Digest

Bryan Cave Digest

Other Posts

Main Content

FTC Warns Companies Against Advertising CBD Products as Treating or Curing Diseases

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has announced that it sent warning letters to three companies that sell “oils, tinctures, capsules, ‘gummies,’ and creams containing cannabidiol (CBD),” a chemical compound derived from the cannabis plant. The letters warn the companies, which have not been identified, that “it is illegal to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.”

The FTC states that each company marketed its CBD products as being able to “treat or cure serious disease and health conditions,” such as relieving “’even the most agonizing pain’ better than prescription opioid painkillers,” or treating cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, colitis, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and AIDS.

In the letters, the FTC urges the companies to review all

California Prop. 65 Regulation Exempts Certain Coffee Chemicals From Cancer Warning; Stay in Coffee Case Lifted

June 26, 2019

Categories

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) has finalized a highly anticipated Proposition 65 regulation relating to coffee. The regulation, California Code of Regulations Section 25704, takes effect October 1, 2019. Section 25704 provides: “Exposures to chemicals in coffee, listed on or before March 15, 2019 as known to the state to cause cancer, that are created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.”

As we previously reported, OEHHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the regulation in June 2018. The Office of Administrative Law approved adoption of the regulation on June 3, 2019, and OEHHA issued a Final Statement of Reasons on June 7.

OEHHA’s Final Statement of Reasons concludes that “the weight of the evidence from the very large number of studies in the scientific literature does not support

Bioengineered Food Disclosure Rules Finalized, Require Disclosure of “Detectable” GMOs

On December 21, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published its final rule implementing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard(NBFDS) signed into law by President Obama in 2016.   The NBFDS preempted state and local genetic engineering labeling requirements and charged AMS with developing a national mandatory standard for disclosing the presence of bioengineered (BE) food.  The rule takes effect on February 19, 2019, and implementation will be phased in over the next three years.

As we previously reported, the NBDS requires food manufacturers, importers of food labeled for retail sale in the U.S. and some U.S. retailers to disclose foods and ingredients produced from foods that are or may be bioengineered.  The final rule defines “bioengineered food” as any food that “contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and for which the modification could

FDA Provides Guidance for New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels

On November 5, the FDA released non-binding guidance intended to answer questions related to Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts Label and Serving Size final rules. As we previously reported, the rules were finalized in May 2016 and initially set a general compliance date of July 2018. The FDA has extended that deadline to January 1, 2020 for manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual food sales. Manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales have an extra year to comply, until January 1, 2021.

The May 2016 rules require a revamped Nutrition Facts label that, among other things,

  • Increases the type size of certain nutrition information.
  • Requires declaring actual amount, in addition to percent Daily Value, of vitamin D, calcium, iron and potassium.
  • Requires declaring “Added sugars,” in grams and as percent Daily Value.
  • Updates the list of nutrients that are required or permitted.
  • Removes

Coffee Defendants Likely To Seek Stay of Prop. 65 Action Following OEHHA’s Proposal to Exempt Coffee From Cancer Warning Requirement

July 9, 2018

Categories

Defendants in the Proposition 65 case against Starbucks and numerous other coffee manufacturers and retailers have indicated that they intend to file a motion to stay that action following a proposal by the California agency that administers Prop. 65 to exempt coffee from the cancer warning requirement for certain types of exposures.

Judge Elihu Berle has issued an order in Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC435759, setting a hearing date on defendants’ contemplated request for a stay of the action for July 31 – the same day as the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion seeking a permanent injunction which could potentially result in defendants being required to sell their coffee products with a Prop. 65 warning in California.

On June 15, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt coffee from

WARNING: New Proposition 65 “Clear and Reasonable Warning” Requirements Effective August 30, 2018

Retailers and manufacturers should take steps now to ensure they are compliant with the new California Proposition 65 warning regulations that take effect on August 30, 2018.

Proposition 65 prohibits retailers and manufacturers from knowingly and intentionally exposing California consumers to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or developmental or reproductive harm without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning.”  (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.) The revised regulations provide examples of “safe harbor” warnings that are deemed to be clear and reasonable under the new amendments. Notably, the use of the specific “safe harbor” warnings included in the regulations is not actually required. Retailers and manufacturers can use any clear and reasonable warning; however, using the examples provided ensures that the warning is sufficient.

As we previously reported, amendments to the warning regulations were approved in August 2016. The 2016 and the more

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.