The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently completed its first pre-market consultation for a human food made from cultured animal cells and issued a letter stating it had no further questions regarding the...more
On November 1, 2022, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) had approved its proposal to add an alternative, non-mandatory safe harbor...more
On October 6, 2022, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65), provided notice of new changes to the proposed regulation. If adopted,...more
FDA recently released the results of its seafood survey it conducted to measure the amount of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 81 seafood samples of clams, cod, crab, pollock, salmon, shrimp, tuna, and tilapia...more
As regulatory bodies increase their scrutiny of per- and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS), food companies should work closely with their suppliers and prepare for the compliance transition....more
1/6/2022
/ Biden Administration ,
CERCLA ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Safety ,
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ,
Food Supply ,
PFAS ,
Popular ,
Product Packaging ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
USDA
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA or the Agency) motion for summary judgment on September 30, 2021, against claims brought by a group of...more
California and Vermont have recently joined a growing list of states that have passed legislation banning the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging. Relatedly, a group of environmental, consumer,...more
6/17/2021
/ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Supply ,
Hazardous Substances ,
PFAS ,
Product Packaging ,
Proposed Regulation ,
Public Health ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure
China recently announced two revised decrees that, once implemented, would impose substantial new requirements for food and beverage companies that export to China. These regulations are as follows: In particular, with some...more
6/15/2021
/ Beverage Manufacturers ,
China ,
Customs ,
Exports ,
Food & Drug Regulations ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Supply ,
Foreign Suppliers ,
Imports ,
International Trade ,
Registration Requirement ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Regulatory Standards ,
Suppliers
We recently became aware of a 27 May 2021 opinion from the Ninth Circuit that “stayed” the preliminary injunction barring private parties from filing new lawsuits against businesses to enforce the Proposition 65 warning...more
6/8/2021
/ Beverage Manufacturers ,
Cancer ,
Food & Drug Regulations ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Safety ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Product Labels ,
Proposition 65 ,
Stays ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
On Friday, 16 April 2021, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements California’s Proposition 65, proposed modified language for its new regulation on the warning...more
4/21/2021
/ Amended Regulation ,
Food Manufacturers ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Public Comment ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Supply Chain ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels
On 14 April 2021, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research (FASTER) Act of 2021 (S. 578), which now heads to the White House for signature. ...more
On 29 March 2021 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a significant ruling temporarily halting the filing of new lawsuits by the California Attorney General and anyone else related...more
4/2/2021
/ Beverage Manufacturers ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
Commercial Speech ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Consumer Product Companies ,
Corporate Counsel ,
First Amendment ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Safety ,
OEHHA ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retail Market ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
On 5 March 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a letter to baby and toddler food manufacturers and processors covered by the preventive control provisions of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice,...more
3/9/2021
/ Baby Products ,
Children's Products ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Contamination ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Safety ,
Food Supply ,
Hazardous Substances ,
Public Health ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Oversight ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Toxic Chemicals
On August 28, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead state agency for the assessment of health risks posed by chemical substances, released a draft report concluding its review of the...more
On August 4, 2020, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65), proposed to adopt a new regulation that would significantly change the...more
Last week, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements California’s Proposition 65, proposed an amendment to the existing regulation requiring: (1) the average...more
A California appeals court has reversed a trial court decision that would require businesses to post Proposition 65 cancer warnings on certain breakfast cereals for acrylamide. The court ruled that a Proposition 65 warning...more
8/6/2018
/ Appeals ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
OEHHA ,
Preemption ,
Proposition 65 ,
Reversal ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
Food companies and retailers doing business in California should take note of the recent proposed statement of decision in the case challenging the coffee industry’s failure to warn of the presence of acrylamide in coffee...more