Tag: food labeling

Pair of Lawsuits Target Mint Flavored Products

  • Spencer Sheehan, a well-known class-action attorney, has filed a pair of class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that mint flavored products which do not contain mint are deceptively labeled.
  • The first lawsuit alleged that a “mint chocolate chip ice cream” statement of identity is misleading to consumers where the product’s flavor is derived from “natural flavor” and not any mint or mint-containing ingredient. The product also contains images of mint leaves on the front panel. As support for the allegation that the lack of mint is deceptive, the complaint cites to the ice cream flavoring regulation (21 CFR 135.110(f)(2)), which requires that the term “flavored” (e.g., mint flavored) be used where a product contains a natural flavor which predominates.
  • The second lawsuit alleged that consumers are misled by a gum product which is labeled as “original flavor” with a backdrop of what appears to be a blue mint leaf, but which only contains “natural and artificial flavor,” and no mint-based ingredients. Plaintiff, citing to the general flavoring regulation (21 CFR 101.22), alleged that the product should have been labeled as “naturally and artificially flavored mint” and that the failure to disclose the flavor or include the other qualifiers is misleading.
  • Although Plaintiffs have alleged technical violations of FDA’s labeling regulations, courts have consistently held that a reasonable consumer may not be aware of the intricacies of FDA’s labeling regulations and that therefore a technical labeling violation is not in itself sufficient to show that a reasonable consumer would be misled.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Proposed Class Action Lawsuit Claims Arizona Beverage’s Gummies are Not “All Natural” Because They Contain Synthetic Ingredients

On February 11, 2020, Christopher Silva, a New York resident, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Hornell Brewing Co. Inc., Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., and Arizona Beverage Co. (“Defendants”) over defendants’ “all natural” gummy snacks.

The plaintiff claims that defendants’ advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the gummies contain several synthetic ingredients, such as ascorbic acid, citric acid, gelatin, dextrose, glucose syrup, and modified food starch.  Silva seeks to represent a New York class and individual classes for all 49 other states.

In the complaint, Silva cited to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Draft Guidance Decision Tree for Classification of Materials as Synthetic or Nonsynthetic (natural).  Per that guidance, a substance is natural – as opposed to synthetic – if (a) it is manufactured, produced, or extracted from a natural source (i.e. naturally occurring mineral or biological matter); (b) it has not undergone a chemical change (i.e. a process whereby a substance is transformed into one or more other distinct substances) so that it is chemically or structurally different than how it naturally occurs in the source material; or (c) the chemical change was created by a naturally occurring biological process such as composting, fermentation, or enzymatic digestion or by heating or burning biological matter.

Silva noted that while the synthetic ingredients are all listed on the back of the package, reasonable consumers are not expected or required to review the ingredients list on the back in order to confirm or debunk defendants’ prominent front-of-the-product claims.  The package in question includes the phrase “All Natural” on the packaging behind the words, “Arizona” and “fruit snacks.” We will continue to monitor any developments.

© 2020 Keller and Heckman LLP

For more on food ingredient labeling regulation see the National Law Review Biotech, Food and Drug law section.

Suit Over ‘No Preservatives’ Capri Sun Label Tossed

A proposed class action, filed in the Northern District of Illinois on October 25, 2018, against Kraft Heinz Food Co. accused the company of falsely advertising its Capri Sun juice as containing “no preservatives” when in fact it contains citric acid. Tarzian et al v. Kraft Heinz Food Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-07148. The complaint alleged that the representation that Capri Sun beverages contain “No Artificial Coloring, Flavors, or Preservatives” is unfair and deceptive advertising as the beverages contain a well-known preservative, citric acid.

In an order filed on October 10, 2019, U.S. District Judge Charles P. Kocoras dismissed the lawsuit and found that while the plaintiffs allege practices commonly used to manufacture citric acid throughout the industry, plaintiffs failed to draw a connection between the common industry practice and the actual practice used by Kraft.

