Federal Preemption

Pokemon GMO

** Update on the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Law **

 

closeup of a GMO UPC symbol on white

By a stroke of the pen, President Obama put to rest for all time (by “all time,” we mean a decade) the brouhaha over labeling foods containing GMO ingredients.  By signing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard law on July 29, 2016, the President and Congress proclaimed to the citizenry that GMO labeling is important — but not so important that the labels actually have to be seen.  How did we get to this point?  A brief history is in order.

When one of the editors of this blog watches Netflix with his English Bulldog, he is enjoying the companionship of a genetically modified organism (“GMO”).  Long before the first GMO food – the Flavr Savr tomato — hit grocery store shelves in 1994, humans were engineering crops and livestock the old fashioned way – selective breeding.  Modern GMOs, of course, differ from those derived from selective breeding.  They are developed on a molecular level – a specific gene from a donor organism that expresses a desirable trait is inserted into the genome of the target organism to give the latter that same trait.  While consumer organizations and environmental activists have sounded the tocsin (or toxin) over GMOs since the beginning of bio-engineering, the federal government – particularly the FDA – has not been alarmed.

Two years before Flavr Savr, the FDA published its “Statement of Policy:  Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties.”  In this document, the FDA reminded the public that a food additive must be approved prior to use unless it is “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).  The FDA concluded that, while a plant gene inserted into another plant is an additive, generally that gene is GRAS.  “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed from the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”  Based on that logic, the FDA’s regulations for plant GMOs are the same as those for traditional foods with the exception of a voluntary (“recommended”) consultation procedure with which developers of GMO-containing foods typically comply.  (Note that the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service plays a limited regulatory role with regard to GMOs that pose a risk to other plants or animals and the EPA regulates GMOs that are bio-engineered to produce a pesticide – for example, the infamous, but unblemished, Bt-corn.)

In the 1992 Policy, the FDA eschewed requiring food companies incorporating plant GMOs to label their products as such under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because “the agency does not believe that the method of development of a new plaint variety (including recombinant DNA techniques) is normally material information within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(n).”  The FDA has not deviated from this position in the past quarter decade.  The agency’s website has a page directed to consumers which rhetorically asks, “Are foods from GE plants safe to eat?”  The response is, “Yes.  Credible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marked to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.”

The FDA’s refusal to mandate that food companies label their products containing GMOs does not mean that consumers who care about such things have been stymied.  In 1990, Congress enacted and George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Organic Foods Production Act, which required that the USDA develop national standards for organic products.  Ten years later, the USDA issued its final rule establishing the National Organic Program (NOP), which governs both fresh and processed food products, including crops and livestock.  The “USDA Organic” label means many things under the NOP — but one of them is no genetic engineering.  GMOs are prohibited in organic products as excluded methods of production.  7 CFR § 205.105.  Therefore, a consumer that doesn’t want to ingest a GMO need only look for the “USDA Organic” label.

The NOP was not enough for Vermont.  In 2014, Vermont enacted Act 120 – a manifesto against the federal government’s oversight of GMOs — that required labels on products containing genetically engineered ingredients.  “[F]ood offered for sale by a retailer after July 1, 2016 shall be labeled as produced entirely or in part from genetic engineering if it is a product:  (1) offered for retail sale in Vermont; and (2) entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.”  Act 120, § 3043.  In addition, “a manufacturer of a food produced entirely or in part from genetic engineering shall not label the product on the package, in signage, or in advertising as ‘natural,’ ‘naturally made,’ ‘naturally grown,’ ‘all natural,’ or any words of similar import that would have a tendency to mislead a consumer.”  Id.

The food industry went into an uproar over Vermont’s law because – given the realities of interstate commerce – companies would have to change their labeling nationwide to satisfy the demands of Vermont.  While manufacturers have had to bend to the legislative will of California from time to time (“Made in the USA”/Prop 65), it’s quite another thing to answer to Vermont.

Due, in part, to persistent lobbying, Congress enacted the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard law just in time to pre-empt Vermont’s organic labeling law from going into effect.  The law requires that the USDA “establish a national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food and any food that may be bioengineered” by July 2018.  Therefore, GMO labeling will be required nationwide sometime after 2018.  But because Congress clearly believes that this law is a solution in search of a problem, the statute has a unique labeling provision that “require[s] that the form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link . . . with the disclosure option to be selected by the food manufacturer.”  What does this mean?  Simply put, food companies will have the option of either a product label with a bar code accompanied by the words, “scan here for more food information” or a toll-free telephone number with “call for more food information.”  In short, an actual GMO disclosure on the label is not required.  Consumers who care will roam supermarket aisles – smart phones in front of their faces – scanning bar codes to find their non-GMO groceries like Pokemon Go zombies looking for Poke Balls.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Will Trucking Case Drive New Federal Arbitration Act Case to the Supreme Court?

