List of shame

 

Non-exhaustive list of publishers that request articles, book chapters or presentations and then demand a payment (!) to publish it.

bhattacharya@healthj.org

radosevich@agriculturej.org

lydiajones@scisj.org

Functional Food Center <ffc@functionalfoodcenter.com>

Editor Granthaalayah <editor@granthaalayah.com>

Nutritionalbiochemistry <maryamnicolas2023@gmail.com>

Plant Science <plant@globalepisteme.com>

Vestrucci Paolo <vestrucci@agriculturej.org> NO ANSWER!

Philipp Aerni <philipp@sjofmat.org> NO ANSWER!

• 
  
• 
  
• Danik (Martirosyan) Martirosyan
•  contacto de 1er grado1er
• Danik tiene una cuenta premium

President, Functional Food Center/Functional Food Institute 🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑

ding@educationj.org

abigailwilson@scieej.org

sharma@healthj.org

Chaturvedi Devdutt <chaturvedi@healthj.org>

Marc Rosen <marc@sjofbio.org>

nutrition@biomedscis.info

mitropoulos@clinicalmedicinej.org

albert@sjofs.org

ding@educationj.org NO ANSWER!

mitropoulos@clinicalmedicinej.org (in the blog "Flaky Academic Journals")

manfred@sjofco.org

Blacklist of the blog of deceptive alleged event organizers:

foodscience congress <congressfoodscience@gmail.com>

Food Research Webinar 2021 <foodresearch@crgmeetings.org>

NUTRICON Congress - 9-11 June 2021 - Call for Abstracts - Kakurinov Vladimir <kakurinov.vladimir@gmail.com>

See also: https://spamassassin.apache.org/

[If you receive this type of "spam", please communicate it to ceeudeco@yahoo.es]

FDA Announces Increased Inspections and Enforcement Actions, Additional Guidance to Reduce Toxic Elements in Food for Babies and Young Children

 

On March 5, 2021, FDA issued a public statement announcing regulatory actions to reduce toxic elements — with a particular focus on arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury — in food for babies and young children. FDA cited the risk heavy metals pose to infant and young children’s neurological development. The Agency indicated that it would take the following actions:

• Issue guidance to develop action levels for contaminants such as heavy metals.
• Increase inspections of facilities to ensure compliance.
• Increase testing of foods for babies and young children.
• Collaborate with academia, industry and government to support research of additional safety information on toxic elements in food for babies and young children and additional steps that industry can take to further reduce levels.

Background

In 2017, FDA established the Toxic Elements Working Group to reduce exposure to toxic elements (i.e., chemical hazards including heavy metals, mycotoxins and pesticides) in food, cosmetics and dietary supplements. Since that time, FDA has established a limited number of action levels for certain heavy metals listed in the table below.

Element/Product	Action Level
Inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal	100 ppb
Inorganic arsenic in apple juice	10 ppb*
Lead in candy products for small children	100 ppb (0.1 ppm)**
Lead in juices	50 ppb**
*FDA Draft Guidance **Recommended Threshold

A February 4, 2020, report issued by U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy examined heavy metal levels in baby food products (the Report). The Report found high levels of heavy metals (inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury) in the final products. The Report concluded baby foods are “tainted” with toxic heavy metals and criticized FDA’s lack of regulatory action on ensuring the safety of baby food.

The Report recommended FDA adopt the following actions:

• Mandatory testing of finished products
• Labeling: Require disclosure of heavy metal levels on food labels
• Guidance: Establish maximum heavy metal levels across all baby food products to protect against neurological effects

In addition, the Report also recommended that the industry voluntarily find substitute ingredients or phase out products that contain ingredients that frequently test high in toxic heavy metals, such as rice.

In conjunction with FDA’s public statement, FDA issued a letter to industry on March 5, 2021, reminding baby and toddler food manufacturers and processors of the legal requirement to evaluate chemical hazards under FSMA’s Hazard Analysis and Preventive Control Rule (HARPC) and other hazard analyses as required by 21 CFR Parts 120 and 123 where applicable. To emphasize this enforcement priority, the letter cited a January 15, 2021, consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to Valley Processing, Inc. This order required the company to stop distributing adulterated juice products that contained inorganic arsenic and patulin toxins at levels that can pose health risks to consumers.

Implications for Industry: Toxic Elements Such as Heavy Metals are Potential Adulterants

FDA’s public statement and letter to industry clearly show that toxic elements in foods for babies and young children are an enforcement priority. Manufacturers and processors of these products should evaluate their supply chain and require Certificates of Analysis from ingredient suppliers demonstrating an absence of heavy metals and other chemicals of concern. In addition, it is advisable to reexamine HARPC and other hazard analyses to identify steps to reduce chemical hazards as well as conduct periodic final product testing.

