Food Law Prof Blog

Red Meat – The Killer in Disguise?

According to a study recently published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, diets high in red meat and processed meats may have some connection to mortality rates. The study took place over a ten-year period, and included over half a million people within the 50 to 71 age range. Rebecca Ruiz of Forbes.com reports:

“The study . . . found that 11% and 16% of deaths in men and women, respectively, would have been less likely with diminished red meat intake.”

“Funded by the National Cancer Institute, the study also associated red meat intake with higher cancer and cardiovascular mortality rates, the two leading causes of death in the U.S..”

Notably, the study itself indicates consumption of red meat was not the only factor associated with the higher risk levels for overall mortality. Certain lifestyle choices and eating habits also contributed to the increased hazard ratios between the lowest and highest quintiles of red meat eaters:

“Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes.”

“Overall, we did not find statistically significant association between meat consumption and deaths from injury and sudden deaths in most instances.”

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student, Sophie Morgan, for preparing this post.

New Food Safety Legislation and Non-Industrial Scale Food Production

The Cornucopia Institute has recently released information on the pending food safety legislation. With the Obama administration and its culture of change combined with the recent PCA scandal policy makers are looking to make serious changes to how they food safety system operates.

Several bills aimed at fixing the broken food safety system have been proposed. Of these bills, the FDA Globalization Act (HR 759) appears most likely to be voted on, with elements of the other bills, including the Food Safety Modernization Act (HR 875) and the Safe FEAST Act (HR 1332) possibly incorporated into the bill. HR 759 HR 875 HR 1332

Many in the sustainable agriculture world, be they backyard gardeners, small conventional farmers, or organic farmers, are concerned with the one size fits all approach of the proposed legislation. According to Cornucopia:

All three bills would require new food safety rules for farms and food processing businesses. Therefore, as with most legislation, the real battle [for non-industrial farmers] will be in the rule-making process that follows the passage of the bill.

Cornucopia realizes that this is not going to create an outright ban on all forms of agriculture than industrial agriculture. However, it will be important to keep an eye on this legislation as it is likely to have some effect on all food production. Questions to consider: How will the USDA's National Organic Program and the certification and inspection process that it already has in place be impacted by these policy changes? How will small scale farmers (conventional and organic) be impacted by a heightened regime of inspection? Problems resulting from a centralized food system dependent on massive distribution have created large food poisoning outbreaks such as the PCA Salmonella outbreak. Should additional burden be placed on small farms that produce and distribute locally? Blog post by Peter Hemberger, William Mitchell College of Law student.

Pistachios too?

I came across this latest on Food Poisoning Law Blog:

A Georgia company announced this week that it is voluntarily recalling several pistachio products because of possible salmonella poisoning. This is evidently NOT related to the peanut salmonella outbreak.

Read the post on Food Poisoning Law Blog.
Read the FDA Recall Announcement

I like pistachios.

Citizen civil actions under HR 875 (Food Safety Modernization Act)

Under section 409 of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, HR 875 (blogged here), individuals would have a cause of action directly against those in violation of a food safety regulation, order, or other action. A commenter on our earlier post brought this to my attention. Noting the high cost of litigation "Mark" writes:

This will open the door for extremist groups to file dozens of malicious federal law suits against big and small entities, including small organic meat and vegetable producers, which could destroy the food supply system.

Thanks for the comment!

Here's the provision in question:

SEC. 409. CITIZEN CIVIL ACTIONS.

(a) Civil Actions- A person may commence a civil action against--

(1) a person that violates a regulation (including a regulation establishing a performance standard), order, or other action of the Administrator to ensure the safety of food; or

(2) the Administrator (in his or her capacity as the Administrator), if the Administrator fails to perform an act or duty to ensure the safety of food that is not discretionary under the food safety law.

(b) Court- In an action commenced under this section:

(1) IN GENERAL- The action shall be commenced--

(A) in the case of a civil action against a person, the United States district court for the district in which the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent; and

(B) in the case of a civil action against the Administrator, any United States district court.

(2) JURISDICTION- The court shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce a regulation (including a regulation establishing a performance standard), order, or other action of the Administrator, or to order the Administrator to perform the act or duty.

(3) DAMAGES- The court may--

(A) award damages, in the amount of damages actually sustained; and

(B) if the court determines it to be in the interest of justice, award the plaintiff the costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and penalties.

(c) Remedies Not Exclusive- The remedies provided for in this section shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available.

Seeking others interested in AALS Open Source Idea

 For law professors: The AALS just sent out a request for Open Source proposals for the next annual meeting. See Below. I am writing to see if others are interested in joining me in putting together a proposal focusing on food law in general, food safety, or any other aspect of food we can come up with. The deadline for proposals is coming up, so let me know if you're interested!

