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

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

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.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended for another year the regulation allowing businesses to provide a Prop. 65 point-of-sale warning for bisphenol A (BPA) in canned and bottled food and beverage products.

In order to rely on the point-of-sale warning for another year, however, businesses must provide information to OEHHA concerning any such products where BPA has been intentionally added.

The requested information includes the brand name, product description, FDA product category, and UPC code or other specific information. Where bsiphenol A is no longer used in the product but the product is still available in commerce, the last expiration or “use by” date should be given.  The information can be provided in a form or template on OEHHA’s website by clicking here.

The regulation allows businesses to rely on the point-of-sale warning through December 30, 2017. After that date, businesses will need to sell

This morning, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Michael Taylor announced that FDA is extending the compliance date for the menu labeling rules one year, making the new compliance date December 1, 2016.  Since finalizing the menu labeling rules in December of 2014, FDA states that it “has had extensive dialogue with chain restaurants, covered grocery stores and other covered businesses, and answered numerous questions on how the rule can be implemented in specific situations.”  Certainly, businesses impacted by the rule have been grappling with the substance and logistics of implementing the menu labeling rules, including working with suppliers to obtain additional information about products.  This alone can be a tricky proposition for items like alcohol and craft beers, where nutritional information required by the menu labeling rules is not always readily available.  The extension will allow all parties impacted by the menu labeling rules – a group

The FDA’s highly anticipated proposed rules regarding menu labeling are set for release just around the corner, and businesses and elected officials are already reacting.

The proposed rules apply to chain restaurants, retail food establishments, and vending machines with 20 or more locations and require that menus be labeled with caloric information and that certain nutritional information be made readily available to patrons.

While some chain retailers applaud the idea of nationwide uniform labeling requirements for the sake of ease, others are concerned about the cost and efficacy of the proposed rules.

Domino’s CEO J. Patrick Doyle has been a dissonant voice in the debate since 2011.  Maine’s Senator Angus King is another critic, and joining him are both members of the Senate and House that have sponsored S. 1756 and H.R. 1249 , bills aimed at amending the FD&C Act.  Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, who supports the amendment, claims that the FDA’s proposed “one-size-fits-all