Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Food and Drug Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2016

Discipline
Institution
Keyword
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 91 - 97 of 97

Full-Text Articles in Food and Drug Law

Tainted: Food, Identity, And The Search For Dignitary Redress, Melissa Mortazavi Jan 2016

Tainted: Food, Identity, And The Search For Dignitary Redress, Melissa Mortazavi

Brooklyn Law Review

The law recognizes a right to legal redress for exposure to food that is tainted in the sense of being toxic or poisonous, but what about exposure to food products individuals find socially, morally, or religiously repugnant? Jews eating “kosher” hot dogs containing standard non-kosher meats. Vegetarians fed beef. Muslims ingesting vitamins containing pork. Aren’t these food products also “tainted”? Despite the fact that the American legal system has long recognized the need to protect individual dignitary rights, the law provides little meaningful redress in these situations or other instances of offensive food taint. So why has food autonomy, an …

Go to article

The Uneasy Case For Food Safety Liability Insurance, John Aloysius Cogan Jr. Jan 2016

The Uneasy Case For Food Safety Liability Insurance, John Aloysius Cogan Jr.

Brooklyn Law Review

Foodborne illnesses sicken millions and kill thousands of Americans every year, leading many to conclude that our dysfunctional government food safety system, which still relies heavily on physical inspections of food and facilities, is incapable of protecting us. As a result, many now look to the private market for solutions to our food safety crisis. One private market approach, food safety liability insurance, is gaining popularity. This article examines the benefits and drawbacks to food safety liability insurance and raises doubts about its ability to improve food safety. The market for safe food is plagued by overwhelming information problems that …

Go to article

Perpetual Twilight: How The Usda's Change To The Sunset Process Violates The Organic Foods Production Act Of 1990, Valentina Lumaj Jan 2016

Perpetual Twilight: How The Usda's Change To The Sunset Process Violates The Organic Foods Production Act Of 1990, Valentina Lumaj

Brooklyn Law Review

In 1990, Congress enacted the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) in response to consumer and industry demands for uniform standards in organic production. The drafters recognized that the basic tenet of the legislation was that organic foods would be produced without the use of synthetic materials, but they left room for minimal exceptions in the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (the National List). The National List enumerates the exemptions for synthetic substances, as well as prohibitions of natural substances, such as arsenic, in organic production. In September 2013, the USDA amended the Sunset Process, which is …

Go to article

Compelled Commercial Speech And The Consumer "Right To Know", Jonathan H. Adler Jan 2016

Compelled Commercial Speech And The Consumer "Right To Know", Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Compelled commercial speech, including mandatory labeling and the disclosure of factually true information, should not be seen as a separate category of speech under the First Amendment. Rather, compelled commercial speech should be understood as a type of commercial speech and be subject to the same level of protection as commercial speech generally. Accordingly, commercial speech compulsions, such as mandatory disclosures and labeling requirements, must be supported by a substantial government interest under the Central Hudson framework. The assertion of a consumer “right to know” does not constitute such an interest and cannot, by itself, justify compelled commercial speech within …

Go to article

Baptists, Bootleggers & Electronic Cigarettes, Jonathan H. Adler, Roger E. Meiners, Andrew P. Morriss, Bruce Yandle Jan 2016

Baptists, Bootleggers & Electronic Cigarettes, Jonathan H. Adler, Roger E. Meiners, Andrew P. Morriss, Bruce Yandle

Faculty Publications

Electronic cigarettes pose a competitive threat to the makers of cigarettes and other tobacco products, as well as to nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine gum and patches. A common response to such a threat is support for government regulation to suppress competition. Predictably, cigarette manufacturers and other threatened producers, as well as the governments that earn revenue from tobacco taxes, are supporting greater regulation of electronic cigarettes that would replicate the cartel-supporting rules of the Master Settlement Agreement. These efforts are aided by anti-smoking organizations that would like to prevent the growth of demand for electronic cigarettes. This episode …

Go to article

Memorandum Re: Health Canada's 'Draft Guidance' On Section 21.1(3)(C) Of The Food And Drugs Act, Matthew Herder, Trudo Lemmens Jan 2016

Memorandum Re: Health Canada's 'Draft Guidance' On Section 21.1(3)(C) Of The Food And Drugs Act, Matthew Herder, Trudo Lemmens

Reports & Public Policy Documents

In 2014 Parliament enacted a number of amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27 [hereinafter the “F&D Act”]. Known as “Vanessa’s Law,” these amendments were intended to enhance the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and thereby protect Canadians from harm by giving the regulator, Health Canada, new powers to, inter alia, recall drugs, require active post-market surveillance, and improve the transparency of information around pharmaceutical drugs. Vanessa’s Law explicitly recognized that “new measures are required to further protect Canadians from the risks related to drugs and medical devices.” (emphasis added) (Bill C-17, An Act to Amend the …

Go to article

Fda's Troubling Failures To Use Its Authority To Regulate Genetically Modified Foods, Leslie Francis, Robin Kundis Craig, Erika George Jan 2016

Fda's Troubling Failures To Use Its Authority To Regulate Genetically Modified Foods, Leslie Francis, Robin Kundis Craig, Erika George

Faculty Scholarship

This Article concerns the particular regulatory responsibilities only of FDA. It sets to one side the possible regulatory authority of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") or the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). This approach risks replicating the regulatory fracture introduced during the Reagan Administration and criticized by some scholars,15 but there is a great deal to say about current FDA practices. Out of similar considerations of space and focus, this Article also sets to one side many other important issues that surround GM foods: intellectual property rights; rights to free speech or commercial speech; fair trade …

Go to article

First Prev