This dismissal follows a dismissal of a similar matter in California federal court in 2015. Osborne v. Kraft Heinz Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02653. In that case, plaintiffs accused Kraft of mislabeling Capri Sun drinks as “all natural” when they allegedly contained synthetic ingredients, including citric acid and natural flavor. In a hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found that plaintiff did not know whether the citric acid used in Capri Sun’s drinks was natural or synthetic. The judge ultimately granted Kraft Heinz’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff never filed an amended complaint.

© 2019 Keller and Heckman LLP

For more on food labeling laws, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug law page.

Food for Thought: Outcomes of Food Labeling Cases Prove Difficult to Predict

The past year has seen a proliferation of lawsuits alleging that food product labels mislead consumers about the product’s ingredients. The trend continued last month, with decisions from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and one of its district courts reaching different results on motions to dismiss complaints alleging deceptive food labels.

Last month, the First Circuit reinstated a class action lawsuit against New England Coffee for violation of Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws related to the coffee brand’s label for “Hazelnut Crème” coffee. Dumont v. Reily Foods, 18-2055 (1st Cir. Aug. 8, 2019). Plaintiff alleged that the product name was deceptive because the product did not contain hazelnuts. A Massachusetts federal district court judge dismissed the suit because the complaint lacked sufficient particularized facts to satisfy the heightened pleading standard for fraud allegations.

The First Circuit reversed in a 2-1 decision. The majority noted that although the ingredient list on the product package’s back label read “100% Arabica Coffee Naturally and Artificially Flavored,” reasonable consumers might take different approaches in determining whether the coffee actually contained real hazelnuts. One might check the list of ingredients to ensure the coffee contained hazelnut while others may not, instead relying on the name of the product, without searching the ingredient list, “much like one might easily buy a hazelnut cake without studying the ingredients list to confirm that the cake actually contains some hazelnut.” The majority accordingly concluded that whether the product name implied that the product contained hazelnuts was better suited for resolution “from six jurors, rather than three judges.” In dissent, Circuit Judge Lynch argued that “a reasonable consumer plainly could not view the phrase ‘Hazelnut Crème’ as announcing the presence of actual hazelnut in a bag of coffee which also proclaims it is “100% Arabica Coffee.”

Neither opinion is especially persuasive. As for the dissent, hazelnuts are not coffee, and the fact that a coffee product called “Hazelnut Crème” is said to contain 100% Arabica Coffee does not reasonably rule out the possibility that the product contains hazelnuts. By the same token, however, other courts have concluded that reasonable consumers do not ignore a product’s prominently displayed ingredient list when information on the front label may be viewed as ambiguous concerning whether an ingredient is or is not contained in the product. See, e.g., Jessani et al. v. Monini North America, which one of the authors litigated and which this blog covered. To the extent the Dumont majority suggests otherwise, the opinion would be misguided. That said, whereas the olive oil product in Monini was labeled as “truffle flavored,” here, there was no modifier to suggest that the coffee in question simply tasted, or smelled, like hazelnuts. In such cases, perhaps, one could conclude that the front label lacked ambiguity, and thus would not compel prospective purchasers to search the label further.

Less than a week after the First Circuit’s Dumont decision, Judge Alison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts tossed a putative class action suit alleging that the advertising and packaging of the cereal “Honey Bunches of Oats” falsely suggested it was sweetened only or primarily with honey, when in fact the main sweeteners are sugar, brown sugar, and corn syrup. Lima v. Post Consumer Brands, 18-12100 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2019).The plaintiffs pointed to images of a sun, bee, and honey dipper as representing that honey was the principal sweetener in the cereal. They also cited surveys showing that most consumers believe honey is “better for you than sugar” and that approximately half of consumers are willing to pay more for foods that are primarily sweetened with honey.

