Daily Dicta: Why Won't the FDA Tell Us What Foods Are Risky?
"Congress required this done years ago, with good reason,' said a lawyer from the Center for Food Safety, which has sued the FDA to force action.
October 18, 2018 at 01:48 PM
6 minute read
Here's a fun fact about me: My grandfather co-invented Cheez-Whiz. And McDonalds french fries.
(Seriously. This is his 2007 obituary.)
So when I saw that the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Environmental Health jointly sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration demanding that the agency identify “high risk” foods, I thought immediately of Grandpa Ed's legacy.
It turns out, the foods they're talking about aren't the ones that will kill you slowly (i.e. a steady diet of french fries and Cheez Whiz) but rather those most associated with foodborne illnesses.
According to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 48 million people—that's one in six Americans—get sick every year from food poisoning, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.
Under the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, the FDA was supposed to designate foods with a high risk of carrying foodborne illnesses by January 2012, and to propose record-keeping requirements for facilities that handle those foods by January 2013.
It strikes me as a basic good government move to protect public health. I don't know about you, but I'd like to do everything I can to avoid vomiting, bloody diarrhea or perhaps cascading organ failure.
But five years after the deadline, the FDA has yet to identify a single high-risk food.
“As the continued foodborne illness epidemic in our country shows, there is an urgent need to designate high-risk foods and establish their reporting requirements so that our government can rapidly and effectively respond to outbreaks,” said Ryan Talbott, a Center for Food Safety staff attorney. ”Congress required this done years ago, with good reason. As we have in the past, we will continue to hold FDA accountable to protect public health.”
The 24-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California claims the agency has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to act, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
“Without a list of designated high-risk foods that is accessible to the public through FDA's website and the additional reporting requirements to 'rapidly and effectively' track and trace these foods … Congress's will is thwarted and plaintiffs' members are deprived of information that they otherwise would have,” the complaint states.
So far, the FDA has only managed to solicit public comments on its “draft approach for the review and evaluation of data to designate high-risk foods” in 2014. That involved explaining the methods under consideration and asking for feedback—a step which wasn't even required by the statute.
The complaint doesn't speculate why the FDA under both Democrat and Republican administrations has dragged its feet about naming high-risk foods.
Presumably it's not that the agency is pro-food poisoning. But it's easy to imagine that there has been fierce lobbying around the designation. After all, if you were a cantaloupe grower or a company that produced packaged salads, would you want your product to be labeled “high-risk”? And to assume more burdensome tracking and reporting obligations?
I'm pretty sure the answer is somewhere between no and hell no.
An obvious way to identify candidates for the high-risk designation is to look at recent food poisoning outbreaks.
Among the examples cited in the complaint are chicken (Salmonella Heidelberg); pomegranates (Hepatitis-A); cucumbers (Salmonella Newport); cilantro (Cyclospora); prepackaged caramel apples (Listeriosis); ice cream (Listeriosis); frozen vegetables (Listeriosis); papaya (Salmonella); chicken salad (Salmonella Typhimurium) and romaine lettuce (E. coli).
Yikes.
So what's safe to eat? Besides Cheez Whiz and french fries, that is?
One of my favorite sources is Bill Marler, a name partner at food poisoning boutique Marler Clark in Seattle. He does nothing but litigate food poisoning cases—and as a result, he says he avoids sprouts, raw milk, unpasteurized juices, raw oysters and bagged salads, and is leery of ground beef and chicken.
But here's what he once told me he does eat: “I'll bend towards ordering a pizza at a restaurant. The chances of a pizza killing you—pretty low.”
News you can use. You're welcome.
This question from a Republican senator, asking what her Williams & Connolly colleagues might be wondering as well: “I think to be a really good federal judge you've gotta have some life experience … Tell me why you're more qualified to be on the Fourth Circuit than some of the Williams & Connolly [lawyers] that have been there for 20 years, 25, 30 years in the trenches?”
“Predatory lenders prey on financial difficulties. A predatory law firm can prey on the concept of justice itself,” says the complaint, which seeks $100 million in punitive damages.
The company says U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in certifying a massive antitrust class action last month committed multiple errors, including depriving Qualcomm of a hearing.
Trump Foundation lawyer Alan Futerfas argues that former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman should not have been allowed to investigate the Trump Foundation while simultaneously soliciting campaign donations based on his opposition to Trump.
Affiliates of UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest health insurer, were sued by lawyers at Zuckerman Spaeder for allegedly underpaying reimbursements for mental health services.
When a new justice arrives, Roberts mused, “the eight who were there before behave themselves better. It's really like having a new in-law at Thanksgiving dinner. You know, Uncle Fred will put on a clean shirt.”
In case you missed it…
It's entirely possible that Bono never even met the former Faegre litigator who represented USA Gymnastics as the Larry Nassar sex abuse scandal was unfolding.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigator of the Week: A Long-Sought Win on Preemption for Monsanto at the Third Circuit
Litigators of the Week: Proskauer Scores a Defense Win for Last Defendant Standing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
Litigators of the Week: Covington Team Gets a Directed Verdict in First Trial Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250