Husch Blackwell will host BioBreak on the Plaza: The Future of Biopressing Technology in our Kansas City office on December 11, from 3:45-6:30 p.m. The panel will discuss what makes biologics unique from other pharmaceuticals and treatments, what the bioprocessing industry looks like in our region, and the types of innovation happening within these fields.
On October 21, 2019, we blogged about the constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale in California of eggs, pork or veal produced by animals not raised in accordance with California animal protection rights. As we explained, plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction. Continue Reading Proposition 12 Update
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release on the evening of Monday, November 25 concerning its recent enforcement actions and a regulatory decision concerning products that contain cannabidiol (CBD). The Warning Letters follow FDA’s trend of focusing its CBD product enforcement on unapproved drug claims. The regulatory decision stated in the press release concerns FDA’s decision that CBD is not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use as a food additive.
We have blogged several times, most recently on October 15, 2019, about the so-called meatless meat statutes. These statutes attempt to protect producers of meat from competition from plant- or lab-based foods that are engineered to look and taste like real meat. The stated rationale is to prevent purveyors of meatless meat from misleading consumers. As is the case with many consumer protection statutes, the real objective is to protect competitors.
Earlier this year, a class action complaint was filed against Coca-Cola and one of its subsidiaries, Fairlife LLC, alleging false advertising for selling “humanely sourced” milk. Why false? According to the complaint, which was filed in June, the dairy cows milked at Fairlife’s flagship farm were subjected to allegedly “horrendous animal abuse,” despite Fairlife’s claims in its advertising and on its labels that its animals lived in “extraordinary care and comfort.”
Our latest blog post on this proposition was on January 17, 2019, which discussed the efforts of various states to challenge California’s ban on the sale of eggs, pork and veal that have not been raised according to California’s strict standards for animal protection. Those standards establish minimum space requirements considerably more generous than the industry standards. The ban originally applied only to California farmers, but they quickly realized that they would be at a substantial competitive disadvantage if the ban did not apply to such foods produced in other states. In 2010, the legislature extended the egg ban to all states.
We last blogged about Tofurky’s challenge to Missouri’s meatless meat statute on September 16, 2019. Settlement negotiations had broken down and the parties asked the District Court to address plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On September 30, 2019, the Court issued an order certifying a defendant class consisting of the prosecuting attorneys in each county in Missouri. To our considerable surprise however, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. Continue Reading Meatless Meat Update
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a list of the records that importers are required to develop and maintain under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP). Continue Reading FDA Publishes List of Required FSVP Records
There is a House of Representatives bill pending that if passed would allow shipment of alcohol beverages through the US Postal Service. Currently alcohol beverages may only be shipped through a common carrier such as UPS or FedEx. If the legislation passes the ban on shipping through the mail would be lifted, and products could be mailed by individuals and entities permitted to ship alcohol beverages. State laws regarding shipping and delivering alcohol beverages to a person’s home, including age verification, would still apply.
On July 1, 2019, we blogged about the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down various Tennessee regulations whose purpose and effect was to limit the ability of non-Tennessee actors to compete in the retail market for alcoholic beverages. Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S.Ct. 2449 (2019). Last month, the Fifth Circuit addressed a somewhat different restriction imposed by the State of Texas. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com’n, 935 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2019).