Donna Byrne (donna.byrne@wmitchell.edu)

Announcement below:

Association of American Law Schools Request for Open Source Proposals

AALS is requesting proposals for Open Source programs for the 2009 AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego, California. Open Source sessions at the Annual Meeting are innovative programs proposed by groups of faculty members and selected by a committee in a competitive search. The goal is to encourage a "bottom up" process in which scholars collaborate to develop fresh and exciting ideas for a program at the Annual Meeting. It is not a Section, law school, organization or institution-sponsored program. It is a program developed by a group of faculty members in various subject matters, who have an innovative topic that they would like to present at the Annual Meeting.

When developing the proposal you should consider the following: · Is the format innovative? · Is there a diversity of presenters and multiplicity of planners? · Is there junior and senior teacher involvement? · Does the topic cross over common issues and transcend a particular subject area? · Would there be a publication coming out of the submission? · Will the program format require expensive audio-visual equipment? Proposals should not feature a program or subject that could be offered by an AALS Section or conflict with other programs being presented at the 2009 AALS Annual Meeting.

Submissions of novel ideas for programs should be e-mailed to: opensource@aals.org by April 10, 2008. Please include information identifying the planners of the program; the process of how the program idea was generated; the topic with a description and explanation of what the program is trying to accomplish; the list of proposed speakers; if there will be a publication of the program; and any other pertinent information that you believe would be helpful to the reviewing committee.

FDA Warnings -- Westco Peanuts and raw oysters from Mississippi

Westco Peanuts -- This is an FDA warning, not a recall. The topic of FDA authority has come up a lot recently; while FDA cannot force a recall, it can request one, and it can warn us all not to eat the product:

FDA Warns Against Consuming Peanuts and Peanut Products Sold by Westco Fruit and Nuts Inc. Westco/Westcott Products Linked to Recalled Peanuts from the Peanut Corporation of America

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to consume any peanuts or peanut-derived products sold by Irvington, New Jersey-based Westco Fruit and Nuts Inc. (Westco/Westcott) due to possible Salmonella contamination. Peanuts in such products may have been distributed by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), which recalled the peanuts because of concern about Salmonella contamination.

On March 23, 2009, FDA formally requested Westco/Westcott to voluntarily recall all of its products containing peanuts from PCA because such products may be contaminated with Salmonella. Investigations by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified products from PCA's Blakely, Ga., facility as a source of the current Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak and led to PCA's recall of the peanuts.Between Nov. 19 and Dec. 30, 2008, Westco/Westcott received three shipments of Oil Roasted Salted Redskin Jumbo Peanuts from PCA's Blakely, Ga., facility.

Read more here

Oysters:

FDA Warns Consumers, Food Service Operators, and Retailers to Avoid Oysters Recently Harvested from Mississippi Area 2C Nearly a dozen illnesses linked to raw oysters from area near Pass Christian

I have to admit I have no idea where this area is, and I have never eaten a raw oyster (or, for that matter, any oyster), but if you're an oyster eater, click the link above to read the whole health alert on the FDA website. Here's the beginning:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advising retailers and food service operators not to offer for sale oysters harvested between Feb. 24 and March 17, 2009, from Mississippi Area 2C, located in the Mississippi Sound portion of the Gulf of Mexico near Pass Christian, Miss. Further, consumers are advised not to eat such oysters. Consumers who are uncertain about the origin of oysters they currently have should contact the place of purchase to determine if the oysters are from the affected area as the Agency investigates an outbreak of norovirus illnesses associated with the oysters. Norovirus is a foodborne pathogen that can cause acute gastroenteritis in humans.

Eleven individuals reported becoming sick after eating raw oysters at a restaurant in Chattanooga, Tenn. Test results by the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Health Department and Tennessee Department of Health confirmed that the patients were infected with norovirus.

Symptoms of norovirus illness usually include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and some stomach cramping. Sometimes people also have a low-grade fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, and a general sense of tiredness. The illness often begins suddenly, and the infected person may feel very sick. In most people the illness is self-limiting with symptoms lasting for 1 or 2 days.

What is implied preemption in food liability cases?

FDA Law Blog had a post on February 10 -- California District Court Rules Against FDA Preemption of “Natural” Claim, describing a ruling in a California case about whether a product containing high fructose corn syrup can be labeled as "all natural."

