An Analysis of “Natural” Food Litigation to Build a Sesame Allergy Consumer Class Action.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Dana Shaker
{"title":"An Analysis of “Natural” Food Litigation to Build a Sesame Allergy Consumer Class Action.","authors":"Dana Shaker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a world where food allergy is still an incurable disease, law and regulation stand as necessary mechanisms to provide food-allergic consumers with the information they need to protect their health. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 provided specific labeling requirements for the “Top Eight” allergens in the U.S.: milk, soy, gluten, egg, tree nut, peanut, fish, and Crustacean shellfish. Since then, sesame has become more prevalent as an allergen and remains just as dangerous, inducing anaphylactic shock in some sesame-allergic individuals. Yet sesame remains unregulated, despite advocates and congressional members arguing for its inclusion. This note entertains one solution to this problem by exploring the most strategic way to bring a sesame allergy class action against a private food company under California’s consumer protection statutes. Because this kind of class action does not have much, if any, precedent, this note analyzes the basic, preliminary issues that any litigant would have to navigate around to certify a class, including preemption, standing, and the claim itself, by focusing on how courts have examined these issues in the recent “natural” class action litigation. It also analyzes the legal, moral, and practical aspects of choosing a type of relief, as well as whom to include in the class. Finally, this note briefly considers how FDA itself can ensure sesame is regulated on the labels of food products, given that some of the legal issues may well be insurmountable for this particular class action. This note explores the potential solutions to difficult legal hurdles in constructing a sesame allergy class action, arguing that litigating a sesame allergy class action—even if it is not ultimately successful—could start a productive conversation that might lead Congress or FDA to provide greater public health and consumer protection for those with sesame allergy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":"72 1","pages":"103-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a world where food allergy is still an incurable disease, law and regulation stand as necessary mechanisms to provide food-allergic consumers with the information they need to protect their health. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 provided specific labeling requirements for the “Top Eight” allergens in the U.S.: milk, soy, gluten, egg, tree nut, peanut, fish, and Crustacean shellfish. Since then, sesame has become more prevalent as an allergen and remains just as dangerous, inducing anaphylactic shock in some sesame-allergic individuals. Yet sesame remains unregulated, despite advocates and congressional members arguing for its inclusion. This note entertains one solution to this problem by exploring the most strategic way to bring a sesame allergy class action against a private food company under California’s consumer protection statutes. Because this kind of class action does not have much, if any, precedent, this note analyzes the basic, preliminary issues that any litigant would have to navigate around to certify a class, including preemption, standing, and the claim itself, by focusing on how courts have examined these issues in the recent “natural” class action litigation. It also analyzes the legal, moral, and practical aspects of choosing a type of relief, as well as whom to include in the class. Finally, this note briefly considers how FDA itself can ensure sesame is regulated on the labels of food products, given that some of the legal issues may well be insurmountable for this particular class action. This note explores the potential solutions to difficult legal hurdles in constructing a sesame allergy class action, arguing that litigating a sesame allergy class action—even if it is not ultimately successful—could start a productive conversation that might lead Congress or FDA to provide greater public health and consumer protection for those with sesame allergy.

构建芝麻过敏消费者集体诉讼的“天然”食品诉讼分析。
在食物过敏仍然是一种不治之症的世界上,法律和法规是向食物过敏消费者提供保护其健康所需信息的必要机制。2004年的《食品过敏原标签和消费者保护法》对美国的“八大”过敏原:牛奶、大豆、麸质、鸡蛋、树坚果、花生、鱼和甲壳类贝类提供了具体的标签要求。从那以后,芝麻作为过敏原变得越来越普遍,而且仍然很危险,在一些对芝麻过敏的人身上会引起过敏性休克。然而,尽管倡导者和国会议员主张将芝麻纳入监管范围,但芝麻仍未受到监管。本文通过探索最具战略意义的方法来解决这个问题,根据加州消费者保护法,对一家私营食品公司提起芝麻过敏集体诉讼。由于这类集体诉讼没有太多先例,因此本文通过关注法院在最近的“自然”集体诉讼中如何审查这些问题,分析了任何诉讼当事人在证明集体诉讼时必须解决的基本初步问题,包括优先购买权、诉讼资格和索赔本身。它还分析了选择一种救济类型的法律、道德和实践方面,以及将谁包括在该类中。最后,本文简要地考虑了FDA本身如何确保芝麻在食品标签上受到监管,因为在这个特殊的集体诉讼中,一些法律问题可能是无法克服的。本文探讨了在构建芝麻过敏集体诉讼中困难的法律障碍的潜在解决方案,认为提起芝麻过敏集体诉讼-即使最终不成功-也可以启动富有成效的对话,可能导致国会或FDA为芝麻过敏者提供更大的公共卫生和消费者保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信