** Gas Company Looks for Post-Iskanian Certiorari After California Appeals Court Invalidates Arbitration and Class Waiver Provision in its Wage and Hour case with its Truck Drivers **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             California courts are known for their distaste for arbitration provisions – and for butting heads with the Supreme Court who has (on a number of occasions now) made clear that that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1) preempts California judicial rulings regarding the unconscionability of class arbitration waivers.  See e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).  The Supreme Court may get another chance to make the point, as courts in California continue with a “where there is a will – there is a way” approach to invalidating arbitration contracts.  See discussion, James v. Conceptus, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1036-37 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (concluding that, even after Concepcion, California courts continue to find arbitration forum-selection clauses unenforceable under far more stringent tests than other states).  One of the latest defendants to have their arbitration provision deemed unenforceable is Air Liquide in Garrido v. Air Liquide Indus. U.S. LP, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).  However, Air Liquide has not taken it lying down – on May 3, 2016, it filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Air Liquide Indus. U.S. LP v. Garrido, No. 15-1336, 2016 WL 2605541 (U.S.) (“Writ”).

A quick bit of history for context on the Garrido Court of Appeal decision.  Recall in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (Cal. 2007), the California Supreme Court held that a class-action waiver in an employment contract was unenforceable when the waiver would prevent employees from vindicating their rights.  The Gentry court concluded that even though individual arbitration could be a tool to enforce legal rights, in the context of the employment relationship – if each individual recovery would be modest, if an individual might be retaliated against if bringing a suit individually (rather than by merely joining a class) and if there are other real world obstacles in going it alone – then the provision would be invalid.  The practical effect of these Gentry factors made it highly unlikely that an employer arbitration provision would survive.  However, Gentry was overruled by Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014) (applying the then new rule from Concepcion).  The finding of Iskanian was that any California law that invalidated an arbitration provision was contrary to the FAA and therefore preempted.

However, in Garrido, the Court of Appeals deftly side-stepped Iskanian.  First, it determined that the FAA did not even apply to the case at hand.  194 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 302. Citing Section 1 of the FAA, which states that the FAA does not cover “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” the California Court of Appeals held that “transportation workers” fell within this exception.  (Citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105, 109 (2001)).  More specifically, the Garrido court held that the FAA carve-out did not apply to interstate truck drivers. 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 303.  And second, the Court of Appeals held that because the basis of the Iskanian decision was its nexus to the FAA – with that connection severed – Gentry not Iskanian governed. 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 304.  Finally (and not surprisingly), after applying the factor test from Gentry, the court held that the arbitration provision failed.

Air Liquide’s certiorari writ notes that the Court of Appeal’s severing of the relevant employment contract from the FAA was improper – foremost because the contract itself says that the FAA applies.  Air Liquide’s briefing notes that “the application of the Section 1 exemption directly contradicted the parties’ clear and expressly-stated intent to apply the FAA to their dispute. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the parties somehow intended to apply an exemption to the FAA to vitiate the very choice of law provision that they entered into, when in fact their intention was directly opposite, defied reason.” Writ at 5 – 6.  Air Liquide also criticizes the Court of Appeals decision for applying the “transport worker” exception outside of the trucking industry to it – a gas company – that just happens to transport its material from time to time.  Writ at 18 – 19.

This latter point raises an important issue that will apply to all companies who move their own products around the country – are their employees “transport workers”?  The more interesting and broader question, however, arises if Air Liquide fails on that question:  Can parties force the FAA to apply where it otherwise has no force?  Does an agreement that says the FAA “governs” carry with it those circumstances where it otherwise wouldn’t (because the FAA exempts it)? Interesting questions . . . and again – as we have blogged in the past – one that will be a test of the legacy of the arbitration jurisprudence of which the late Justice Scalia was the chief architect.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin

FDA Seeks All Natural Comments

Green apple with stethoscope

**Are we a step closer to solving the All Natural problem?**

There are problems faced by “All Natural” or “100% Natural” defendants.  See prior post. A specific problem for defendants is the inability to rely on any definitive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance.  The FDA’s position has been clear – it “has not promulgated a formal definition of the term ‘natural’ with respect to foods.”  See Letter Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration, to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, dated January 7, 2014.  To date the FDA has created only an “informal policy statement.” Janney v. Mills, 944 F. Supp. 2d 806, 812 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing 58 Fed. Reg. 2302–01).  If there was federal regulation – defendants would have clarity in their positions – and state law claim would likely be pre-empted, see e.g., Lam v. General Mills, Inc., 859 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1102–03 (N.D.Cal.2012). In the absence of regulation, the question of what “natural” means and whether a product’s labeling violates the law is currently governed by an unwieldy “reasonable consumer standard”.  Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.2008) citing Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1995)). This lack of objective standards is one of the reasons why the litigation has been able to take hold – at the same time as “natural” labeled food has boomed (the Washington Post reports that nearly $40.7 billion worth of food items in the U.S. has some labeling of this type). Fortunatley, the FDA has changed tack – responding, inter alia, to requests from Federal Courts and a citizen petition from the Grocery Manufacturers Association it has published a Federal Register notice asking for information and comments on the use of the term “natural” in food labeling. Specifically, the FDA asks for information and public comment on questions such as: whether it is appropriate to define the term “natural,”; if so, how the agency should define “natural,”; and how the agency should determine appropriate use of the term on food labels.  Notably, the FDA notes that it may be looking to expand its policy on natural foods to include – not only the synthetic/artificial divide, but also questions of whether pesticide free and manufacturing processes should be part of the equation.  The FDA is accepting public comments beginning on November 12, 2015 and finishing February 10, 2016.  Comments may be submitted electronically (under FDA-2014-N-1207).

 

Share this:
Facebooktwitterlinkedin