Category: food

FDA Delays Menu Labeling Rule

Posted on by Patrick Morin

As mentioned in another article in December, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule on food labeling (the Rule), as required under the Affordable Care Act, which provides for nutrition labeling of “standard” menu items for chain restaurants with 20 or more locations and “similar retail food establishments.” Initially the Rule was to be implemented on December 1, 2015; however, since the Rule was issued numerous chain restaurants, grocery stores, and other covered establishments complained that they may not be able to comply within such time period.  Thus, on July 9, 2015 the FDA responded by announcing that it was extending the compliance date for the Rule to December 1, 2016.

This is welcome news to the food industry as many businesses have struggled to implement procedures to comply with the Rule. Food businesses will now be afforded additional time to train staff, design new menus, and develop new information systems to assist in efficiently complying with the Rule. The FDA also announced it intends to publish a guide to assist covered establishments in complying with the Rule which is expected to be issued in August 2015.

While the menu labeling rule implementation has been delayed for one more year, it’s important for businesses to start planning for the implementation. If your food or beverage business needs assistance with implementing or interpreting the menu labeling rule, please feel free to contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

Streamlining Your Food Imports Into the U.S.

Posted on by Patrick Morin

If you import food into the United States then you are familiar with the headaches and hassles that go along with this burdensome regulatory process. But that may change with the release of the draft guidance that outlines FDA’s plan to implement the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) mandated under the Food Safety Modernization Act. The VQIP is a voluntary, fee-based program for the expedited review and importation of foods from importers who achieve and maintain a high level of control over the safety and security of their supply chains.

The new draft guidance lays out the various benefits in addition to expedited entry that an importer can expect to receive from participating in VQIP, including limiting examination and/or sampling of VQIP food entries to “for cause” situations. Additionally, participants in the VQIP will have access to the VQIP Importers Help Desk, which will be dedicated to responding to questions and concerns of VQIP importers.

The draft guidance lays out the eligibility for participating in the program, which includes: (a) 3-year history of importing food into the U.S.; (b) do not import food subject to an import alert or Class 1 recall; (c) have a current facility certification for each foreign supplier of food intended to be imported under VQIP; and (d) be in compliance with Foreign Supplier Verification Program requirements and applicable seafood and juice HACCP regulations.

Participation in the VQIP is for the U.S. fiscal year, which begins on October 1st each year. Applications to participate in VQIP will need to be submitted electronically through the FDA’s industry portal between January 1st and May 31st before the fiscal year in which the importer seeks to join the program. FDA has indicated that due to resource constraints, it will limit the number of participants in the first year to 200 at the most. Participation must be renewed annually, and participants will be subject to FDA inspection.

If your company is considering participating in the VQIP program, carefully review the draft guidance as the FDA will only accept comments on until August 4, 2015.

Update: Ag Committee Passes Bill to Repeal COOL

Posted on by Patrick Morin

The Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted 38 to 6 to approve HR. 2393, a bill that would repeal Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for beef, pork and chicken products, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities, such as seafood and shellfish. This move comes just two days after the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against parts of the COOL law, a requirement that labels tell consumers what countries the meat is from: for example, “born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United States” or “born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.”

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a long-time supporter of the meat industry, stated “[w]e cannot sit back and let American businesses be held hostage to the desires of a small minority who refuse to acknowledge that the battle is lost.” But other congressmen don’t believe swift and immediate action is the way to react. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minnesota, ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, stated “I’m disappointed that the WTO ruled against the United States, but I think repealing COOL is premature…there are still several steps that have to occur before [retaliation from Canada and Mexico] would take place.”

What is interesting is how quickly Congress reacted to the WTO ruling, an international trade body with no input from American citizens. As mentioned in an earlier article, consumers are demanding increased transparency in the food supply, especially when it comes to knowing where their meat comes from. Moreover, more than 60 other countries have mandatory labeling requirements, including the European Union which requires indication of the country of birth, fattening and slaughter. Although the U.S. and EU laws are different, it is possible for Congress to review similar meat labeling laws and determine whether their is a suitable alternative to repealing the law outright. This may take some time, but it is better to get it right than to do it quick.

Congress is supposed to represent the people, not special interest groups; however, in passing this bill through committee it sends the message that their campaign donors are more important than voters. Time will only tell whether this bill goes anywhere, but I hope voters take notice and remember in November.

