Food Beverage Marketing

PHAI’s Gottlieb Discusses Litigation as an Approach to Reduce Childhood Obesity at Institute of Medicine Workshop

On October 21, 2010, the Institute of Medicine’s Standing Committee on Childhood Obesity Prevention hosted a one-day workshop to examine “Legal Strategies in Childhood Obesity Prevention.” Mark Gottlieb, Executive Director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law, presented on a panel moderated by UC Berkeley law professor Stephen Sugarman entitled “Using Litigation to Make Change.” Gottlieb\’s presentation focused on the underutilized legal tool of state consumer protection laws to stop unfair and deceptive practices that seek to sell junk foods and beverages to kids. Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science in the Public Interest then discussed the litigation and litigation threats that his organization has been using for policy change. The final panelist was Joseph Price, an attorney with Faegre and Benson in Minneapolis who defends the food industry. His presentation was critical of the use of litigation to fight childhood obesity and took time to focus on PHAI\’s President, Dick Daynard, as well as those who seek to fight obesity who, themselves, are overweight or obese. All of the proceedings are available via the archived webcast and the litigation panel can be seen here.

PHAI’s Gottlieb Discusses Litigation as an Approach to Reduce Childhood Obesity at Institute of Medicine Workshop Read More »

Discovery of Elevated Fructose Levels in Popular Soft Drinks Raises Important Legal Questions for Regulators and Consumers

Prepared by Cara Wilking, J.D., Staff Attorney What kinds of High Fructose Corn Syrup Are Generally Recognized as Safe for Use in the Food Supply? Substances “reasonably expected to become a component of food” are food additives subject to premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), unless they are generally recognized as safe (GRAS).[1] In 1983, the federal government listed high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as GRAS, and the FDA affirmed that decision in 1996. Federal law defines HFCS as “a sweet, nutritive saccharide mixture containing either approximately 42 or 55 percent fructose.”[2] Accordingly, HFCS typically is commercially available as HFCS-42 (42% fructose) or HFCS-55 (55% fructose). The basic rationale behind granting HFCS GRAS status was that it contains essentially the same ratio of fructose to glucose as table sugar (table sugar is 50% fructose and 50% glucose). Consistent with this logic, in its 1996 review of the GRAS status of HFCS, the FDA expressly rejected a proposal to expand the definition of HFCS to include “HFCS-90” (90% fructose), “primarily because HFCS-90 does not contain approximately equimolar amounts of glucose and fructose.”[3] HFCS-90 does not have GRAS status, and FDA food labeling laws require that HFCS be listed as an ingredient separate from other sweeteners.[4] Do Fructose Levels in Popular Soft Drinks Containing HFCS Conform to the GRAS Standard? In a recent study published in the journal Obesity, Ventura et al. purchased a mix of twenty three bottled and fountain dispensed sweetened-beverages and had them tested by an independent laboratory to determine, among other things, the fructose to glucose ratio of popular full-calorie soft-drinks.  Laboratory testing revealed that bottled full-calorie Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Sprite had fructose estimates of 64-65%, well in excess of the upper-level of 55% fructose generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.[5] The study extrapolated from this finding that the elevated fructose levels equated to “18% higher fructose consumption than would be estimated assuming the value of 55% HFCS.”[6] This preliminary finding has potentially important public health implications,[7] and is important because a key part of the GRAS process is to estimate the population-wide consumption of the substance being evaluated. [8] What Legal Issues Would Be Implicated by Elevated Fructose Levels in Popular Soft-Drinks? Ventura et al.’s study reflects a very small sample size.  Elevated fructose levels in popular soft drinks, if confirmed by additional testing implicate a number of legal issues for regulators and consumers. Federal Prohibition of False and Misleading Food Labeling The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits false and misleading food labeling, and “food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.”[9] Federal law specifically defines HFCS “as mixture containing either approximately 42 or 55 percent fructose.”[10] These are the only HFCS formulations that are GRAS and permitted for widespread use in the food supply without prior approval.  Absent another source of fructose disclosed in the ingredients list, it would be false and misleading to list “HFCS” on the ingredient list when the product in fact contains a higher ratio of fructose to glucose than required by the legal definition of the ingredient.  As such, under federal law the product would be misbranded. Federal Prohibition of Adulterated Foods The FDA summarized its adulterated food policy in a guidance document to the food industry as follows: \”Any substance added to a beverage or other conventional food that is an unapproved food additive (e.g., because it is not GRAS for its intended use) causes the food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)).  Adulterated foods cannot be legally imported or marketed in the United States.\”[11] HFCS that does not conform to the GRAS ratio of no more than 55% fructose is not GRAS for widespread use in the food supply. Under a plain reading of the FDA’s adulterated food policy, use of such a sweetener in a beverage would constitute the use of an unapproved food additive rendering the product adulterated. False and Misleading Advertising Federal and state laws generally prohibit false and misleading advertising.  In 2008, the Corn Refiners Association launched a national multimedia advertising and public relations campaign called “Changing the Conversation about High Fructose Corn Syrup.”[12] The central message of the campaign is that HFCS is essentially the same as table sugar with respect to the ratio of fructose to glucose and is therefore safe: \”High fructose corn syrup is nearly identical in composition to table sugar — both contain approximately 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Sugar and high fructose corn syrup have the same number of calories as most carbohydrates; both have four calories per gram. Because they are nearly compositionally equivalent, the human body cannot tell the difference between high fructose corn syrup and sugar.\”[13] If additional testing of foods and beverages sweetened with HFCS reveals widespread actual fructose levels in excess of 55%, then the representation that HFCS is “compositionally equivalent” to table sugar could amount to false and misleading advertising requiring action by the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General. REFERENCES [1] US FDA, Determining the Regulatory Status of a Food Ingredient, http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/ucm228269.htm (Oct. 8, 2010). [2] 21 CFR § 184.1866(a). [3] Direct Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe; High Fructose Corn Syrup, 61 Fed. Reg. Volume 165, 43448 (Friday, August 23, 1996) (to be codified at 21 CFR pt. 182-184). [4] See US FDA, Letter to Food Manufacturers about “And/Or” Ingredient Labeling of Nutritive Sweeteners in Soft Drink Products, http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/InspectionCompliance/WarningOtherLetters/ucm110252.htm (July 5, 2005). [5] Emily E. Ventura, Jaimie N. Davis & Michael I. Goran, Sugar Content of Popular Sweetened Beverages Based on Objective Laboratory Analysis: Focus on Fructose Content, __Obesity__, 5 (2010) . [6] Id. at 6. [7] See id. at 5-6 (discuss the various health consequences of the metabolic process triggered by fructose vs. glucose). [8] US FDA, Guidance for Industry: Estimating Dietary Intake of Substances in Food, http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm074725.htm (August 2006). [9] US FDA, Guidance for Industry: Factors that Distinguish Liquid Dietary Supplements from Beverages, Considerations Regarding

