health impact of GMOs.” The jury of public opinion may be out, but the overwhelming conclusion of scientific experts is clear: Every major scientific body in the United States and around the world has reviewed independent research and concluded that genetically engineered crops and food are as safe as those developed by conventional methods.
Consumers Union claims that animal studies “have suggested that GMOs might cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys,” but they fail to support their allegation with a single study. I endeavor to read every study that is touted as showing GMO risk. I have yet to find a single one that indicates a risk different than with conventionally bred varieties.
The column describes recent attempts by U.S. states to require GMO labeling and repeats a misleading mantra, "shoppers have a right to know what’s in their food.” GMO labeling reveals nothing about what is in a food. Genetic engineering is a breeding method not an end product. Rather, to the degree that people believe GMO labeling reveals something about what is in their food, GMO labeling is misleading.
The article did point out an interesting twist to the labeling debate. The food companies strongly opposed to mandatory GMO labeling also produce non-GMO products. Consumer Reports seems so surprised that companies would produce what people are willing to pay for that they missed the importance of the fact — people already have the choice to buy GMO or non-GMO. Consumers can buy organic (which cannot contain GMOs) or products with voluntary “Non-GMO" labeling.
The article concludes that mandatory GMO labeling schemes would add “less than a penny a day” to most grocery bills. This conclusion is based on an assumption that food producers would simply add “GMO” to existing labels with no change in product formulation. This is a naïve assumption considering the expected negative consumer reaction. Many misperceive mandatory GMO labeling as validation of theories about risk. When it is assumed many products will be reformulated to avoid GMO ingredients, other studies put the estimated cost increase for a family of four at $400 to $800 per year.
The Consumer Reports' economic analysis is also superficial because it ignores how the details of a GMO labeling law would affect the costs. For example, a GMO-labeling exemption for organically produced foods could magnify the increase in food costs to consumers. In typical recently proposed GMO-labeling laws, organic food would be exempt from GMO labeling if it contains inadvertent GMO content. Whereas with nonorganic, non-GMO labeled products, companies would face legal repercussions if testing reveals misbranding even if due to inadvertent content. This would likely drive up the cost of non-GMO labeled food because food companies would choose more expensive organic ingredients to avoid potential liabilities (Van Eenennaam). Oh, and this would also benefit organic growers, who are major sponsors of these laws. But I am sure that is just a coincidence.
The March 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine features an article with an ostensible intent to help consumers “sift through the facts” about the purported health and environmental effects of genetically modified organism (GMOs). Unfortunately, the article cites theories that lack supporting facts and in the end only adds to the fog surrounding modern biotechnology.
For instance, Consumers Union opines that, “the jury is still out on the health impact of GMOs.” The jury of public opinion may be out, but the overwhelming conclusion of scientific experts is clear: Every major scientific body in the United States and around the world has reviewed independent research and concluded that genetically engineered crops and food are as safe as those developed by conventional methods.
Consumers Union claims that animal studies “have suggested that GMOs might cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys,” but they fail to support their allegation with a single study. I endeavor to read every study that is touted as showing GMO risk. I have yet to find a single one that indicates a risk different than with conventionally bred varieties.
The column describes recent attempts by U.S. states to require GMO labeling and repeats a misleading mantra, "shoppers have a right to know what’s in their food.” GMO labeling reveals nothing about what is in a food. Genetic engineering is a breeding method not an end product. Rather, to the degree that people believe GMO labeling reveals something about what is in their food, GMO labeling is misleading.
The article did point out an interesting twist to the labeling debate. The food companies strongly opposed to mandatory GMO labeling also produce non-GMO products. Consumer Reports seems so surprised that companies would produce what people are willing to pay for that they missed the importance of the fact — people already have the choice to buy GMO or non-GMO. Consumers can buy organic (which cannot contain GMOs) or products with voluntary “Non-GMO" labeling.
The article concludes that mandatory GMO labeling schemes would add “less than a penny a day” to most grocery bills. This conclusion is based on an assumption that food producers would simply add “GMO” to existing labels with no change in product formulation. This is a naïve assumption considering the expected negative consumer reaction. Many misperceive mandatory GMO labeling as validation of theories about risk. When it is assumed many products will be reformulated to avoid GMO ingredients, other studies put the estimated cost increase for a family of four at $400 to $800 per year.