Labels, Italy seeks international allies against the Nutri-Score

 - Minister Patuanelli said this when speaking in Parliament -

"We are organizing together with some European countries that, like Italy, are fighting against the introduction of an absurd traffic light classification of front-pack nutrition labeling. This will be the best way to try to make a common front against who is probably guided by the companies you mentioned, which have an interest in obtaining an advantage in large-scale distribution for products that are not of our territory, but of another type". So Stefano Patuanelli, Minister of Agricultural Policies, answering the question time in the Senate chamber.

"I believe - he added - it is clear to everyone that this is unacceptable for our country and our productions, also because we have many local productions, such as DOP and IGP products, which by law must guarantee the presence of nutritional elements of a certain type and they certainly cannot comply with what is required to get the absurd green light. Some things have already been done. When I was Minister of Economic Development I was one of the signatories of the battery label proposal, which makes much more sense and clearly highlights the nutritional values of foods and those relating to daily needs".

According to Patuanelli "we must make the European Commission understand that what matters is to transmit the cultural values of healthy eating, which means that a glass of wine at the end of a meal is good for you, while a bottle and a half is not. This is the central theme and it cannot be a label on the bottle to say whether a food is bad or not at all, because this always depends on the way a person eats. We are deeply convinced of this and all together we must fight a strong battle in Europe (not only us as a country, but together with other countries that we are involving in this process) because if it is true, as it is true, that citizens and consumers have the right to know the nutritional values of the food they eat, it is equally true that this right must be guaranteed in the correct way and not to bring an unfair advantage to multinational producers".

Source: https://www.efanews.eu/item/17475-labels-italy-seeks-international-allies-against-the-nutri-score.html

 

Michael K. Goodman and Sylvia Jaworska, “Mapping Digital Foodscapes: Digital Food Influencers and the Grammars of Good Food”

 

Geoforum (2020) academia.edu/44295367 [published online before print: 30 January 2020[1]].

 Abstract

Drawing on recent debates around food, space and digital media, this paper introduces and develops the concepts of the digital foodscape and ‘good’ food grammars. Through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the digital platforms, discourses and personas, we investigate the ways a key set of digital food influencers (DFIs) construct, curate and share the meanings of good food. We first explore who these influencers are, describe what platforms they inhabit, how the variable social media affordances work through these platforms and the notions of good food they construct. We then focus specifically on DFIs’ communicative practices on Twitter to analyse the core discourses DFIs produce and those that are taken up by audiences through re-tweets and likes as well as the re-tweeted tweets of DFIs. Overall, our findings suggest that first, good food grammars are being constructed by rule setters beyond the already well-established food personalities and celebrity chefs of the UK’s foodscape. Yet, these grammars also re-inscribe a form of white, hetero-normative middle- and upper- class privilege that produces a particular grammars of good food. Second, different social media and digital platforms provide space for diverse good food grammars given their variable affordances. Twitter, in particular, is the place where the grammars of DFIs take on non-food themes such as self-empowerment, inspiration, charity campaigning and awareness raising. Third, the notions of good food in DFI grammars revolve around a range of constructions, with the most elevated related to ‘clean’ eating and/or ‘clean’ lifestyles that combined healthy, ‘free from’ diets with fitness regimes and expand DFI grammars - and ultimately their brands – into a more holistic lifestyle brand. This paper’s initial empirical and conceptual foray into digital foodscapes and DFIs opens up space for further research on food and digital media within Geography and beyond.

 

 

---

[1] See: < https://app.box.com/s/ck64nn1q87g6sixl9bozh6sgcn16hj6p >.

 

USA - Seventh Circuit Revives Deceptive Labeling Claims Against Parmesan Cheese Manufacturers and Retailers

 

On December 7, 2020, the Seventh Circuit joined three other circuits—the First, Second, and Ninth—in holding that an accurate fine-print list of ingredients does not foreclose, as a matter of law, a claim that an ambiguous front label deceives reasonable consumers.