Ricardo Carvajal of FDA Law Blog notes,

"This latest decision is likely to add to the existing confusion over the precise contours and reach of the doctrine of implied preemption in food liability cases.  Notably, FDA has indicated that products that contain HFCS can be labeled as "natural," depending on how the HFCS is made."
"

Raw Milk Bill HR778

At the end of January, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced HR 778, which would legalize interstate shipments of raw milk. Raw milk is legal to consume, but in half the states not legal to sell. So this would only remove the impediment to interstate commerce between legal states. Here's the link.

Final USDA COOL rules, January 2009

(Brought to my attention by a Center for Food Safety press release dated January 16, 2009.) USDA issued final country of origin labeling(COOL) rules January 15, 2009. The rules are available in the Federal Register.

Center for Food Safety criticized the rules because they contain some fairly broad loopholes -- mixed foods are considered to be "processed," for example, and are thus not subject to the requirement, even if the product contains two different types of covered commodities (such as peas and carrots).

Similarly a retail product that contains a covered commodity and a non-covered commodity, like a bag of lettuce with a dressing packet are not included in COOL.

Finally, items that are cooked, breaded, marinated, canned, smoked, cured, roasted, or restructured (e.g. emulsified or extruded) are not required to bear a COOL label.

Is this riveting, or what? Without analyzing the regs myself, it does sound as if one could ship a package of "frozen peas with a single bit of carrot" and escape the rules.

Austrian study -- GE corn linked to reduced fertility in mice

This is from a Center for Food Safety press release dated November 13, 2008:

Vienna, Austria - (November 13, 2008) - [a]. . . study[1] released Monday by the Austrian government. . . . found that mice fed a type of genetically engineered corn . . . produced fewer offspring than those fed conventional corn. . . .

The study was sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Families, and Youth, and led by Dr. Juergen Zentek, Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna. For 20 weeks, Zentek and his team fed mice diets consisting of either 33% genetically engineered (GE) corn, or 33% of a closely related non-GE variety. The diets were otherwise nutritionally equivalent.

Mice fed the GE corn diet had fewer litters, fewer total offspring, and more females with no offspring, than mice fed the conventional corn. The effects were particularly pronounced in the third and fourth litters, after the mice had consumed the GE corn for a longer period of time. The authors attributed the reduced fertility to the GE corn feed, and said it might be related to unintended effects of the genetic modification process. Dr. Zentek said that further studies are "urgently needed" to corroborate his team's findings.

Read the whole press release here.

Margaret Hamburg FDA Commissioner

From the Office of the White House Press Secretary, Saturday, March 14 --

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced the appointments of Dr. Margaret Hamburg as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Joshua Sharfstein as the Principal Deputy Commissioner, as well as the creation of a new Food Safety Working Group. This Food Safety Working Group will be chaired by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture and it will coordinate with other agencies and senior officials to advise the President on improving coordination throughout the government, examining and upgrading food safety laws, and enforcing laws that will keep the American people safe.

In addition, the President also announced two other measures to protect the American people. The Department of Agriculture will close a loophole to prevent diseased cows from entering the food supply. And, the government will invest in the FDA to substantially increase the number of food inspectors and modernize food safety labs.

President Obama announced his appointments of the following individuals today [March 14, 2009]:

Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg
Dr. Hamburg is a nationally and internationally recognized leader in public health and medicine, and an authority on global health, public health systems, infectious disease, bioterrorism and emergency preparedness. She served as the Nuclear Threat Initiative's founding Vice President for the Biological Program. Before joining NTI, she was the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to this, she served for six years as the Commissioner of Health for the City of New York and as the Assistant Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Joshua "Josh" Sharfstein
Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein is Commissioner of Health for the City of Baltimore. He also serves as chair of the board of four affiliated nonprofit agencies. He has been recognized as a national leader for his efforts to protect children from unsafe jewelry and over-the-counter medication, and ensuring Americans with disabilities have access to prescription drugs. He is a member of the Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice of the Institute of Medicine.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Mexico OKs GM corn experiments

From Latin America Press

Mexico has revised its biosafety law to reverse a nationwide ban on genetically-modified corn, the country´s most important crop and the centerpiece of the Mexican diet, and allow the varieties to be used in experiments. In a press conference, Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada, said that the government would fight any illicit planting of genetically-modified corn, of which Mexico is the birthplace.

Read more

E coli cattle vaccine

From the University of Minnesota, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP):

Mar 11, 2009 (CIDRAP News) – The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently granted a conditional license for the nation's first Escherichia coli O157:H7 vaccine for cattle, allowing Epitopix LLC, a Willmar, Minn., company, to immediately offer the vaccine to the beef industry. . . .

The vaccine reduces the amount of E coli "shed" by the cattle (pooped out to put it bluntly), thus reducing the potential for contamination of food. Read the press release on the CIDRAP website.