The Consumer Reports' economic analysis is also superficial because it ignores how the details of a GMO labeling law would affect the costs. For example, a GMO-labeling exemption for organically produced foods could magnify the increase in food costs to consumers. In typical recently proposed GMO-labeling laws, organic food would be exempt from GMO labeling if it contains inadvertent GMO content. Whereas with nonorganic, non-GMO labeled products, companies would face legal repercussions if testing reveals misbranding even if due to inadvertent content. This would likely drive up the cost of non-GMO labeled food because food companies would choose more expensive organic ingredients to avoid potential liabilities (Van Eenennaam). Oh, and this would also benefit organic growers, who are major sponsors of these laws. But I am sure that is just a coincidence.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
New EU Legislation Would Let European Union Member States Ban a Gene-Engineered Crop
It violates the spirit of the World Trade Organization agreements.
It upends the status of science as the neutral arbiter.
Nonetheless, I am optimistic about the new legislation in the European Union that will give member states the power to ban gene-engineered crops (GMOs) for various social and policy reasons. The legislation was approved by the European Parliament is expected to be approved by the European Council.
Up to now, GMOs are banned only for health and safety concerns. Under the future rules even after the European Food Safety Authority has found a GMO safe, members states may ban the GMO in their territory, “based on a wide range of reasons such as: environmental or agricultural policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, avoidance of GMO presence in other products, or public policy, to name a few.”
I am optimistic this law will help clean up a polluted scientific communication environment. No longer will it be necessary to distort the facts and magnify the risks to justify a ban.
Perhaps we are already seeing some refreshing honesty as a result. The Scottish government has recently asserted its opposition to planting of GMOs. The reasons:
1. “[T]here is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers.”
2. "To grow GM crops in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand.”
You have to respect that. No disingenuous framing. No wildly implausible theories. Just preference and protection of marketing.
It upends the status of science as the neutral arbiter.
Nonetheless, I am optimistic about the new legislation in the European Union that will give member states the power to ban gene-engineered crops (GMOs) for various social and policy reasons. The legislation was approved by the European Parliament is expected to be approved by the European Council.
Up to now, GMOs are banned only for health and safety concerns. Under the future rules even after the European Food Safety Authority has found a GMO safe, members states may ban the GMO in their territory, “based on a wide range of reasons such as: environmental or agricultural policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, avoidance of GMO presence in other products, or public policy, to name a few.”
I am optimistic this law will help clean up a polluted scientific communication environment. No longer will it be necessary to distort the facts and magnify the risks to justify a ban.
Perhaps we are already seeing some refreshing honesty as a result. The Scottish government has recently asserted its opposition to planting of GMOs. The reasons:
1. “[T]here is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers.”
2. "To grow GM crops in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand.”
You have to respect that. No disingenuous framing. No wildly implausible theories. Just preference and protection of marketing.
Monday, November 17, 2014
My article on partially hydrogenated oils, GRAS, and Pigs in a Poke
In the current issue of Food Technology I have an article on partially hydrogenated oils, GRAS, and pigs in a poke. You can read the whole article here.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Is the Russian Ban on US and EU Food Imports a Violation of the WTO Agreements?
I doubt the US would ever challenge the Russian ban on United States and European Union food imports as a violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements because the ban will likely hurt Russia more than the US.
Russia might argue the ban was based on a security interest that was permissible under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement exceptions. Regardless of the defense, a complaint almost certainly would be tied up in dispute resolution for a long time. In short, this is far beyond what WTO was designed to handle.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Vermont bill requiring GMO labeling
 |
| English: Vermont State House, December 2005. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The Vermont bill includes a provision for a special fund for legal defense. Litigation seems likely and may challenge the law on a number of grounds, especially violation the First Amendment guarantees for free speech and as interference with interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. A weaker challenge may be made based on field pre-emption by federal law. Another weaker challenge could come under the Establishment Clause because the Vermont bill includes a purpose of informing those with religious beliefs against GMOs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)