• Consumer plaintiffs filed five consolidated class action complaints in a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting deceptive labeling claims under ten states’ consumer protection laws against several Parmesan cheese manufacturers and retailers. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that they were misled by the labels of various grated Parmesan cheese products advertised as “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese,” or some variation thereof, because the products, in fact, also contain non-cheese ingredients—e.g., cellulose and potassium sorbate—to prevent caking and mold.
• The district court dismissed the “100% claims” on two grounds. First, the labels were merely ambiguous, not deceptive, such that a reasonable consumer could find clarity by reading the full ingredient list on the back. In the court’s view, “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” could mean the product is 100% grated, 100% Parmesan, and/or 100% cheese, and this ambiguity could be easily cleared up by reading the ingredient list, which shows the products are not 100% Parmesan or even 100% cheese. Second, the court found that common sense would dictate to a reasonable consumer that despite the “100% cheese” labels, these products must contain other ingredients because they are sold unrefrigerated in grocery aisles.
• The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissals of three of the complaints (but held it lacked jurisdiction over the other two due to untimely appeals). In so doing, it declined to adopt the district court’s “ambiguity rule” out of fear it would encourage deceptive advertising. The court relied on opinions from three sister circuits—Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., 934 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2019); Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018); and Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008)—which stand for the proposition that the “reasonable consumer standard does not presume, at least as a matter of law, that reasonable consumers will test prominent front-label claims by examining the fine print on the back label.”
• The court agreed with the general principle that deceptive labeling/advertising claims should consider all information available to consumers and the surrounding context, noting that where plaintiffs base these claims on unreasonable or fanciful interpretations of these labels, dismissal may well be warranted. But it was persuaded that this rule did not resolve the case, as Plaintiffs alleged that they conducted consumer surveys showing that 85–95% of consumers understood “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” to mean that the product contains only cheese. They also submitted affidavits from linguists opining that the most natural and plausible reading of Defendants’ labels is that the products contain entirely Parmesan cheese that is grated.
• The Seventh Circuit noted that these questions “may not be answered as a matter of law simply because lawyers can construe an ambiguous claim in a way that would not be deceptive.” It emphasized that the proper inquiry is instead how consumers perceive the advertising and act—i.e., matters of fact, not law—and that “[m]any reasonable consumers do not instinctively parse every front label or read every back label before placing groceries in their carts.”
• Defendants also argued that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (“FDCA”) preemption provision expressly barred states from imposing labeling requirements that are not “identical” to the FDCA. Moreover, they argued that the FDA approved at least one defendant’s use of the “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” label in 1999 and 2000, thus rendering the Plaintiffs’ challenge both conflict-preempted and barred by state-law safe harbor provisions. The Seventh Circuit disagreed with Defendants’ “overly broad” interpretation of the FDCA’s preemption provision, holding that while states may not require sellers to add additional labeling that is not required by federal law, they may prevent sellers from voluntarily adding deceptive content (the additional modifier of “100%”) to the federally permitted labels. As to conflict preemption and potential safe harbors, the Seventh Circuit determined that Defendants distorted the facts because the FDA never actually assessed whether the proposed “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” label was nondeceptive under federal law.
• Read the Seventh Circuit’s opinion here.
• Source: King & Spalding

USA - "Graham Cracker Caper or Class Action Case? Consumer Survey Evidence May Tell Us"

 

Graham Crackers—the ubiquitous, rectangular-shaped snack crackers with air holes and perforations—occupy a unique niche in American snack food lore. In the 1830s, the Rev. Sylvester Graham, a Presbyterian minister from Connecticut, became a ferocious advocate of healthy living. Among other things, he invented his “Graham Bread” made from coarsely ground unsifted wheat flour. Apparently, a staple diet of Graham Bread—coupled with vegetarianism and abstention from spirits and tobacco—would do wonders to suppress human carnal desires. Several decades later, NABISCO introduced its “Graham Crackers” to widespread acclaim. The morsel really took off in 1925 when NABISCO added a touch of honey and launched its “Honey Made” line. Today, multiple companies make their own versions of “graham cracker” and consumers are still clamoring for them. According to one estimate, in 2020 alone, more than $450 million dollars’ worth of graham crackers were sold by a handful of the top vendors in the United States. That’s a hell of a cracker.

With such a long, storied history, graham crackers couldn’t possibly be the subject of a class action suit for false advertising in 2021, could they? Meet Chandra Campbell, who recently purchased a box of “Honey Graham Crackers” at Whole Foods. Despite the ingredient listed on the packaging, Ms. Campbell was allegedly shocked—shocked!—that her graham crackers were not made from healthy whole wheat “graham” flour. She also thought her crackers were sweetened with actual honey as opposed to some other sweetening agent. Channeling her inner Rev. Graham, she brought hellfire and brimstone. She sued Whole Foods in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for false advertising on her behalf and on behalf of all other similarly-situated aggrieved consumers.

Whole Foods’ response? Pshaw! Whole Foods moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that no reasonable consumer could be deceived by its use of “Honey Graham Crackers.” Judge Gregory Woods denied the motion. He believed that Ms. Campbell had plausibly stated a claim that she and others were deceived. Importantly, he noted that whether a product package misleads consumers is generally not divined by judges. Instead, “[e]vidence such as a consumer survey, not merely judicial introspection, is needed to determine what consumers understand the phrase to mean in the context of this particular product and its packaging.”