U.S. On Verge Of “COOL” War

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Those of us born before 1980 probably remember growing up the midst of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War ended in 1991, however, the U.S. could find itself facing a trade war, this time with its North American neighbors.

On Monday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) required on certain meat packaging discriminates against livestock from Canada and Mexico. The ruling could lead to retaliatory measures in the form of tariffs on U.S. imports.  Canada and Mexico have both indicated they intend to impose sanctions on U.S. exports as early as late summer.

The labeling law was originally introduced by Congress as part of the 2002 farm bill. The current rules require labels to state, for example, that the animal that produced the meat was “born in Mexico, raised and slaughtered in the United States” or “born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.”  Canada and Mexico argued that these labeling requirements caused the prices of their meats to drop because meatpackers don’t want to go through the hassle and expense of segregating imported animals. The WTO report supports this argument, claiming that U.S. regulations, which require meat producers to indicate on retail packaging where each animal was born, raised and slaughtered, give less favorable treatment to imported meat than domestic products.

As a result of the WTO ruling, Congress is now faced with a tough choice: amend or repeal the law, or suffer punitive tariffs on a range of goods. Any amendment needs to be narrowly tailored so that U.S. meat producers are not favored over imports. In 2013 while the dispute was working its way through the WTO, Congress amend the labeling rules, but the WTO stated in their report the amendment did not go far enough. Repealing the law could appease Canada and Mexico and prevent a trade war; however, what message would this send to U.S. consumers? As consumer demand has

been increasing over the past several years for transparency in the food supply, by repealing COOL Congress would in effect be telling consumers that U.S. trade interests are more important. How well this would sit with consumers is unknown, but with the 2016 election on the horizon I’m willing to bet legislators are polling their constituents on this issue. If Congress does nothing U.S. exporters will certainly suffer, most likely passing the additional cost onto consumers. But it isn’t just additional cost, it’s lost jobs. Jobs in the industries affected by the tariffs and jobs that supply those industries. In the stagnant economy in which we live, any action that results in job losses needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

The U.S. Congress is on the clock and the world is watching.  Whatever side you may be on, this is going to be a fight of historic proportions as money continues to pour in from all sides. Stayed tuned for updates as we closely follow this matter and post updates to our blog.

Food Safety Incidents Can Destroy Businesses

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Spring is finally here and summer is just around the corner. As a kid this was my favorite time of the year, besides school ending for summer vacation, it was the season of BBQ’s and ice cream. Who doesn’t like ice cream? The average American consumes 48 pints of the delicious treat each year and they consume more ice cream during the summer months than the rest of the year combined.

It is also the favorite time of the year for ice cream makers as they watch their products fly off the shelves. However, not all ice cream makers will be experiencing happiness this summer as some recently were forced to pull their inventories from store shelves. Blue Bell Creameries LP, the maker of Blue Bell Ice Cream, and Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams LLC both recently found traces of Listeria bacteria in their products. In addition to pulling products, both companies have temporarily shut down their plants until they can identify and remedy the problem. These recalls follow fellow Washington based ice cream maker, Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream Inc., who last year removed all its ice creams, gelatos, custards and sorbets from retailers’ shelves after health officials linked two listeria cases at a hospital to tubs of its ice cream.

Listeria is not a laughing matter, in fact it is one of the deadliest food borne pathogens. Listeria is a virulent pathogen that thrives in cool, wet environments, and has previously prompted food companies to shut plants since it is difficult to eradicate even through plant cleanings.

For food producers, a food safety incident can be catastrophic. Not only is it a financial strain on the company, but it can destroy their reputation as consumers lose confidence in their business. A perfect example is the 1993 E. coli outbreak that damaged Jack in the Box’s reputation for many years from which they may never fully recover. Plaintiff’s lawyers also pick up on food safety incidents like sharks sniffing out blood in the ocean, leading to countless of lawsuits filed on behalf of consumers allegedly injured by the contaminated products.

These incidents demonstrate why food producers must take preventative measures to put place and enforce food safety procedures in their facilities. It is not enough to just have safety procedures in place for the manufacturing process, companies must also address transportation and storage of their products. This is no longer an option as the proposed rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) focus on the storage and transportation of products, including loading and unloading operations, transportation, packaging and bacterial testing.

