by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The NYC sugary drink ban will become law effective March 12, 2013.  Therefore, whether you support the new law or not, here are some highlights you should know about.

The new law for New York City, limits high sugar drinks from a fountain or prepackaged container to 16 ounces.  This includes, among others, non-diet sodas, energy drinks and fruit or sweetened drinks that are less than 50% milk or milk substitute and have more than 25 calories per 8 ounces.

The law applies  to establishments such as sit down restaurants, fast food restaurants, delis, movie theaters and stadiums.  The law does not apply to alcoholic drinks, low calorie drinks such as diet sodas, unsweetened coffee and tea or fruit juice without added sugar that is less than 25 calories per 8 ounces.  Supermarkets and convenience stores are excluded from the law.

Violators of the new law are subject to a $200 fine per incident.  Notwithstanding, there will be a grace period of three months before the law is enforced.  The law provides for a one ounce margin of error.

As detailed in our October 2, 2012 initial blog on this subject, while the new law has the admirable goal of reducing obesity, it appears too easy to circumvent and therefore unlikely to ever achieve its goal.  The validity of the law is currently being litigated, leaving the future of this new law uncertain.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauyto, Esq.

This blog is not about the historic accomplishment of Roger Maris in 1961, when he hit 61 home runs in a single season for the new record.  Many say that but for performance enhancing drugs, Maris would still hold the record today.  The reference to 61 in the title of this blog, represents the amount of nations world wide, that have label laws requiring genetically engineered (GE) food to be labeled as such.  61 nations that believe the consumer has the right to know what is in the food they are buying.  61 nations that believe the consumer has the right to choose what they are putting into their bodies.  Amazingly, the United States promulgated as the champion of democracy, is not one of those nations.  This is notwithstanding that many surveys indicate that as much as 90% of all Americans, are in favor of GE foods being labeled.

Today in the United States the food we now know as "organic", our grandparents knew simply as "food".  Many say the reason for this is because the Monsanto headed biotech industry, not the governmental agencies such as the USDA and FDA, control the food supply in our country.  Some people even consider what we call food today, to be a chemical based food-like science experiment with "we the people" as the guinea pigs.

Remember that California's Proposition 37  for a GE label law, only failed by a few percentage points after a 46 million dollar campaign against it by Monsanto and company.  Many believe that if GE foods are perfectly safe, then Monsanto and company would not be opposed to a label law enforcing the consumer's right to know, let alone spend 46 million dollars to prevent such a law in one state.

Notwithstanding, the campaign for consumer rights continues and is now focused in the state of Washington.  The state of Washington has proposed people's initiative 522, also known as "The People's Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act".  Although this proposal pertains to the state of Washington, the results will affect the entire country.  

It wasn't until 1990 that we had a label law requiring listing calorie and nutritional information, 2002 before country of origin information was required to be listed and 2006 before trans fat content was required to be labeled.  Today, all of these label requirements are considered to be very important to consumers.  

If you are among those who believe the time has come for the United States to join the other 61 nations around the world and implement a federal GE label law, then it is time to put your beliefs into action.  Whenever possible, buy only US certified organic or GMO free foods.  Tell your local grocer that you have the right to know what is in your food and demand that they provide food with labels that support that right.  Support Washington's I-522 proposal and support your local organic farmers.  Buy foods that are minimally processed or better yet, not processed at all.  Every successful movement starts with the power of one.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

There is a growing need for full disclosure food label laws in the United States.  As if consumers did not have enough food related concerns such as food fraud, suspect FDA approvals, false labeling, increased food radiation levels, pesticides, antibiotics, GMO's and "frankenfish", we may now have to add milk and dairy products to the list. 

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), have filed a petition with the FDA to alter the definition of "milk".  They are seeking to change the definition such that it will include potentially dangerous chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose, without the need to list such ingredients on the label.  This means that if the petition is approved, when a company lists "milk" on the label, it will automatically include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose without being specifically listed.  Accordingly, if you are among the millions of Americans who choose to avoid such chemical sweeteners because they are potentially dangerous to your health, then you may be unable to do so because they will not be listed on milk labels.