In concluding that the consumers failed to state a claim, Judge Burroughs found that plaintiffs had offered no reasonable basis for their alleged belief that the honey references on the packaging implied that honey was the primary sweetener in the cereal rather than simply one of its primary flavors. In addition, even assuming the packaging could be viewed as portraying honey to be an ingredient instead of or as well as a flavor, Judge Burroughs found that plaintiffs still failed to state a claim. She noted that, unlike the “Hazelnut Crème” product in Dumont that did not contain any hazelnut, Honey Bunches of Oats did, in fact, contain honey. She also distinguished the case from Mantikas v. Kellogg, in which the Second Circuit found that a “made with whole grain” claim could imply that the product contained more whole wheat flour than white flour. Here, according to Judge Burroughs, the mere references to honey on the package carried no implication that honey was the primary sweetener, and a reasonable consumer concerned about how the cereal was sweetened would have consulted the cereal’s list of ingredients.

If nothing else, these cases underscore the fact-specific nature of the inquiry as to what product labels imply about their ingredients.

 

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on class action lawsuits, see the National Law Review Litigation & Trial Practice page.

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut

In a spit decision, the First Circuit reversed a dismissal of a putative class action in a Massachusetts consumer protection case. Dumond v. Reily Foods Co., No. 18-2055 (1st Cir. Aug. 8, 2019)

The defendant New England Coffee Company sells a “Hazelnut Crème” coffee. The plaintiff sued because the coffee contains no nut – it’s all coffee, no nut, only nut flavored. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend on the basis that the complaint wasn’t sufficiently specific. After rejecting that ground for dismissal and also rejecting a preemption argument, the majority noted that the defendants argued as an alternative ground to support the dismissal that the factual allegations complaint failed to state a plausible claim, and that’s the part of the decision that interests us.

Whether the label was deceptive, Judge Kayatta, writing for himself and Judge Torruella, opined was a question of fact. While the label said it was “100% Arabica coffee” and listed no hazelnut as an ingredient, Judge Kayatta said that perhaps a reasonable factfinder could conclude the name of the product was sufficient, without having to read the “fine print,” “much like one might easily buy a hazelnut cake without studying the ingredients list to confirm that the cake actually contains some hazelnut.”

Responding to the dissent, Judge Kayatta wrote:  “Our dissenting colleague [Judge Lynch] envisions a more erudite reader of labels, tipped off by the accent grave on the word “crème,” and armed perhaps with several dictionaries, a bit like a federal judge reading a statute. We are less confident that ‘common parlance’ would exhibit such linguistic precision. Indeed, we confess that one of us thought “crème” was a fancy word for cream, with Hazelnut Crème being akin, for example, to hazelnut butter, a product often found in another aisle of the supermarket.”

Judge Kayatta further wrote: “None of this is to say that our dissenting colleague’s reading is by any means unreasonable. To the contrary, we ourselves would likely land upon that reading were we in the grocery aisle with some time to peruse the package.”

In her dissent, Judge Lynch said that she disagreed with the majority that this presented a “close” question – in her view “a reasonable consumer plainly could not view the phrase ‘Hazelnut Crème’ as announcing the presence of actual hazelnut in a bag of coffee which also proclaims it is ‘100% Arabica Coffee.’”  Aside from noting that the package ingredient only said it included 100% Arabica coffee and never said it contained an actual nut, Judge Lynch explained how the word “Crème” means, both in the dictionary and in common parlance, a cream or cream sauce as used in cookery or a sweet liqueur, with the latter usually “used with the flavor specified” (citing Webster’s) – in short, “hazelnut Crème” clearly indicates a flavoring, not an ingredient. The majority’s hazelnut cake analogy was inapt because cakes are “made up of many ingredients.” .

My thoughts on this opinion are, first, it sounds like a lively chambers discussion, and second, I wonder about the degree to which each of the members of the panel does his or her own grocery shopping, and, if so, whether he or she reads labels, and whether this, consciously or not, influenced their thinking.