There are many producers, both domestically and abroad, that are not yet prepared for FSMA’s requirements to take effect or for the audits that will be required. Training and preparation for audits and inspections will be the key to success of any program. FSMA is a game changer as this training must be targeted at all levels, from the corporate offices to floor managers. If your food company hasn’t already begun the process of implementing the processes and procedures under FSMA it should consider doing so now. The final rules are scheduled to be issued later this year.

Michigan Craft Brewers Beware: FDA Labeling Rule May Impact Your Business

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Over the past two years Michigan business owners spent considerable time implementing procedures to comply with the health care requirements under the Affordable Care Act (the Act). Just when business owners thought they could turn their attention back to doing what they do best (i.e., running their business), regulators issue new requirements, this time targeting the food and beverage industry.

The FDA’s final rule on food labeling (the Rule), as required under the Act, provides for nutrition labeling of “standard” menu items for chain restaurants with 20 or more locations and “similar retail food establishments.” Unlike earlier drafts, the final Rule requires chains to also issue caloric information for alcoholic beverages. While the Rule does not specifically apply to breweries, there may be unintended consequences that impact craft brewers, especially those brewers that sell to chain restaurants. Michigan craft breweries should take notice.

Michigan, ranked fifth in the nation, is home to more than 150 craft breweries. Consumer demand for craft brews continues to grow and many national chain restaurants operating in Michigan already carry local craft beers on their menus. Many restaurants rotate their offerings regularly and list the current beer selection on menu boards. While restaurants are ultimately responsible to collect nutritional information on the items they serve, it is unclear whether restaurants would instead place this burden on brewers.

The FDA has noted that restaurants can utilize nutritional databases in order to determine calorie content on the beers they offer, such as the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.  According to the database, the calorie count for a “typical beer” is 153 calories per 12 oz. serving. But the problem is craft beers are not “typical”.  They are full-flavored concoctions which ingredients vary greatly from one brewery to another. Thus, labeling all craft beers 153-calories would clearly be inaccurate.

Under the Rule, businesses must provide an inspector with information substantiating nutrient values, including the method and data used to derive these nutrient levels. A “responsible individual” for the business must certify that the information contained in the nutrient analysis is complete and accurate.  So if a restaurant lists a 350 calorie beer as having that 153-calorie count, they run the risk of violating the Rule, especially if they cannot demonstrate they took reasonable steps to ensure the brewery adhered to the 153-calorie count. Failure to comply with the Rule, or if you don’t get it right, the menu item will be deemed “misbranded” which is a misdemeanor under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA retains the discretion to hold those “responsible individuals” who certify the menu labeling, criminally liable for a misbranding violation.

Knowing the risk of a potential misbranding violation could lead to restaurants not accepting the standard reference calorie count, forcing brewers to supply nutritional information. Thus, craft brewers may be faced with a choice: either supply calorie counts or take their products elsewhere. But with rumors circulating that the Alcohol Tax & Trade Bureau (the TTB) — which is responsible for approving alcohol labels — could look at its own labeling policies and enforce stricter regulations in the near future, even possibly requiring nutritional information on beer labels, craft brewers may need to consider analyzing their beers now. So in the event the TTB follows the FDA’s lead and implements new labeling requirements, brewers will be prepared and know the caloric content of their products.

Craft brewers have long stressed a “drink better, not more” philosophy, unlike the mass-produced beers who have offered low-calorie light brews for decades, so hopefully consumers won’t be deterred by the calorie counts. It may slow cross-over growth, but it won’t stop the momentum. My prediction: calories or not, craft beers are here to stay.

Label Reviews Are Critical For All Food Businesses

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Imagine you are sitting at your desk on a Tuesday morning.  You are going over your financials in preparation for tax season when your assistant knocks on your door.  She walks into the office and drops mail on the desk.  She mentions an envelope addressed to your attention with the FDA listed as the return address. Curious, you open it and to your surprise you find a letter stating that your company has violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The letter states that you have 15 days to respond with corrective actions you plan to take in response to the violations.

This isn’t a hypothetical, this is similar to what happened to Kind LLC last month, the maker of Kind bars.  In the Warning Letter, the FDA noted multiple violations, including the improper use of the word “healthy” on the Kind bar labels.  Pursuant to federal regulations, a food can make a “healthy” claim only if it has 1 gram or less of saturated fat per serving and gets no more than 15 percent of its calories from saturated fat. The four Kind bars called out in the FDA’s letter—Fruit & Nut Almond & Apricot, Fruit & Nut Almond & Coconut, Kind Plus Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein, and Kind Plus Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants—have between 2.5 and 5 grams.

The letter also stated the use of the “+” symbol was in violation of the applicable regulations. The regulations state that “plus” can be used if a food has 10 percent more of a nutrient than another similar food, and the product lists that food. The Kind bars don’t.  Kind bars carry a “good source of fiber” claim, which claim is defined as 10 to 19 percent of the DRV for a nutrient. In this case, that’s 2.5 to 4.75 grams of fiber—and the Kind bars in question do meet the definition. However, if the product is not low-fat (containing 3 grams or less), then that fact must be disclosed on the label, near the fiber claim. Again Kind bars don’t.

While these are only some of the alleged violations in the Warning Letter, you can see the list is pretty extensive.  Not only must Kind respond to the FDA with corrective actions, but now they face the significant expense of revising their labels, adverting and website.  This is no small task for an international food producer. However, this risk could have been mitigated through an in-depth label review. The FDA’s regulations covering health and nutritional claims are complex and not always transparent.  As demonstrated in the letter to Kind, this is a reminder of how important it is for food businesses to have an in-depth review of their labels and marketing prior to production.  Most important to point out is that FDA regulations affect businesses of all sizes, so small and startup food businesses with limited experience navigating federal regulations should pay particular attention to their labels and marketing.

If your business is unsure whether a product label is in compliance with, or need assistance in adapting your label to meet, FDA regulations please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

How Beverage Companies Can Avoid Unnecessary Lawsuits

Posted on by Patrick Morin

In a recent suit filed in California, Millennium Products, Inc., the maker of GT’s Kombucha and Synergy drinks, was challenged on claims that its drinks contain “powerful antioxidants”, which plaintiffs claim is in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act because the antioxidant statements it makes are misleading and unauthorized nutrient content claims as proscribed by the FDA.

Pursuant to federal regulations, a nutrient content claim is a claim on a food product that directly or by implication characterizes the level of a nutrient in the food (e.g., “low fat,” “high in oat bran,” or “contains 100 calories”). Only those claims that are specifically defined in the regulations may be used, all other claims are prohibited. Previously approved nutrient content claims characterize the level of a particular nutrient (e.g., ‘low sodium’), whereas a term such as ‘high in antioxidants’ ties a claim (i.e., ‘high’) to a class of nutrients that share a specific characteristic (i.e., they are antioxidants).

GT’s label use lists “EGCG 100mg” (a polyphenol found in tea with recognized antioxidant properties) in order to substantiate their antioxidant claim. However, for claims characterizing the level of antioxidant nutrients in a food, a reference daily intake (RDI) must be established for each of the nutrients that are the subject of the claim, but in this case there is no established RDI for EGCG. Moreover, since GT’s product is a type of tea, and the FDA considers tea a food with no nutritional significance, the plaintiffs claim the drinks do not contain “even a single antioxidant nutrient with an established RDI.”

It is important to note that Millennium Products, Inc. isn’t the only company to face legal action in recent years from consumers making false labeling claims. Recently, Twinings North America, Inc. was sued for allegedly deceiving consumers by mislabeling its teas as a “natural source of antioxidants”, however, in this case the judge dismissed the lawsuit stating that a “natural source of antioxidants” is not a nutrient content claim because it did not state or imply the level of antioxidants. However, in warning letter sent in 2012 the FDA noted that the statement “very powerful antioxidant” is an unauthorized nutrient content claim because “very powerful” characterize the level of antioxidants in the product. Other tea producers were also sent warning letters by the FDA over their green teas because they were improperly labeled with the term “antioxidant” (see Unilever, Inc. maker of Lipton Tea and Dr Pepper Snapple Group).

As lawsuits are increasingly targeting food and beverage makers challenging their labeling claims, it is more important than ever to make sure your labels are thoroughly reviewed prior to introducing the products into the marketplace. If your business is unsure whether a product label is in compliance with, or need assistance in adapting your label to meet, FDA regulations please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

FDA Releases Menu Labeling Guide for Small Businesses

Posted on by Patrick Morin

On December 1, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule on food labeling, as required under the Affordable Care Act, which provides for nutrition labeling of “standard” menu items for chain restaurants with 20 or more locations and “similar retail food establishments.” If you are a restaurant owner the menu labeling rule will most certainly impact on your bottom line. The rule is expected to cost the food industry some $315 million to implement and about $44 million per year after that, according to the FDA’s original cost-benefit analysis. In addition to restaurants, the rule applies to food facilities in entertainment venues, such as movie theaters and amusement parks, take-out food establishments, bakeries, convenience stores, grocery stores and supermarkets.

Several months have now past since the rule was finalized and business owners continue to show frustration with the hundreds of pages of legalese they are forced to navigate in order to prepare their companies for its implementation. Thus, in response to this frustration, the FDA has released a Small Entity Compliance Guide, which is intended to restate the rule’s requirements in plain language.

The guide provides detailed guidance on many topics, including: types of establishments covered; how to label menus with nutritional information; how to determine calorie content of foods; and the consequences of misbranding. Most importantly, the guide provides visual examples on how to calculate calories when to toppings change on particular menu items, such as ice cream sundaes and pizza. The guide also discusses the food labeling requirements in great detail, including: labeling requirements for standard menu items; formatting requirements for declaring calories; nutritional information; and requirements for food that is self-service or on display.

The rule is scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2015, therefore it’s important for businesses to start planning for the implementation. Although the guide was meant to make it easier for small businesses to comply, the rule’s requirements for determining caloric content and labeling menus are highly detailed and complicated. Therefore, if your small businesses needs assistance in complying with the rule, please contact us at Morsel Law.

Update: Avoiding Costly Mistakes For Your Food Business

Posted on by Patrick Morin

In an article I published last fall, the maker of Hellman’s mayonnaise sued Hampton Creek Inc., the maker of Just Mayo, accusing the company of false advertising for calling its eggless spread “mayo”. But due to the negative publicity Unilever received which painted it as a corporate bully, they eventually dropped the suit. However, Hampton Creek’s worries have not disappeared as they are now facing another legal challenge.

Earlier this month, a class-action lawsuit was filed in Florida state court again stating, among other things, that Just Mayo is misleading and therefore “misbranded” in violation of federal law. Unlike the previous suit, these plaintiffs are also asserting that Hampton Creek violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which have more flexible standards than the federal Latham Act (the act under which the previous suit was filed). Considering many legal experts at the time thought Unilever has a strong case, Hampton Creek could be in a bit of trouble this time around. There is no multi-national corporation to launch a campaign against, only consumers who claim they were misled into thinking Just Mayo’s product was actually mayonnaise. Although I’m sure they are working diligently to come up with a strategy to combat their new foes.

The FDA regulations state that “mayonnaise” must contain at least 65% oil by weight, vinegar, and egg or egg yolks. However, Just Mayo doesn’t include eggs, instead it gets its emulsification from vegan pea protein. Hampton Creek states that it calls its spread “mayo”, not “mayonnaise”, and therefore argues that it doesn’t need to comply with the “mayonnaise” definition.

The plaintiffs’ claim that Just Mayo misleads customers who think they are buying actual mayonnaise, not an egg-free spread. Under Federal law products are “misbranded” if their “labeling is false or misleading in any particular” (see 21 U.S.C. 343). The plaintiffs’ claim, as one of many reasons, Just Mayo is misleading because the label for features an egg with a plant growing over it and it refers to its product as “mayo” and “mayonnaise” in its marketing materials. Again, this is up for the court to decide and so only time will demonstrate whether this argument is a correct interpretation of the law.

Food manufacturers should ensure they thoroughly understand FDA regulations before labeling their products. This is not only to avoid a false advertising lawsuit, but also to avoid misbranding. It’s a prohibited act to distribute misbranded products and manufacturers can be subject to FDA enforcement and/or private party lawsuits. Whether the lawsuit could have been avoided, would be difficult to determine. However, food companies may minimize the chances of their products facing a legal challenge by consulting with an attorney familiar with FDA regulations.

If you need assistance navigating or complying with the laws affecting your food or beverage businesses, please feel free to contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.