The important takeaway is that even when a food product has been around for many, many decades, that does not necessarily insulate it from false advertising claims—even if those claims seem implausible based upon the product’s success and longevity in the marketplace. Judge Woods’ decision underscores the importance of consumer surveys to separate the wheat from the chaff in these types of cases. Is Ms. Campbell’s claim legit or will it be a mere graham cracker caper? Consumer survey evidence may ultimately be the path to salvation for Ms. Graham and the rest of her class action flock.

"Food & Beverage Litigation Update - January 2021" by Mark Anstoetter et al.

 

USDA Releases Final Rule on Hemp Cultivation

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released its final rule governing the cultivation of hemp, which will take effect March 22, 2021. The draft rule would have required hemp to be shown to contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannibanol (THC) on testing conducted within 15 days of harvest, a proposal that drew criticism from several parties. The final rule reduces some of the requirements, such as allowing 30 days to test and raising the negligence threshold to 1% rather than 0.5%. The rule also allows some flexibility for states to develop testing methods that take into account variables such as regional environmental factors.

UK Opens Consultation on GE Foods

The U.K. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has opened a consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies in food. “It mainly focuses on the regulation of gene edited (GE) organisms possessing genetic changes which could have been introduced by traditional breeding,” the consultation states. “[W]e are using this opportunity to engage separately and start gathering views on the wider regulatory framework governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

“EU legislation controlling the use of GMOs was retained in the UK at the end of the transition period (after 31 December 2020). This retained legislation requires that all GE organisms are classified as GMOs irrespective of whether they could be produced by traditional breeding methods. Defra’s view is that organisms produced by GE or by other genetic technologies should not be regulated as GMOs if they could have been produced by traditional breeding methods. Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to consult on the implications of addressing this issue. We recognise there is a spectrum of opinions on these topics, and we are consulting to provide an opportunity for all views to be shared.”

Poultry Processing Speeds Executive Order Withdrawn

President Biden has withdrawn an executive order that would have allowed 25% faster processing speeds on poultry lines in meatpacking plants. The policy change would have allowed plants to process 175 slaughtered birds per minute, up from 140, in accordance with a proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Criticism of the proposal came from advocacy groups that argued the faster speeds with endanger workers, especially after a study purportedly showed that plants with waivers allowing the faster speeds had higher COVID-19 transmission rates.

California Files Prop. 65 Action Against Seafood Cos.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit against five importers, wholesalers and distributors of seafood, alleging they sell fish with levels of cadmium and lead high enough to require warnings governed by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). California v. Pacific Am. Fish Co. Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., filed December 28, 2020). The companies—Pacific American Fish Company, Rhee Bros., Seaquest Seafood Corporation, Jayone Foods and Clearwater Seafoods—sell products such as clams, mussels, octopus, oysters, squids and snails.

“When California’s consumers, restaurants, and supermarkets purchase seafood, they shouldn’t have to worry about whether the products they’re buying contain toxic chemicals,” Becerra said in a press release. “The seafood industry has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its products – and to warn consumers of any risks. I hope this lawsuit serves as a warning to any company that might skirt its responsibilities under Proposition 65. The California Department of Justice will hold you accountable.”

Consumers Challenge Tuna Content in Subway Tuna Sandwiches

A putative class action has alleged that Subway Restaurants Inc. sells tuna products that “do not contain any tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna”—the products “are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient,” according to the complaint. Dhanowa v. Subway Restaurants Inc., No. 21-0498 (N.D. Cal., filed January 21, 2021). “As independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the Products are made from anything but tuna,” the complaint asserts. “On the contrary, the Products are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by Defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna. Defendants identified, labeled and advertised the Products as ‘tuna’ to consumers, when in fact they were not tuna. Yet, Defendants have systematically and consistently continued to label and advertise the Products as ‘tuna.'” The complaint does not note what the Subway products are purportedly composed of if not tuna. The plaintiffs allege violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes as well as fraud, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

“Icelandic Skyr” Misleadingly Made in New York, Consumers Allege

Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that Icelandic Provisions Inc.’s skyr cultured dairy product is misleadingly marketed as made in Iceland despite being produced in New York. Mantini v. Icelandic Provisions, Inc., No. 21-0618 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 23, 2021). The packaging for the skyr, which features the text “Traditional Icelandic Skyr” and photos of an Icelandic countryside, “gives consumers the belief it is made in Iceland,” the complaint asserts. Although the back of the package indicates that the product is “made in Batavia, NY with domestic and imported ingredients,” the plaintiffs allege they “relied upon the representations and indications of the Product’s origins – literally and figuratively – in Iceland, and desired to purchase such a product.” Alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania’s consumer-protection statute, the plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.