But milk is not the only product that would be affected by this petition, as it includes 17  different dairy products such as yogurt, eggnog, whipping cream and sour cream to name a few.  Many have questioned why the dairy industry would even include potentially dangerous chemical sweeteners in dairy products, let alone do so in a secretive manner.  Proponents for the IDFA and  NMPF state that they are doing this to "save the children", as they claim the use of aspartame in products such as milk will reduce calories.  Further, that it is necessary to not specifically label said chemical sweeteners, so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".   

It is very difficult for consumers to make educated choices about what food to put in their bodies, if they are not being told what is in the food they are buying.  However, this is becoming an increasing and potentially dangerous reality in the absence of full disclosure food label laws.  In order to affect a change and have such food label laws passed, consumers have to be proactive.  In order to be proactive consumers need to take action such as petitioning politicians, refusing to buy products that are not properly labeled, sending their comments to the FDA when they consider approving petitions like the one currently before it and becoming self-educated and aware.   Perhaps that is the real way we can "save the children".

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The second most important vote this November 2012 as initially reported in our September 27, 2012 blog, was decided by Californians with a resounding "No".  That was the outcome of Proposition 37, on whether or not to pass a law requiring that genetically modified foods be labelled as such, in support of the consumer's right to know what is in our food.  Had California passed this groundbreaking law safeguarding the health of consumers, it is believed that other states would have followed suit, eventually making it a possible federal law.

Although many find it hard to believe that such a law requiring labeling of genetically modified foods would be voted down by the people, the result appears to be mostly a testimony to the power of money.  Forty six million dollars were spent in the opposition's allegedly fraudulent and deceptive campaign, funded by Monsanto, DuPont, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and other food and pesticide companies.  The alleged fraud and deception was claimed to have been so extensive that it is now the subject of a criminal complaint filed with the FBI.

Proponents of Proposition 37 maintain that despite the defeat, they have achieved a victory in heightened public awareness.  They further purport, that this is just the beginning of their campaign and that efforts will continue from state to state until a law is passed. 

Without a label law in effect, it is difficult to know whether or not you are buying foods that have been genetically modified.  It is claimed that genetic modification is within over 80 percent of the food currently available to consumers.  Anything that contains corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed or any derivative therefrom, is all but certain to contain some form of genetic modification.  That includes but is not limited to, all processed foods and yes even high fructose corn syrup.  Contrary to what the commercials on television would have you believe when they claim that, "sugar is sugar, your body doesn't know the difference", the clinical and empirical evidence tells us otherwise.

As it stands now, the only reliable way to know that the food you are buying is not genetically modified, is if it is certified GMO free or if it is certified organic.  If you believe that you should have the right to know what is in your food so as to protect your health and the health of your family, then voice your opinion to your grocer on a regular and continuous basis.  If more and more people demand to have the right to choose between healthy and unhealthy foods, the economics of supply and demand will apply with the laws of our states to follow.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In March 2013, Mayor Bloomberg's newly passed NYC soda ban law will go into effect.  The new law prohibits the municipal sale of soda and sugar laden drinks larger than 16 ounces.  The  general purpose behind the law is to combat obesity.  But will the new law truly serve the purpose behind the law?  

In the "super size" society of today, excessive food and drink portions have become the new normal.  It used to be that a 12 ounce can of soda would be considered a full size drink.  But today, it seems that what society considers to be a full size soda, is closer to 24 ounces than it is to 12 ounces.  So will the new law actually stop people from drinking more than 16 ounces of soda with their meals?

For those people who will be too embarrassed or cost conscious to buy a second soda, the answer is yes.  But for the likely majority of people who won't hesitate to simply buy a second soda upon completing their first, the answer is a  resounding no.  Perhaps this explains why restaurant owners did not appear to put up a strong fight against the proposed legislation.  If for example people buy two 16 ounce sodas instead of one 24 ounce soda, the result is an increased profit margin.  The days of "free refills" may soon be over.  It would appear that the newly passed legislation is a law with limited teeth.  

The new law also begs the perhaps more important question of what's next?  Will government regulate the size of our hamburgers or how many bags of potato chips we are allowed to purchase?  Although the general purpose behind the law is admirable, it appears to treat adults as if they were little children.  Accordingly,  the effectiveness of the new law is likely to be limited.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

While virtually every American is aware of the most important vote we face this coming November to elect the president of the United States, painfully few are aware of what many consider the second most important vote.  That is Proposition 37 in California, the results of which will affect every person in the United States.