Read more in the LA Times: USDA approves E. coli vaccine for cattle; could cut human illness

Mercury in tuna is naturally occurring under California's Proposition 65

From FDA Law Blog  --

In 2004, the State of California sued three tuna companies, Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, Del Monte Corporation, and Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, for violation of California’s Proposition 65 because they failed to provide the required clear and reasonable warning that their canned tuna products contain methylmercury, a chemical listed by the State of California as a reproductive toxin and carcinogen.

Defendants argued that no warning was required under Proposition 65 because: (1) in this situation, federal law preempts Proposition 65; (2) the level of methylmercury is below the threshold at which a warning statement is required; and (3) almost all the methylmercury in canned tuna is “naturally occurring” and therefore no warning statement is required.  The trial court agreed and found for the defendants.

Read more about this on FDA Law Blog.  The outcome at the appellate level was that because the methylmercury is naturally occurring, no warning is required.

Almond growers suit dismissed

A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit (blogged here) by California almond growers and handlers challenging a USDA regulation requiring pasteurization of raw almonds to reduce Salmonella contamination.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion today holding that almond growers and retailers do not have a right to sue under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act because the regulation in question only applies to almond handlers. The almond handlers, the court said, had not exhausted administrative remedies, and the court therefore has no subject matter jurisidiction.

Here is the Opinion.
Here is the Complaint.
Here is Cornucopia Institute's press release.

FDA and Eight Academic and Research Institutions to Collaborate Under Nanotechnology Initiative

Although much of the nanotechnology focus probably pertains to drugs, nanotechnology also has implications for food use, so here goes . . . FDA News Release, 3/10/2009:

FDA and Eight Academic and Research Institutions to Collaborate Under Nanotechnology Initiative

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today [March 10] unveiled a new collaboration initiative with the Houston-based Alliance for NanoHealth (ANH) and its eight member institutions to help speed development of safe and effective medical products in the emerging field of nanotechnology.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the FDA/ANH Nanotechnology Initiative will work to expand knowledge of how nanoparticles behave and affect biologic systems, and to facilitate the development of tests and processes that might mitigate the risks associated with nanoengineered products. All outcomes from this public-private partnership will be placed in the public domain for the benefit of all stakeholders.

"FDA's Nanotechnology Initiative with the Alliance for NanoHealth is an effort to engage resources and technical expertise in this rapidly advancing field and is a clear example of leveraging science and scientists to advance the public good," said the FDA's Acting Commissioner, Frank M. Torti, M.D., M.P.H. "Nanotechnology holds great promise for the advancement of novel medical products."

Nanotechnology involves the creation and use of materials at the level of molecules and atoms and presents challenges and opportunities for the FDA's entire regulatory product jurisdiction, from food to medical devices to therapeutics.

The eight academic institutions include Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Rice University, the University of Houston, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas A & M Health Science Center, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and the Methodist Hospital Research Institute.

"We are delighted with this partnership between the FDA and the eight institutions that constitute the Alliance for NanoHealth," said Larry Kaiser, M.D., president, the University of Texas Health Science Center, on behalf of the ANH and its eight member institutions. "We see this agreement as an important step on the path to taking advantage of the enormous power of nanotechnology to improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease."

FDA's collaboration with the ANH is an example of the agency's Critical Path Initiative, launched in 2004 to work on next generation tools such as new assays, new biomarkers, better clinical trial designs and better endpoints and new manufacturing methods to encourage the development of efficient and effective FDA-regulated products

The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875

A large food safety bill was introduced to the house in early February of this year. It is currently in committee. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 has been described by some as "monstrous".

One blogger recently wrote:

The bill is monstrous on level after level - the power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory fines for farmers, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals, the easements on their property to allow for warrantless government entry, the stripping away of their property rights, the imposition by the filthy, greedy industrial side of anti-farming international “industrial” standards to independent farms - the only part of our food system that still works, the planned elimination of farmers through all these means.

The concern that the blogger mentioned above has, I think has to do with the impact this bill will have on farmers that are not operating on a large corporate scale.

Small organic farms have to be inspected, provide records showing the history of their produce back through to the seed source, and show that they have a plan to keep their facility clean. However, in the case of organic (certified organic that is) farms, there is a premium paid for the produce that results. If the standards are raised for conventional farms and no additional premium is paid, this will likely prove to be a burden on the not-so-huge farms. Also, there is concern as to the vagueness of the language in combination with additional power it gives to regulate any farm.

Below I have provided some of the sections of the bill that caught my eye. While it does give expanded authority to the Administrator, perhaps this is the sort of expanded control that is needed to deal with the sorts of food debacles that we have recently experienced (eg. the PCA peanut contamination).