Since according to the majority opinion, either Judge Kayatta or Judge Torruella thought “Hazelnut Crème” meant hazelnut butter (really? in coffee? And despite the fact no dairy product was listed on the label?), did the majority reason that it follows that a reasonable consumer could be confused, because obviously the members of the majority are reasonable consumers? As noted above, the majority stated that “we” would “likely” realize there was no actual hazelnut in the coffee “were we in the grocery aisle with some time to peruse the package.” Are they saying that’s not the reasonable consumer standard –someone with time to peruse a package? It’s unreasonable to have them look at the ingredients? Or is the majority saying “likely” isn’t good enough to avoid a jury question?

©2019 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

Court Lets Trader Joe’s Out of Sticky Situation Over Honey Advertising

A magistrate judge in the Northern District of California recently dismissed a putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s misled its consumers about the purity of its manuka honey.  Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 4:18-CV-04418-KAW, 2019 WL 2579219 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019).

Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action lawsuit alleging that Trader Joe’s engaged in “false, misleading, and deceptive marketing” by representing that its Trader Joe’s Manuka Honey product was “entirely” manuka honey when, purportedly, the product’s manuka honey content had been “adulterated by the inclusion of cheaper honey.” Manuka honey is produced from the nectar of New Zealand’s manuka tree and is said to have numerous medicinal benefits.

Plaintiffs specifically challenged the product’s “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey” label and the ingredient statement that lists “manuka honey” as the sole ingredient because Plaintiffs’ laboratory tests demonstrated that only between 57.3% and 62.6% of the pollen found in the product was from the manuka flower, with the remainder deriving from “other floral sources.” Plaintiffs claimed Trader Joe’s mixed manuka honey with non-manuka honey, and in doing so violated “consumer protection and similar laws in all fifty states” – which allegedly incorporate the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) – and committed common-law fraud and breach of warranty.

In her opinion, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore cut straight to the point and rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the honey was adulterated. Citing hearing testimony, she noted that Plaintiffs’ adulteration allegation was premised on “bees visiting different floral sources and returning to the hive resulting in a lower manuka pollen count, rather than the manufacturer purposefully mixing Manuka honey with non-manuka honey.” Under Section 342(b) of the FDCA, a product is adulterated only:

(1) If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; or (2) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part therefor; or (3) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner; or (4) if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is.

None of those definitions was met in this case, Judge Westmore held, because any impurities in the honey were introduced by the bees that made it, and not by Trader Joe’s. She, therefore, granted Trader Joe’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend as plaintiffs “could not plead sufficient facts to support their adulteration theory.” Judge Westmore also ruled that to the extent the applicable state laws imposed different standards than the FDCA, they were preempted.

Along similar lines, Judge Westmore found that the product’s label was not misleading. According to FDA guidance, honey is a “single ingredient food” that may be labeled with the plant or blossom name so long as that plant or blossom is the “chief floral source.” Trader Joe’s argued that “100%” in the phrase “New Zealand Manuka Honey” could refer to either manuka honey or the fact that the honey comes entirely from New Zealand. Because Plaintiffs’ adulteration theory failed and the “chief floral source [was] undisputedly Manuka,” Judge Westmore held that the label was accurate and that a reasonable person would not be misled. She dismissed Plaintiffs’ common law fraud and breach of express warranty causes of action on similar grounds.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.
This article was written by Lawrence I Weinstein, Carl Mazurek and Marc Palmer of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Mississippi Sued Over Plant-Based, Cell-Based, and Insect-Based Meat Labeling Law

Like countless other states, earlier this year, Mississippi passed SB 2922, which stipulates that cell-based, plant-based, or insect-based foods cannot be labeled as “meat” or “a meat food product” (e.g., “hamburgers,” “hot dogs,” “sausages,” “jerky”, etc.). Specifically, SB 2922 amended Section 75-35-15(4) of the Mississippi Code to state “[a] food product that contains cultured animal tissue produced from animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food product. A plant-based or insect-based food product shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food-product.” Such products still run afoul of the law even if the labels include claims like “100% vegan,” “plant-based,” or “meatless.”

