29/09/2020

🛑 USA - Seafood company implicated in false labeling scam

 


Report on Supply Chain Compliance 3, no. 18 (September 17, 2020)

1 United States Department of Justice, “Seafood Processor Pleads Guilty to Selling Foreign Crabmeat Falsely Labeled as Blue Crab from USA,” news release, September 3, 2020, https://bit.ly/3hhBJ4a.

[View source.]



25/09/2020

Optimizing Sustainability - Connecting with Influencers

 




Best Food Facts recently hosted nine digital influencers for a Virtual Taste Tour focused on sustainability. Get the details.

The tour, originally planned to be in-person in central Iowa, was reformatted into three virtual discussions focused on these topics:
  • Sustainable Food with conversations about food waste, processed foods, biotechnology and food affordability
  • Sustainable Egg Farming, providing dialogue on hen housing and impacts on animal well-being, food affordability and natural resources
  • Sustainable Crop Farming with a focus on crop practices and environmental stewardship
Eleven experts – including farmers, food manufacturers, registered dieticians, retailers and animal scientists – engaged with candor and authenticity to share how they make sustainability decisions. The experts provided several specific examples of how they weigh benefits and tradeoffs to evaluate the overall sustainability and impacts of decisions around individual practices, products and processes.

The influencers each wrote blog posts about the tour, reaching a combined audience of over 10 million followers. The influencer tour was complemented by a four-part series on Best Food Facts examining sustainability impacts and the topics of grass-fed and grain-fed beef, pesticides and GMOs.

United Soybean Board provided funding for the influencer engagement and content promotion.

• • •

15/09/2020

European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)


European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)

Editorial 

Leonie Evans

Page 315 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/3

Articles

The Origin Declaration of Food and its Primary Ingredients – A Quick Guide on Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and Regulation (EU) 2018/775

Christian Ballke, Maria Kietz

Page 316 – 326 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/4


The Distinction Between Medicinal Products and Foodstuffs in Light of Recent German Case Law

Gunnar Sachs, Magdalena Thole

Page 327 – 335 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/5


The Response of the EU Agri-Food Chain to the COVID-19 Pandemic:Chronicles from the EU and Selected Member States

Francesco Montanari, Sarah Arayess, Toma Barbarasa, Alberta Clavarino, Inês Ferreira, Aude Mahy, Stelios Margaritis, Alicja Michałowska, Christina Schröck, Arthur Servé, Agnieszka-Szymecka Wesolowska, Cesare Varallo, Pilar Velázquez González

Page 336 – 356 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/6


Food Classification Report: The Concept ‘Ultra-Processed’

Carmen Carretero, Ramon Clotet, Yvonne Colomer, Gonzalo García de Fernando, Juana Frías, Juana Frías, Luis González Vaqué, Abel Mariné, Antonio Martínez, Rafael Moreno Rojas, María Jesús Periago, Dolores Rodrigo, Mª Ángeles Romero Rodríguez, Amparo Salvador, Pau Talens Oliag

Page 357 – 362 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/7

Legislation

Page 363 - 364

Jurisdiction

Page 365

Reports

Bulgaria ∙ New Foodstuff Act in Bulgaria

Elena Todorova - Page 366 - 367


Spain ∙ Food Classification Controversy  

Cristina Vidreras - Page 368 - 369


Portugal ∙ Impact of Covid-19 on the Dietary Habits of the Portuguese Population

Inês Ferreira - Page 370 - 372


Poland ∙ Food as an Object of Intellectual Protection: New Courts of Intellectual Property in Poland

Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal - Page 373 - 374

_____________________________________________________

 

Miscellaneous

List of Recent Notifications to the European Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535

Page 375 - 377


New Publications

Page 378 - 396


European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers

(November 2019 - May 2020)

Page 397 - 417



 

08/09/2020

CHINA: Beijing IP court heard a trademark dispute between “Chateau Lafite Rothschild Winery” and “Real Estate Company”

 



On August 7, 2020, the Beijing IP Court made an award in favour of “Château Lafite Rothschild” (Château Lafite), a well-known French winery established in the 18th century. “Château Lafite” sued Huailai Lishihongya Company (怀来利世鸿亚公司) and two other unknown respondents on the grounds of the trademark infringement. The Beijing IP Court compelled the respondents to pay damage loss of 5 million yuan (approximately $720,000) and issued a public apology to the claimant “Château Lafite”.

The respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” specializes in providing clients with a wide range of real estate services like renting apartments, leasing of real estate, management etc. Therefore, this company has registered the trademark “Château Lafite” (the Chinese name - 拉斐) in class 36 under the Nice classification of goods and services. In its turn, the real trademark owner “Château Lafite” has been acquiring a reputation of a good wine producer since the late 1990s. So, this trademark is well-recognized not only by Chinese consumers but also by consumers from all over the world. Furthermore, the trademark has been well-recognized while conducting the trademark administrative review and litigation procedures. The real trademark owner registered trademark “Lafite” (the corresponding Chinese name - 拉菲, registration no.: 1122916 and 6186990) in class 33, which belongs to spirit drinks except for beers.

After the Beijing IP Court conducted a thorough examination of all the facts and pieces of evidence submitted by both parties, the Beijing IP Court came to the conclusion that the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had intentionally copied, imitated and made a translation of the well-known trademark. These aforementioned actions caused to the public’s misleading and “Château Lafite” incurred colossal monetary losses. Hence, the Beijing IP Court approved the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had violated the exclusive rights of the real trademark holder, referring to art. 57 of the Trademark Law of China (2019). However, what was more interesting is the court’s decision of this case. The Beijing IP Court didn’t make any statement about immediate removal of the cited trademark from all the products and trademark systems.


August 31 2020


Schmitt & Orlov

25/08/2020

🔄 “Economía circular, aproximación a un modelo para Pymes exportadoras”


Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Administrativas, Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020) 62-77 

Resumen:

El objetivo del artículo es realizar una aproximación a un modelo que pueda ser usado por  las  pequeñas  y  medianas  empresas  (Pymes)  que  buscan oportunidades de optimizar el uso de materias primas, el diseño de eco-productos y ampliar las políticas internas que cambien pensamientos de compartir en vez de adquirir. Asimismo, transformar modelos tradicionales de consumo  lineal  e  ingresar  a  una  economía  que  aprovecha  todos  los  recursos, manteniéndolos útiles por mayor tiempo.  El método desarrollado en el artículo fue la búsqueda de información a nivel nacional e internacional, es decir, qué modelos se estaban aplicando y cómo se podrían ajustar a las Pymes colombianas. En ese sentido, el resultado de mayor importancia fue generalizar un método para las eco-industrias, basadas en la aplicación de tecnologías amigables con el medio ambiente y a la sustentabilidad.

Palabras clave:

economía circular; reciclaje; ciclo técnico; ecodiseño; Pymes exportadoras.

 

W.
 

17/08/2020

Milk revolution

 


The vegetarian and vegan market has grown exponentially in the last 10 years. In fact, the meat-free industry is forecast to increase in value to £658 million by 2021.

The alternative milk sub-sector provides a wide range of milks for vegetarians, vegans, lactose intolerant and anyone else wanting to dip their toe in the dairy-free range. Milk is currently available from a variety of products: almond, oat, hazelnut, coconut, rice and soy to name a few. However, some companies are set to further disrupt the dairy and alternative milk sectors.

Israeli start-up, Remilk, is investing in an alternative way to make non-dairy milk that harnesses microbes to produce a product that is adaptable and argued to be environmentally conscious. Remilk claims that its product does not have any of the health "pitfalls" that are associated with its dairy counterparts: no lactose, growth hormones, antibiotics or cholesterol. Such a product could potentially revolutionise not only the milk market, but also the alternative cheese market.

Another brand seeking to disrupt the dairy sector is Swedish oat-based milk brand, Oatly. Its advertising campaigns have been controversial – focusing on environmental destruction, the brand has become ever more political in its tact. Advertising campaigns, such as "It's like milk but made for humans", have catapulted the brand into an adversarial dance with Sweden's dairy lobby, LRF Mjölk, which sued the company in 2015 for disparaging cow milk and implying that it was bad for health. It won the case and Oatly was prevented from using the slogan and ordered to pay around £100,000.

