Retail & Consumer Products

Joining the rising tide of local GMO legislation, last week voters in Benton County, Oregon defeated the Benton County Local Food System Ordinance, which would have prohibited the cultivation of GMO crops in the county.

Currently, FDA regulates cosmetics to ensure they are not adulterated or misbranded, but does not have the authority to order cosmetic recalls or require adverse event reporting.  Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) seek to change that.

In its first step towards regulating nanoscale materials, EPA plans to impose a one-time electronic reporting and recordkeeping requirement under TSCA on manufacturers, importers and processors of particles ranging from 1-100 nanometers and exhibiting unique characteristics due to their size. 

As we wrote about earlier this month, on April 1, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (“Tenth Circuit”) temporarily stayed the effective date of “the enforcement and effect” of the CPSC’s safety standard for certain high-powered magnet sets. 

We would like to share with our readers that our friend, colleague, and mentor Chuck Samuels, Chair of Mintz Levin’s Consumer Products Safety Practice, received the Chairman’s Partnership Award from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) at their annual meeting last week. 

Despite a stiff litigation challenge from the food industry, Vermont's GMO-labeling campaign marches on. This week saw major developments in the suit brought by the Grocery Manufacturers' Association and other food industry groups challenging the constitutionality of Vermont's GMO-labeling law, Act 120.

For the first time in recent memory, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) jointly announced the filing of a lawsuit in federal court for the imposition of a civil penalty and injunctive relief for violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

The USDA is facing a lawsuit in federal court stemming from its decision to unilaterally alter the process for exempting synthetic and non-organic substances used in producing organic food.

In addition to truthful and non-misleading advertising requirements, which are enforced by the FTC and certainly familiar to readers of this blog, personal care and cosmetic products are also subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and may run afoul of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the agency).

This week we welcomed Joanne S. Hawana to our FDA and Health Law practices. Joanne represents clients in the food, drug, medical device, and biotechnology industries on issues ranging from prescription drug advertising to state licensing requirements for wholesale distribution.  

On April 7, Renee Dudley of Bloomberg News authored an article entitled “The Cheap Toys You Buy Your Kid Are Rarely Inspected.”

Over the past year, we have blogged about the CPSC’s rulemaking process to regulate high-powered magnet sets via a safety standard as well as the administrative complaints brought by the agency to force multiple companies (e.g., Buckyballs and Zen Magnets) to recall certain magnetic products deemed to be defective by CPSC staff. 

Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. 

his space has addressed on several occasions, recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65.

Another potentially meaningful development in legislation affecting consumer products companies: on February 25, a California legislator introduced a bill, AB 708, that would require manufacturers, distributors and retailers to disclose all "chemical" ingredients for designated consumer products "manufactured from chemicals or chemical compounds."

Coming on the heels of the reintroduction of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, on March 3, 2015, the New York State Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection voted 9 to 6, with one abstention, to pass bill A.617, which would require food made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such.

Last year, we wrote about legislative efforts on Capitol Hill to require the CPSC to implement a rule requiring childproof packaging for liquid nicotine containers.

Last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore)--joined by chef-lebrity Tom Colicchio--announced the reintroduction of The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, a federal bill that would mandate the labeling of foods or beverages containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). 

In part two of this two-part series, we explore two critical takeaways for those facing potential government intervention: (1) the implications of the Court’s deference to the Commission, and (2) whether a substantive disclaimer is a silver bullet to avoid agency scrutiny (or, at least, an agency win).

In this first post of a two-part series, we take a closer look at last Friday's decision in POM Wonderful v. FTC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has meaningful implications for how companies advertise their products' health benefits to consumers.