Proposition 37 involves the proposed law requiring labelling of all Genetically Modified (GM) foods, based on a consumer's right to know what is in their food.  The first ever lifetime feeding study evaluating the health risks of GM foods, was published this month in the peer reviewed journal Food And Chemical Toxicolgy.  The study results maintain, with over 30 other animal studies, a host of health problems and diseases connected to GM foods, including breast cancer.  The study showed that,  "...in female animals, 93 percent of the tumors found were in the mammary glands." 

Proponents of GM foods, such as corporate giants Monsanto and Dupont, maintain that the new genes introduced in GM foods in theory are broken up in the intestines and therefore the genetic manipulation is harmless.  However, GM food opponents state that researchers have now discovered that the genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall and into the blood.  Further, that GM crop genes have been found in sufficiently large amounts in human blood and muscle tissue.  Farmers are also now discovering that Roundup Ready crops are creating super resistant bugs and weeds, in addition to accelerating the depletion of of our soil.     

Corporate giants such as Monsanto and Dupont are spending millions and millions of dollars to fight against Proposition 37 and the right to know what is in our food.  But that pales in comparison to the value of the Roundup Ready technology, which was recently decided by a jury to be one billion dollars (See our August 6, 2012 blog entitled, "Jury Renders One Billion Dollar Verdict In Biotech 'Roundup Ready' Technology War"). 

These are just some of the reasons why many say that Propostion 37 is the second most important vote for all Americans this November.  If Proposition 37 passes,  food manufactures will no longer be able label GM foods as "natural" or "all natural" and will be required to clearly label all GM foods.  Once all GM foods are clearly marked, millions of consumers will likely demand non-GM alternatives and the sale of non-GM foods will dramatically increase.  How would you vote?

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

   

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Federal regulators have decided, in light of newer developments such as Facebook and mobile games, that  they want to update the laws designed to protect childrens' online privacy.  A 1998 law currently requires websites to obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13 years of age.  However, the FTC is of the opinion that in today's digital age, additional protective measures are necessary. 

Proposed changes would include someone's location as being within the scope of personal information and would extend the parental consent requirement to third party "plug ins".  This extension of parental consent may include toolkits that Facebook distributes to generate "like" buttons on websites.  The FTC proposal for changes is to be completed sometime in the Fall of  2012.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Today many employers and potential employers are asking for Facebook passwords, in order to gain access to an employee or potential employee's social media.  All too often, the result is an employee losing their job or a potential employee not being offered a job.  But should employers and potential employers be allowed to ask for Facebook or other social media passwords?

In Maryland and effective January 1, 2013 in Illinois, the answer is a resounding "No".  To date these are the only two states to have passed laws precluding employers from asking for social media logins.  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) have asked the Federal Justice Department (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), to determine if such employer inquiries violate the Stored Communications Act and/or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  This investigation is currently still pending.

Although New York does not currently have a specific statute precluding  employers or potential employers from asking for social media passwords, if they do so, employers run the risk of violating civil rights, privacy, financial practice and/or equal protection statutes.  However, this is very little solace for the person who refuses to give their password at an interview and then never hears back again about the job.  This is perhaps just one of many examples, where the law needs to catch up with the times.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

A bill passed by Congress and recently signed into law by President Obama, will affect the pension plans of millions of Americans.  The new law will raise approximately $10 billion dollars by increasing the premiums companies pay the government to insure their pension plans.  It will also raise approximately $9 billion dollars by changing how businesses calculate what they must contribute to pension plans.

Under the new law, companies may now estimate their pension fund earnings based on an average interest rate over the past 25 years instead of the past two years.  As a result, estimated pension fund earnings will be higher, allowing companies to contribute less.  The government will benefit, because companies will make fewer pension contributions which are tax deductible.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Police broke up a gay rights rally and arrested three of the organizers in St. Petersburg, Russia, based on a new law  prohibiting the spreading of "homosexual propaganda".  Although homosexuality was decriminalized after the fall of the Soviet Union, prejudice against gay people remains at a high level in Russia and the surrounding countries.  

The law passed in St. Petersburg in February, provides a penal provision for a fine of up to $15,000 for spreading "homosexual propaganda".  

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.