Section 206 (a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices

(Definition of FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.)

SEC. 402. FOOD DETENTION, SEIZURE, AND CONDEMNATION.

(a) Administrative Detention of Food-

(1) EXPANDED AUTHORITY- The Administrator shall have authority under section 304 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) to administratively detain and seize any food regulated under this Act that the Administrator has reason to believe is unsafe, is adulterated or misbranded, or otherwise fails to meet the requirements of the food safety law.

Section 405 Civil and Criminal Penalties
(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.

Read the full bill as introduced.

This post written and compiled by Peter Hemberger

FDA Issues Guidance on Safe Production of Foods Containing Peanut-Derived Ingredients

FDA/CFSAN constituent update Monday, March 9, 2009:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) today issued guidance to the food industry advising manufacturers that peanuts and peanut-derived products used as food ingredients pose a risk of Salmonella contamination, and recommending measures that manufacturers can take to address that risk for peanut derived products received from their ingredient suppliers and for the products they themselves produce. CFSAN also issued today a companion bulletin to operators of food-service establishments and retail food stores that offer food products containing peanuts and peanut-derived ingredients.

The guidance recommends that manufacturers obtain their peanut-derived ingredients only from suppliers who use production processes that have been demonstrated to adequately reduce the presence of Salmonella, or that they ensure that their own manufacturing process would adequately reduce the presence of Salmonella. The guidance provides information that manufacturers should consider in evaluating their processes.

The bulletin asks retail and food service operations to work with their suppliers to ensure that all peanut-derived products used as ingredients or sold as food have been manufactured and packed in accordance with current good manufacturing practice requirements. Retail and food service operations should take steps to ensure that their suppliers use production processes that have been demonstrated to adequately reduce the presence of Salmonella and should work with their suppliers to ensure that all peanut-derived products used as ingredients or sold as food are not subject to an on-going product recall.

The guidance and bulletin are being issued in the midst of a large, ongoing, multi-state outbreak of consumer illness associated with consumption of food products containing peanut-derived ingredients produced by a single peanut processor. FDA will accept public comments on the guidance. Both the guidance and bulletin were posted today on FDA's website (Peanut-Derived Product Guidance, and Peanut-Derived Product Bulletin) and are scheduled to be published soon in the Federal Register.

FDA is aware that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), collaborating with other food industry organizations in a Salmonella Control Task Force, has recently published an industry guidance document concerning programs to control Salmonella and help ensure the safety of low-moisture food products. Manufacturers that use a peanut-derived product as an ingredient in a food product may find GMA's document useful. FDA is not responsible for the content of GMA's document.

New Bill Would Give FDA Authority Over Tobacco Products

Under a new bill that has passed in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is heading to the full House, tobacco products may be regulated by the FDA. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products of all sorts.
According to an article recently posted by David Clissold, this new bill, if passed, will provide much greater transparency into what ingredients go into tobacco products, how these products are advertised, and what research is available about their health impacts.

The bill would “freeze” the world of tobacco products as it existed on February 15, 2007.  Any tobacco product that was not marketed before that date would be a “new” tobacco product.  In order to market a “new” tobacco product, a manufacturer would have to obtain premarket approval from FDA via an application containing full reports of all information concerning the health risks of the new product.

Manufacturers would be required to submit to FDA a list of ingredients in every brand of cigarette.  If requested by FDA, manufacturers would be required to submit “any and all documents” relating to research activities for tobacco products, ingredients, components, and additives, including marketing research and underlying financial information.

This bill comes after years of FDA attempts to gain control over the tobacco industry. In 1996, the FDA attempted to assert authority over the tobacco industry under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The tobacco industry fought back. In June of 2000, the Supreme Court said that Congress had not expressly given the FDA legal authority to regulate the tobacco industry, and that the Congress must specifically enact legislation to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco.

This bill is the legislature specifically allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco.

More on the history of the federal regulation of tobacco

The Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids greatly supports this bill. They feel that the additional regulation will make it far more difficult for children to obtain and use tobacco products.

Private Food Inspectors

There's an interesting article on the New York Times website about private food investigators:

Food Problems Elude Private Inspectors by Michael Moss and Andrew Martin

When food industry giants like Kellogg want to ensure that American consumers are being protected from contaminated products, they rely on private inspectors like Eugene A. Hatfield. So last spring Mr. Hatfield headed to the Peanut Corporation of America plant in southwest Georgia to make sure its chopped nuts, paste and peanut butter were safe to use in things as diverse as granola bars and ice cream.

more here