Tag: FDA

Deadline to List Calories on Restaurant Menus Quickly Approaching

Posted on by Patrick Morin

As of May 5, 2017, chain restaurants with 20 or more locations are required to provide nutrition labeling of “standard” menu items. Restaurant owners should, if they haven’t already, start preparing for the compliance deadline. In addition to restaurants, this requirement also 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.

These menu labeling requirements were published on December 1, 2014 as a final rule by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), as required under the Affordable Care Act. If you are a small business owner these new rules will have a significant impact on your operations. What it means is that calorie counts will have to be displayed for popcorn at a theater, food from a salad bar, hot dogs from a convenience store and takeout pizza. In addition, vending-machine operators with at least 20 locations also will be required to post calorie counts.

Calorie information also will be required for some alcoholic beverages served in bars and restaurants. This would apply to beverages listed on menus and menu boards, however, this would not apply to mixed drinks ordered at the bar. Craft brewers should take notice. Even if the rules may not directly affect beer manufacturers, those that sell their brews to chain retailers may be forced to supply calorie counts or take their products elsewhere.

While the purpose behind these rules are to combat obesity in America, where over one-third of meals are consumed outside the home, the effect is to burden retailers with significant compliance costs. Retailers are now faced with the choice of passing this additional cost onto the consumer or eliminating certain products from their menus. While not an easy decision for businesses to make, non-compliance can lead to legal action by the FDA.

The rule’s requirements for determining caloric content and labeling menus are highly detailed and complicated. Therefore, if your small business needs assistance in complying with the rule, please contact us at Morsel Law.

Food Recalls: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover “Reasonable Probability” of Contamination?

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Many food businesses, after conducting a risk assessment, will purchase some form of recall insurance (commonly referred to as product contamination insurance). These recall policies typically provide coverage for “actual” contamination, meaning for coverage to kick in the consumption or use of the product must have resulted in bodily injury and/or property damage. To date, recalls were voluntary and initiated by the company. However, earlier this year the final rules were issued under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which provide FDA with the authority to mandate recalls for food products if there is a “reasonable probability” that the food product is adulterated or misbranded and the use and/or exposure to the product would cause serious health consequences or death.

The FDA’s mandatory recall authority under FSMA may put food businesses at risk because many insurance policies don’t provide coverage for government recalls without an “actual” contamination. The direct and indirect costs associated with these recalls can be substantial. It is important to know if your damages are covered by your policy and, if so, to what extent.

While many insurers have yet to address FSMA, some insurers have altered their basic form or issue an endorsement for “government recall”.  However, not all “government recall” clauses are created equal, so careful attention should be spent when reviewing or negotiating the policy to ensure proper coverage, especially since every business is different and are faced with different risks.

In order to better understand their insurance requirements, businesses should perform a comprehensive risk analysis. The risk analysis should not only include the business’s products and operations, but also the operations of their suppliers’ and an analysis of the quality of the ingredients included in the business’s final products. Often overlooked in the analysis process is the risks assumed in purchase and sale agreements and vendor contracts. Businesses should review these agreements to identify and determine which risks can and/or should be insured. Many contracts in the food industry are written in favor of the buyer, so in the event of a recall, the seller (policyholder) is responsible for associated costs. The effects of a recall to a seller without proper coverage could be devastating.

When discussing recall coverage with your broker, the following are a list ofitems you may want to address:

  • Direct Product Damage – Many policies cover the contaminated product in the field or warehouse, but some only cover product in the field.
  • Publicity – Publicity coverage is not always included in a basic policy, but when it is the most important feature of this coverage is that it can result from “an actual or alleged contamination, where the Named Insured’s Product(s) and the Named Insured must be specifically named.” If a business supplies an ingredient used by a buyer in a finished product and the buyer’s product is recalled (in most cases only the finished product is identified in the recall), then is this scenario the policy won’t provide coverage.
  • Lost Gross Profit/Extra Expense (LGP) – If the policyholder loses an account due to a recall event, this pays for a year or more of LGP. For many food businesses, a large account could represent a significant portion of their total revenue. Extra Expenses may arise when it is necessary to engage another processor and new processing costs exceed the businesses normal processing costs.
  • Rehabilitation Expenses – This coverage pays for the rehabilitation of the brand in the marketplace. Many businesses overlook the importance of obtaining this coverage because one food safety incident can destroy a brand that a business has spent years building.
  • Crisis Response/Consultant Expenses – Coverage for these expenses can be very important and largely address the costs involving specialized attorneys and public relations/crisis response specialists.

If you have questions about coverage under your insurance policy, please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

Food Importers Required to Verify Foreign Suppliers

Posted on by Patrick Morin

As I’m sure those of you in the food import business are aware, FDA finalized its rule on Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (“FSVP”) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals. The rule requires that importers implement a FSVP to verify that their foreign suppliers are producing food in a manner that provides the same level of public health protection as the preventive controls or produce safety regulations, and to ensure that the supplier’s food is not adulterated and not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling.