Tension between dairy companies and non-dairy alternative brands can also be seen in the US. A Californian class action lawsuit was brought against Blue Diamond Growers, an almond milk producer, in 2018. The lawsuit alleged that the products manufactured by the company were mislabelled under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) law because the labelling of products as "almond milk" would mislead consumers. The lawsuit argued that non-dairy milk should be labelled as "imitation milk" because it is nutritionally inferior to milk and is therefore a substitute. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that federal law, namely the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), contains "a broad pre-emption provision, which prohibits a state from directly or indirectly establishing food labelling requirements not identical to federal requirements." The appellate court stated that "almond milk is not a 'substitute' for dairy milk…because almond milk does not involve literally substituting inferior ingredients for those in dairy milk." The lawsuit failed, therefore, because it tried to impose these requirements which were not identical to, or required by, federal law.

A comparison can be drawn between the US and Europe in how dairy and non-dairy products are labelled. The Dairy Pride Act was introduced in 2017 by two US senators and aimed to prohibit non-dairy brands using terms that are traditionally associated with dairy products. However, the bill failed to pass and any progress on re-introduction has been stalled due to COVID-19. In Europe, however, vegan and vegetarian producers have been prevented from labelling their products as "milk" etc. by an EU law enacted in 2013 which states that products using the terms "milk", "butter", "cream cheese" and "yogurt" can only be designated as such if they are derived from animal milk. This was affirmed in 2017 in a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The case involved a German food producer, TofuTown, which sells plant-based alternatives labelled as butter and cheese etc. TofuTown argued that consumers were not misled by its products because its labels clearly stated that such products were plant-based and that they had not violated EU legislation. The ECJ concluded that "the addition of descriptive or clarifying additions indicating the plant origin of the product concerned, such as those used by TofuTown, has no influence on that prohibition." It is interesting to note that coconut milk, peanut butter, almond milk and almond ice cream are all exempt from the EU Regulation.

With the continued growth of the market, and with more attention being drawn to the environmental impacts of a conventional diet, it is anticipated that there will be more legal disputes between the dairy and non-dairy sectors.


WRITTEN BY:



15/08/2020

European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers: Aloe Vera

 


 


• 15 July 2020 - Günther Sidl – [P-004203/2020] - Subject: Amendment to Annex III of Regulation (EC) No. 1925/2006

 

Aloe Barbadensis Miller (Aloe Vera) has a long history as a herbal remedy, and there are numerous references in the literature documenting its use for over 3 500 years. In connection with food and food supplements, I support the precautionary approach that any risks to human health must be fully taken into account when assessing safety. Hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HAD) are found not only in Aloe Vera products, but also in normal vegetables such as beans, coleslaw or peas.

 

It is not clear from the proposed amendment whether Aloe Vera products are to be banned in principle or only those products that are obtained from the unpeeled leaves of Aloe Arborescens and contain Anthranoids classified as harmful to health.

 

1. Does the proposed change ensure that preparations and products made from Anthranoid-free gel or the inner pulp of the leaves of some types of Aloe (mostly Aloe Barbadensis or Aloe Vera) can continue to be used in foods, as food additives and in cosmetics?

 

2. Some impurities are technically unavoidable and manufacturers can demonstrate that everything has been done to avoid them. Have any limit values ​​been set for such impurities which may not be exceeded?

 

Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission (13 August 2020):

 

«The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its scientific opinion[1] that certain hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HAD), namely aloe-emodin, emodin and danthron, and plant preparations containing them, are genotoxic and cause cancer in the intestine. In line with this safety assessment, the Commission proposes to prohibit the use of these harmful substances in foods including food supplements, and the scope of this prohibition is not intended to cover their use for technological purposes as food additives, or in cosmetic products.

 

The Commission is aware that it is possible during manufacturing to remove HAD from the botanical extracts, but that impurities of these substances may be present. In this context, the Commission has asked the EU Reference Laboratory on mycotoxins and plant toxins for assistance in establishing a validated analytical method and its limit of quantification for HADs in botanical preparations of Aloe species.».

 

 

 




[1] EFSA Journal 2018;16(1):5090.