SB 2922 came into effect on July 1, 2019. On that same day, vegan “meat” producer, Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) filed suit in federal court against Mississippi’s Governor and Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce arguing that the label restrictions violate their First Amendment right to free speech, among other claims. Upton’s and PBFA are seeking a declaratory judgment that SB 2922 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of SB 2922 throughout the duration of the litigation, a permanent injunction, and an award of nominal damages in the amount of $1.00.

Mississippi’s Department of Agriculture and Commerce, along with the state’s cattle and poultry associations, supported the state law. Indeed, in response to the lawsuit, the Department said it has a “duty and obligation to enforce the law” and that it wanted to ensure the consumer has “clear information on the meat and non-meat products they purchase.” However, supporters of the lawsuit, like the Good Food Institute, argued that “Mississippi is acting as word police” and that the law is a “slippery slope” that could open the door to restrictive labeling.

© 2019 Keller and Heckman LLP
For more on food regulation & labeling, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug law page.

USDA Withdraws Biotech Regulation Proposal

  • As previously covered on this blog, on January 19, 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a proposed rule to update its regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered (GE) organisms in response to advances in genetic engineering and the Agency’s understanding of the plant pest and noxious weed risk posed by genetically engineered organisms.  These requirements have not been comprehensively revised since they were established in 1987.
  • On November 7, 2017, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (82 Fed. Reg. 51582) announcing its withdrawal of the January 19th proposed rule.  In withdrawing the proposed rule, APHIS cited stakeholder feedback critical of the proposed revisions.  As previously covered on our blog this summer, in comments submitted to APHIS, industry stakeholders applauded the Agency’s proposed rule as underscoring the need to promote innovation in biotechnology and for proposing to ease regulation of gene-edited products.  But at the same time, industry called out a number of proposed revisions as improperly expanding USDA’s review process in certain respects which could effectively hamstring developers before they can even begin testing products.
  • In its November 7th withdrawal of the proposed rule, APHIS stated that it is committed to exploring “a full range of policy alternatives” and that the Agency will “re-engage with stakeholders to determine the most effective, science-based approach for regulating the products of modern biotechnology while protecting plant health.” Now that APHIS has decided to go back to the drawing board, industry has an opportunity to work with APHIS to develop revised requirements to facilitate a regulatory framework that promotes innovation in biotechnology.
This post was written by Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of Keller and Heckman LLP., © 2017
For more Biotech, Food & Drug legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

Gluten-Free Go-Round re: Food Labeling

CookiesGingerbreadMenFDA extends comment period on proposed rule for gluten-free labeling of fermented or hydrolyzed foods.

  • FDA issued a proposed rule to address the application of “gluten-free” labeling requirements to fermented and hydrolyzed foods and foods that contain fermented and hydrolyzed ingredients.  The underlying issue is that uncertainty prevails in interpreting the results of current test methods for detecting gluten in such foods.

  • On February 12, FDA announced its intent to extend the comment period for this proposed rule.  Although the comment period technically closes on February 16, FDA will be reopening it to extend the timeframe for an additional 60 days (to be counted from the date that a notice reopening the comment period appears in the Federal Register).

  • The proposed rule would affect the labeling of foods and ingredients such as yogurt, hydrolyzed soy protein, distilled vinegar, and FDA-regulated beers (i.e., beers that are not made from malted barley and hops).  The rule also could affect beers regulated by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as TTB has indicated that it may revise its own gluten claim policy once FDA has issued a final rule or other guidance.  Interested stakeholders are invited to submit comments via Regulations.gov (Docket Number FDA-2014-N-1021).