Discovery of Elevated Fructose Levels in Popular Soft Drinks Raises Important Legal Questions for Regulators and Consumers Read More »

PHAI Attorney and Noted University of Illinois Economist Look at Applying Tobacco Taxation and Other Pricing Strategies to Reduce Obesity

Public health advocates concerned about the burgeoning obesity epidemic are examining tools that have been successfully employed to reduce tobacco consumption, including taxes. Research suggests that a significant tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could have the desired public health effect of reducing consumption of high-calorie and low-nutrition beverages. The food and beverage industry is prepared to challenge tax initiatives and many of the same legal policy issues seen in the tobacco control movement, including discounting, are likely to arise. Public health advocates may also want to consider applying other price-based strategies to sugar-sweetened beverages, such as proportional pricing requirements, to encourage decreased consumption.

PHAI Attorney and Noted University of Illinois Economist Look at Applying Tobacco Taxation and Other Pricing Strategies to Reduce Obesity Read More »

PHAI Publishes Case Study on NYC Menu Labeling Litigation

PHAI documented the successful passage of the nation’s first restaurant calorie disclosure law. In an effort to address increases in obesity rates and obesity-related health problems, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) amended the City’s Health Code on December 5, 2006 and then again on January 22, 2008 to require that chain restaurants post the number of calories contained in standardized menu items. The disclosure appears close to each item on the menu or menu board. Restaurant patrons are more likely to see and act upon these disclosures, compared to information posted in less obvious locations in restaurants or on websites. Although several public health practitioners and organizations supported the concept of the disclosure law, its legality was untested in the courts when DOHMH acted. DOHMH knew it would face an organized and well-funded opposition. DOHMH nevertheless passed the disclosure law and faced two lawsuits. The final outcome was that DOHMH established a version of the disclosure law that was more comprehensive than originally intended. (The first version applied only to restaurants that voluntarily agreed to post calorie information.  The final version applies to most chain restaurants, regardless of whether they want to post calorie information.)  Numerous states and municipalities have subsequently passed disclosure law in their jurisdictions. The decision by DOHMH to proceed was under-girded by some key factors.  First, the scope of the increase in obesity prevalence was (and remains) alarming.  The problem had been documented in health surveillance data.   Second, several public health organizations have recommended the concept of mandating clear disclosure of calorie information for restaurant meals at the point of purchase. Third, organizational changes at DOHMH allowed public health practitioners to identify and focus on environmental risk factors for obesity.  Fourth, questions of legality were addressed early on through a comprehensive internal legal review and dialogue that included a well-informed consideration of the potential public health benefits. Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Public Health Practice & Policy Solutions, PHAI used case study research methodology to investigate threats of litigation made during the proposal and passage of public health laws. The case studies examine this experience across a range of public health issues. Public health officials, attorneys and advocates provide insight into their decision-making and planning process in anticipation of and in response to legal challenges.

PHAI Publishes Case Study on NYC Menu Labeling Litigation Read More »

PHAI Researches Unfair Food Marketing to Kids (and those who purchase for kids)

On December 2, 2009, Mark Gottlieb and Cara Wilking presented a poster to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research program grantees in Tucson, Arizona. PHAI is exploring how state consumer protection laws can be used to address unfair and deceptive food and beverage marketing practices directed toward children or those who purchase food and beverages for children. Such state laws may permit private citizens, attorneys general or prosecutors to bring actions consumer fraud. Recently, Connecticut state attorney general Richard Blumenthal launched an investigation into the Smart Choices labeling program. The eight large food companies that participated in the labeling program (ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Inc., Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, Inc., Riviana Foods, Sun-Maid and Unilever) have agreed to remove the program’s logo from their products, at least during the investigation. PHAI’s findings will be available by the Fall of 2010.

PHAI Researches Unfair Food Marketing to Kids (and those who purchase for kids) Read More »

Industry Controls Over Food Marketing To Young Children: Are They Effective?

By Ben Kelley The U.S. food and advertising industries maintain a system of self-regulation of marketing messages promoting the purchase and consumption of high-calorie, low-nutrition foods to children. This paper presents an extensive review and summary of global assessments of self-regulation in general, as well as of commentaries specifically addressing the world-wide state of regulation directed at food advertising that targets children. It concludes that the U.S. self-regulatory system is ineffective when measured against available criteria for gauging the adequacy of self-regulation, and also ineffective in the context of the worsening obesity epidemic and its damaging impact on children. Download the full paper here. Ben Kelley is a board member of the Public Health Advocacy Institute.

Industry Controls Over Food Marketing To Young Children: Are They Effective? Read More »