If you import food into the U.S. you must comply with the requirements under the rule or face regulatory action. The following is an overview of rule and what your business can do to comply its requirements.

What Importers Are Affected:  The rule applies to all importers of food into the U.S. An “importer” is the U.S. owner or consignee of food that is being offered for import or, if there is no such owner or consignee, the U.S. representative or agent of the foreign owner or consignee at the time of entry.

What Food Is Covered: The FSVP Rule applies to all food that is imported or offered for import into the United States. Certain foods are not covered by FSVP, including (1) juice and fish that complies with FDA’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (“HACCP”) regulations; (2) food for research or evaluation; (3) food for personal consumption; (4) alcoholic beverages; (5) food that is imported for processes and future export; (6) low-acid canned foods; and (7) certain meat, poultry, and egg products that are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at the time of import. The rule also sets forth modified requirements for importers of dietary supplements and dietary supplement components, very small importers, and importers of food from certain small foreign suppliers.

Importer Requirements Under Rule: Each importer must develop an FSVP that ensures “foreign suppliers” are producing food in a way that provides the same level of protection as what is required under the Preventive Controls Rules and the Produce Safety Rule (if applicable) and ensure that the supplier’s food is not adulterated and is not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling. A “foreign supplier” is an entity that manufactures, processes or grows food, or raises animals that are exported to the U.S. without further manufacturing or processing.

What Must Be Included:  An FSVP must be developed by a “qualified individual” who must perform the various activities and be able to read and understand the language of any records that must be reviewed. In developing an FSVP, an importer is required to conduct and document the following activities:

  • Hazard Analysis: An importer must complete a written hazard analysis that identifies potential hazards for each food and each supplier, including biological, chemical (including radiological) and physical hazards.
  • Risk Evaluation: An importer must evaluate the risk posed by a food, based on the hazard analysis, and the foreign supplier’s performance. Factors that importer’s must consider in the evaluation can include the foreign supplier’s procedures, processes and practices related to food safety, and any information that FDA may have regarding the foreign supplier’s compliance. The importer can also rely on another entity to perform the risk evaluation under certain circumstances.
  • Verification Activities: Based upon the evaluation of risk conducted, the importer must establish and follow written procedures to ensure that it only imports from approved foreign suppliers. Appropriate supplier verification activities may include annual on-site audits of the supplier’s facility, sampling and testing, or a review of the supplier’s relevant food safety records. The importer can also rely on another entity to determine and perform appropriate supplier verification activities under certain circumstances.
  • Supply Chains: The final rule also adds flexibility and recognizes the reality of modern distribution chains by not requiring an importer to conduct supplier verification (or evaluate the risk posed by a food and the foreign supplier’s performance) when the hazard requiring a control in a food will be controlled by a subsequent entity in the distribution chain in the United States. For example, if an importer’s customer will control the hazard, the importer can rely on its customer to provide written assurance that the food will be processed for food safety and must disclose that the food has not been processed to control the identified hazard. If the hazard will be controlled by a subsequent entity in the distribution chain, the rule requires disclosure that the food has not been processed to control the identified hazard as well as a series of written assurances starting with assurances from the customer to the importer and continuing the obligation to provide written assurance of processing for food safety throughout the distribution chain. The rule provides flexibility for an importer to establish, document and implement an alternative system that ensures adequate control, at a later distribution step, of the hazards in a food product distributed by a manufacturing/processing facility.
  • Conduct Corrective Actions: If something goes wrong and an importer determines that its foreign supplier has not used safe processes and procedures, the importer must take immediate corrective action. The appropriate action will depend on the circumstances, but can include discontinuing use of the foreign supplier until the cause of noncompliance, adulteration or misbranding has been adequately addressed.

The risks evaluated as part of an FSVP must be promptly reevaluated upon the discovery of new information. Additionally, an FSVP must be reassessed for each food and each foreign supplier at least once every three years. Based on the results of any such FSVP reassessment, an importer must promptly adjust its supplier verification activities if necessary.

What is the Deadline to Comply:  Importers must comply with the rule by the latest of the following dates:

  • 18 months after publication of the final rule;
  • For the importation of food from a supplier that is subject to the preventive controls or produce safety rules, six months after the foreign supplier is required to meet the relevant regulations;
  • For an importer that is itself a manufacturer or processor subject to the supply-chain program provisions in the preventive controls regulations, the date by which it has to comply with those provisions.

It is important for companies to determine whether they are subject to FSVP requirements, and, if so, to begin taking steps to ensure compliance. If you are unsure of whether your company is subject to, or if you need assistance complying with, the FSVP rule please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

KIND Petitions FDA: Should Investors Lose Confidence in General Counsel?

Posted on by Patrick Morin

In a previous article I discussed how important it is for food businesses to conduct an in-depth label review prior to launching new products. Specifically, I addressed the FDA Warning Letter issued to KIND LLC and pointed out how costly labeling mistakes can be, especially when the risk could have easily been mitigated. In their response to FDA, KIND agreed to correct most of the technical errors noted in the letter; however, when it comes to changing their view of what foods are allowed to label themselves as “healthy” they don’t agree with what they refer to as “outdated” regulations.

In a citizen petition letter (“Petition Letter”) sent to FDA last week, KIND’s general counsel, Justin Mervis, notes that under current regulations “whether or not a food can be labeled “healthy” is based on specific nutrient levels in the food rather than its overall nutrition quality.” KIND then goes on to claim that new scientific evidence no longer supports this view and that, accordingly, FDA amend 21 C.F.R. 101.65(d)(2) in regards to nutritional content claims so that manufacturers may use the term “healthy” without regard to the total fat or saturated fat, if the source of such fat comes from fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains or seafood, provided that “such foods are used in their whole form or have been processed in such a way that did not materially degrade their nutritional value.”

While the Petition Letter makes several other recommendations, the majority of the Petition Letter is devoted to the argument that there is a disconnect between the Dietary Guidelines and what claims manufacturers are permitted to state on their labels. KIND argues that manufacturers should be permitted to make claims on their products labels (e.g., “nuts are part of a healthy diet”) that are consistent with federal dietary recommendations and current scientific evidence. As such, KIND goes on to request the FDA “undertake rulemaking to define a “dietary guidance statement” as a statement in food labeling about the usefulness of a food, or a category of foods, in maintaining healthy dietary practices.” The requested rule would permit claims on food labels to communicate that certain foods are useful in creating a diet that is consistent with current dietary recommendations, so long as those claims are not misleading.

While it isn’t a secret that food regulations, in some part, have become “outdated”, what makes KIND’s petition interesting is it comes after being caught violating the same regulations they are petitioning to amend. The real question is whether KIND knew their product labels were non-compliant when released into the marketplace or did they make a business decision to move forward with non-compliant labels in order to promote their “healthy” marketing campaign. While the saying “it’s better to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission” may apply in certain situations, it’s probably not the best strategy when it comes to breaking federal law.

The role of the general counsel is to advise executive leaders on the state of the law, how certain laws affect their business and to provide pertinent information and/or legal advice to such leaders so they have the ability to make informed decisions. The general counsel is not required to be an expert in the industry in which their client operates (although it certainly helps); however, they should know the limits of their expertise and, when appropriate, bring in outside assistance with such expertise. If they don’t know their limits, or can’t identify potential legal issues outside their expertise, then their departure should be swift. After all what good is legal counsel if leaders are not able to rely on their advice?

It isn’t clear whether KIND made the decision to market their products with non-compliant labels, but if they did the general counsel shouldn’t take the blame. However, it took KIND six months to file their Petition Letter which leads me to believe the labeling violations occurred not because of a strategic business decision, but due to the lack of regulatory expertise and oversight from the general counsel’s office. If my presumption is correct, investors should demand answers and push for changes in the executive suite. These violations have resulted in significant expense revising labels, advertising and websites, in addition to substantial legal fees incurred responding to the Warning Letter and submitting the Petition Letter, and most recently defending consumer lawsuits. While attorneys play a significant role in advising businesses, legal fees cannot be entirely avoided; however, they can be efficiently managed. It is up to KIND’s investors to decide whether their capital in this situation was well-spent.

Craft Brewers Should Prepare for FDA Inspections

Posted on by Patrick Morin

“Whoa, hold on,” you say, “I’m a craft brewer. What does the FDA have to do with me?” Well, that’s a good question. As a brewer you are already familiar with your state liquor agency and the Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), but what you probably don’t realize is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also regulates your operations. With the increased focus on food safety, and additional regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), it is only a matter of time until FDA comes knocking on your door.

“Okay, you’ve got my attention,” you respond. “So what part of my business does the FDA regulate?” Glad you asked. The FDA has jurisdiction over many aspects of your business, including both the inputs to and outputs of your operation. Below are just some examples:

Registration:

Just like food manufacturers, breweries are required to register as a food facility with the FDA and renew their registration every two years. This registration requirement applies regardless of whether you brew domestically or overseas (i.e., import beer into U.S.A.).

Labeling Requirements: 

Beer that contains both malted barley and hops are subject to TTB labeling regulations; however, beer that doesn’t contain both malted barley and hops (i.e., rice or wheat beer) are subject to FDA labeling regulations. These regulations require additional disclosures, including: ingredients (such as spices, flavorings, colorings, chemical preservatives); allergens, such as wheat; and nutritional facts (think of that dreaded word “calories”), of course unless it meets certain exemptions.

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs):

Federal regulations have established GMPs for the manufacturing, packing or holding of human food, which includes several of the steps in the beer-making process. Storing and holding grains and other food products for processing and beer for shipment is also subject to regulation. In order to comply with these regulations your operations need to be sanitary, you must perform an analysis of your operations to address any potential hazards, and implement GMPs to minimize such hazards.

Reporting and Record-keeping:

Food safety continues to be a primary concern of FDA and new regulations under FSMA. To ensure your brewery remains compliant you must keep records of the immediate sources of food and the immediate recipients of products you sell. In the event of food safety incident, such as the release of an adulterated product from a production, bottling or manufacturing facility, FDA may require the release be reported. These record will assist brewers and FDA in identifying the sources and recipients of the adulterated products.

Bulk Sales:

Bulk sales of foods and processing byproducts, such as spent grain for animal feed, are subject to FDA regulation. Brewers already implementing human food safety requirements would not need to implement additional preventive controls or GMPs for animal food, except to prevent physical and chemical contamination. This requirement applies even if you’re donating the byproducts for use in animal food.

Food Service and Sales:

In addition to selling beer, do you serve food or sell packaged food products, such as olive oils, cheese, meats or other snacks, in your tasting room or brewpub? Food products served or sold on premise may be subject to federal, as well as state or local, regulations. While exemptions that may apply, you should make sure you stay in compliance with the law.

Inspections:

Under the rules promulgated under FSMA, the FDA is obligated to inspect every brewery in this country over the next several years. This means the FDA can observe your manufacturing processes, inspect your facilities and every aspect of your operation. They also can review your records and take photograph your operations. You should be prepared for any kind of surprise inspection. Also, if the facility fails to meet compliance standards on the first visit to your brewery, FDA will reinspect at a later date and you will be charged at a rate of $221/hour.

As you can see, the FDA has quite a bit of regulatory oversight over your brewery. But it’s not too late to take action to ensure your brewery is compliance, as many of the food safety rules under FSMA have yet to take effect. If your brewery is unsure whether it is in compliance with, or need assistance in adapting your brewery to meet, FDA regulations please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

FDA Issues Another Blow to Maker of Just Mayo

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Earlier this year, Hampton Creek Inc., the maker of Just Mayo, was sued by Unilever, the maker of Hellman’s mayonnaise, and accused of false advertising for calling its egg-less spread “mayo”. Even though experts thought the claims were strong, the case was eventually dropped due to the negative publicity Unilever received which painted it as a corporate bully. As mentioned in an earlier article, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Hampton Creek in Florida state court asserting similar claims, but this time by consumers who claim they were misled into thinking Just Mayo’s product was actually mayonnaise.

Well, unfortunately for Hampton Creek, the third time isn’t a charm. This time the feds are knocking on their door. On August 12th, FDA issued a warning letter to Hampton Creek citing various violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDC Act”) by their Just Mayo and Just Mayo Sriracha products. The warning letter specifically notes that both products make “cholesterol free” nutrient content claims on their labels (and website), but don’t include a statement that discloses the level of total fat in a serving of the product in immediate proximity to the cholesterol claims, which is a violation of the applicable regulations. The letter also notes both products make unauthorized health claims on their labels (and website) by implying that the products can reduce the risk of heart disease due to the absence of cholesterol. Under federal regulations (see 21 C.F.R. 101.14(a)(4)), a food is disqualified from making health claims if the food contains more than 13 grams of total fat per 50 grams. Both Just Mayo and Just Mayo Sriracha contain 36 grams of fat per 50 grams.

But the biggest blow is one that will set up plaintiffs for successful consumer protection lawsuits. Just like the accusations made by Unilever and the Florida consumer in their complaints, the FDA notes that because neither the Just Mayo and Just Mayo Sriracha products contain eggs, they don’t meet the definition of “mayonnaise” under the regulations (see 21 C.F.R. 169.140(c)), and thus are misbranded under the FDC Act. While the FDA goes on to list several additional labeling violations in the warning letter, this could be the most detrimental to Hampton Creek’s core business.

Many recent lawsuits have relied on FDA warning letters as evidence to support a claim that a manufacturer violated state and/or federal law and, in many instances, the plaintiffs have been successful. 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 lawsuits against Hampton Creek could have been avoided is difficult to determine. However, what I can say for certain is this warning letter is sure to bring additional lawsuits. So I hope for Hampton Creek’s sake they take the time to focus their attention internally and resolve the issues that could have easily been avoided by conducting a thorough regulatory review.

As mentioned above, 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.

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.

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.