Article By Food & Drug at Keller and Heckman LLP

© 2016 Keller and Heckman LLP

Agriculture, Food, and Health Issues to Watch for 2016

Label Food Organic.jpgAs the agriculture and food industries head into the new year, a number of important cases and regulatory issues that have the potential to dramatically affect the industry are front and center. Below, an overview of the status of several of the key cases and issues that related industries should keep an eye on during 2016.

Waters of the United States

On October 9, 2015, following an earlier ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, the United States Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the so-called “Waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule. The stay halted implementation of the WOTUS rule, pending resolution of jurisdictional issues that were the subject of oral argument on December 8, 2015. Those jurisdictional issues are focused on whether the Sixth Circuit is the proper venue to hear challenges to the rule. A ruling is expected in 2016.

A number of district court cases across the country also remain pending, and the District of North Dakota’s earlier injunction against implementation of the WOTUS rule in 13 states, including Missouri, remains in place.

Vermont Act 120

On October 8, 2015, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument of an appeal filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other plaintiffs seeking review of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont’s denial of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 27, 2015. The motion sought a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of Vermont Act 120, passed on May 8, 2014, with an effective date of July 1, 2016. Act 120 would, among numerous provisions, mandate new labeling requirements on the part of manufacturers and other food processors for any food that is “produced with genetic engineering,” “partially produced with genetic engineering,” or “may be produced with genetic engineering.” Violators of Act 120 are subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day, per product.

A decision is expected in the first two quarters of 2016 in advance of the July 1, 2016, effective date of the law.

Federal Activity Regarding GMOs and the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act (SAFL) on July 23, 2015. The SAFL Act would, among other things, serve to pre-empt any state laws governing labeling of GMO-containing food products, including Vermont’s Act 120 due to become effective on July 1, 2016. Despite pressure on the U.S. Senate to address the SAFL Act and pass a companion or similar bill before the end of 2015, efforts to include any such bill or related provisions in the year-end omnibus spending bill were unsuccessful. Senate Agricultural Committee Group leaders, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., have pledged to make the issue a top priority in January 2016, and many expect Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., to play a role in trying to secure passage of a bipartisan bill.

Food Safety Modernization Act Roll-Out

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law on January 4, 2011, and represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. food safety regulatory scheme since the passage of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938. For nearly five years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been developing the seven final rules that implement FSMA. Each final rule impacts a different fundamental area of the U.S. food system.

In September and November 2015, the FDA issued the first five of the seven final rules: (1) Preventive Controls for Human Food; (2) Preventive Controls for Animal Food; (3) Foreign Supplier Verification Program; (4) Standards for Produce Safety; and (5) Accredited Third-Party Certification. The issuance of these rules initiates the countdown for the relevant compliance deadlines for covered entities.

It is anticipated that the final two FSMA rules regarding Sanitary Transportation and Intentional Adulteration will be issued on March 31, 2016. The Sanitary Transportation final rule will establish criteria for the sanitary transportation of food, including criteria targeted at shipping conditions and practices, employee training, and record keeping. The Intentional Adulteration final rule will require domestic and foreign food processing facilities to address vulnerabilities in their operations to prevent acts on the food supply intended to cause large-scale public harm. In 2016, the FDA will also be working with certain alliance groups to further develop FSMA compliance and enforcement guidance.

FDA Menu Labeling Requirements

Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act charges the FDA with establishing labeling requirements for certain retail food establishments and vending machines. On December 1, 2014, the FDA issued two rules requiring calorie information to be listed on menus and menu boards at retail food establishments if they are a part of a chain of twenty or more locations operating under the same name and offering for sale substantially the same restaurant-type food items.

In July 2015, the FDA announced that the compliance deadline for the menu labeling rule was being extended by one year. All covered establishments (e.g., restaurants, grocery stores, and gas station convenience stores) now have until December 1, 2016, to identify calorie count and other information on their menus and menu boards as required by the FDA menu labeling rules.

Article By Laura A. Bentele, Scott K.G. Kozak & Jonathan D. Valentino of Armstrong Teasdale
© Copyright 2016 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved