Digest

Bryan Cave Digest

Restaurants/Retail

Main Content

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

Battle Heats Up Concerning Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Cultured Meat Products

July 9, 2018

Categories

The next wave of emerging agricultural biotechnology is set for its first regulatory showdown. Cell-cultured meat (“CCM”) allows your steak to be grown in a lab by replicating animal cells.  Some CCM products are even created using synthetic products derived from plants, insects, and other non-animal proteins.  No matter the type of culture used, CCM products are created without animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the traditional manner.  Advocates of this emerging industry have coined the term “clean meat,” but many in the conventional meat food industry feel it should not be called “meat” at all.

On February 9, 2018, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (“USCA”) filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) requesting that USDA invoke its jurisdiction over CCM and mandate that such products not be allowed to use “meat” or “beef” in their labeling.  Indeed, the USCA asserts that such terms should be associated

FDA Extends Date for Compliance with New Nutrition Facts Label; Menu Labeling Rules Take Effect

May 18, 2018

Categories

The FDA has extended the date for compliance with the 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 26, 2018. Manufacturers with annual food sales of less than $10 million were given an additional year to comply.

The FDA has now issued a Federal Register notice extending the compliance dates by “approximately 1.5 years.”

The Nutrition Facts labeling rules:

  • Require an updated “Nutrition Facts” label with dual-column labeling for certain containers;
  • Require mandatory declarations for “added sugars” in grams and as a percentage of Daily Value (% DV);
  • Update the list of declared nutrients. Disclosure of vitamin D and potassium will be required. Calcium and iron will continue to be required. Vitamins A and C will no longer be required but can be included

California’s Cage-Free Eggs Law Faces Supreme Court Challenge By Other States

Briefing is now complete in a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen states asking the United States Supreme Court to block a California law requiring any eggs sold within the state to come from chickens that have sufficient space to stretch out in their cages.

In the lawsuit, filed directly with the high court in December, Missouri, Iowa and 11 other states allege that “California has single-handedly increased the costs of egg production nationwide by hundreds of millions of dollars each year” due to its stringent regulations prohibiting confinement of egg-laying hens. The complaint contends that California’s requirements violate the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. The lawsuit also alleges that California’s regulations are preempted by the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA), a federal law requiring uniformity of labeling, standards, and other provisions allowing for free movement of eggs and egg products in interstate commerce. To support their claims, plaintiffs rely

California Considers Regulating Food Packaging Under Green Chemistry Initiative

March 23, 2018

Categories

As part of its Green Chemistry Initiative and the Safer Consumer Products (SCP)implementing regulations, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has released its Draft Three Year Priority Product Work Plan (2018-2020).  The Plan indicates that for the first time it will “address exposures from harmful chemicals that migrate from consumer products into food.”

DTSC selected a total of seven product categories to include in the Plan. Five categories have been carried over from the 2015-2017 Plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products
  • Cleaning products
  • Household, school, and workplace furnishings and décor
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation
  • Consumable office, school, and business supplies

DTSC has also added two additional categories – food packaging and lead-acid batteries. Clothing products and fishing and angling equipment, two of the product categories from the prior Plan, will not be evaluated under this Plan.

The Plan

The Last Unicorn… Frappuccino?

While the mythical unicorn is a rare creature, it has recently become a marketing phenomenon, with the unicorn’s rainbow-laden powers being harnessed to sell unicorn-themed products that can cover you from literally head to toe, i.e., from makeup (such as “Unicorn Snot®”, a glitter gel) to slippers and even a toilet spray made with “unicorn farts” (Squatty Potty’s “Unicorn Gold®”). Perhaps inevitably, brand owners have begun to battle over who can lay claim to a unicorn trademark. And this includes drinks that sound like coffee (but largely are not).

Click here to read the Alert prepared by Bryan Cave attorneys Eric Schroeder, Steven Alagna and Nick Williamson in full.

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP 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.