by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq

Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) is spreading across many states in our country like wild fire.  This rapid growth is fueled by greed, under the veil of being the salvation for our country's energy problems.  Fortunately in New York, as a result of a public outcry, Governor Cuomo has indefinately stayed the use of fracking pending the results of full evaluations by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Health (DOH).

The ongoing evaluations by the DEC and the DOH started in 2008 and 2012 respectively, without any imposition of a completion deadline.  Many in New York suspect that Governor Cuomo is intentionally delaying the review process until after he completes his election bid for a second term as Governor this November. Fracking opponents in New York believe that no news is good news, while fracking proponents have lost their patience and have now resorted to litigation to get their way.

The Joint Landowner's Coalition of New York (JLCNY) has sued Governor Andrew Cuomo and others, to compel resolution of the fracking evaluations so that fracking may commence in New York without any further delay.  This litigious move by this pro fracking coalition, is effectively subscribing to the belief that we should let the health and safety of New Yorkers be damned and close out the evaluations (complete or not) so that the money making fracking train may start rolling.  

This court action should come as no surprise, as fracking companies will seemingly stop at nothing to secure their profits.  This was evidenced and detailed in our November 13, 2013 blog entitled, "Fracking Company Sues Homeowner With Flammable Water For Alleged Defamation" (See www.liattorney.com/scales-of-justice.html).  Although many New Yorkers would like to know where Governor Cuomo stands on this issue prior to casting their votes this November, his basis for abstention pending the outcome of the DEC and DOH evaluations is ironclad. 

Andrew Cuomo has become a formidable politician who to date, has succeeded in getting most everything he wants as Governor.  If Governor Cuomo sides against the fracking industry, New York will become a battleground as we bare witness to a true "Clash of the Titans."  If this comes to pass, hopefully the residents of New York will not become collateral damage.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

"Say it ain't so Joe," but alas even Trader Joe's was faced with a class action law suit claiming false and misleading use of "All Natural" and "100% Natural" labels on food products.  The suit claimed that Trader Joe's charged a premium on food products falsely labeled "All Natural" and "100% Natural," as they contained synthetic and artificial ingredients such as xanthan gum.  

A Federal Court Judge has preliminarily approved a settlement for approximately $3.4 million dollars, with final approval scheduled for a July hearing.  The money set aside is in part to be used to reimburse customers with and without receipts for the offending food products, including a variety of cookies, juice, rolls, cheese and more.

This case represents the mere tip of the "All Natural" litigation ice berg, which has been allowed to form courtesy of the FDA and their refusal to define the word "Natural."  The bottom line is that the food industry is big business and food stores are in that business to make money.  The FDA is suppose to safeguard consumers against the malevolence of big business, but as many believe, that is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.  

We need a governmental food agency that actually does their purported job of protecting American consumers.  The best way to effectuate change is through a massive grass roots movement by the people.  If people in every state complain to their Senators, Congressmen and Governors about the real need to eliminate the FDA and establish a new governmental food agency free of outside influence, all things are possible.  When politicians are convinced that the people demand a change and that their political careers depend upon it, we will succeed in getting the wolves to turn upon themselves.  

If you believe it is time to do away with the FDA and replace it with a food only governmental agency that truly protects the American consumer, then take a first proactive step by signing a petition to do so at www.change.org/petitions/kathleen-sebelius-u-s-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-do-away-with-the-fda-and-replace-it-with-a-new-food-only-governmental-agency-that-truly-protects-consumers?recruiter=82663938&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm
_campaigh=petition_invitation.  Together we can make a better tomorrow.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The FDA has failed to formally define the word "Natural" as it applies to food. As a result, there is growing litigation across the country regarding consumers being misled by food labels using the words "All Natural," "Natural" and "100% Natural."  This is particulary true relative to genetically modified food that claims to be "Natural."

Currently, three federal judges presiding over three different cases are dealing with this very issue.  Rather than decide themselves as to what constitutes "Natural" and possibly stepping on the toes of the FDA, these judges temporarily stayed each action pending a response from the FDA as to just what "Natural" means.

In the FDA letter of response dated January 6, 2014 and signed by the Assistant Commissioner For Policy Leslie Kux, the FDA boldly refused the court's request.  The FDA stated that they "Decline... to make a determination at this time regarding whether and under what circumstances food product containing ingredients produced using genetically engineered ingredients may or may not be labeled 'Natural'."  In addition, the FDA stated that that they could not honor the court's request as they have limited resources, more important matters to attend to and if they did decide to define the word "Natural," they would not likely do so in the context of litigation.  Meanwhile, the FDA is currently considering the Grocery Manufacturer Association's (GMA's) petition to label GM food as "Natural" (See our January 3, 2014 Scales of Justice blog). 

There is something seriously wrong, when a country that is in the midst of a deep recession, spends potentially millions of dollars on litigation to determine the definition of the word Natural.  Ostensibly to the prudent mind, food that is genetically engineered cannot reasonably be considered Natural.  In fact, one could easily argue that gentically modified foods are the antithesis of what is Natural.  Unfortunately, the controlling factor here is not reasonableness, but instead is greed.  The FDA could have and should have put an end to this entire matter, by simply defining the word "Natural" as most reasonable people would.  Instead, the FDA once again has failed to protect American consumers by choosing to allow the word "Natural" to remain meaningless in the world of food.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Many countries around the world believe it is unsafe to add Azodicarbonamide to food and accordingly have made it illegal to do so.  It makes sense when you consider that Azodicarbonamide is a toxic chemical used in synthetic leather, plastics and rubber products such as yoga mats.  In addition, it has been linked to a multitude of serious health problems from asthma to cancer.

Unfortunatley the United States, with the approval of the FDA, has deemed Azodicarbonamide safe to be added to the bread we eat.  According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21,  Azodicarbonamide may be safely used in food as "an aging and bleaching ingredient in cereal flour...(and) as a dough conditioner in bread baking... ." 

Azodicarbonamide is commonly found in the bread of many fast food chains such as McDonalds and Subway to name a few, although the latter has announced that they will now be removing the ingredient from their breads.  Do we really need to use a toxic chemical in bread just to strengthen the dough?  The answer is, no more than we need a flame retardant chemical in soda, which as you know from our last blog is also FDA approved.   

This month we celebrate the 2 year anniversary of our Scales of Justice blog.  We would like to sincerely thank all of our readers for their continued support and for helping make Scales of Justice a success.  We strive to make our postings educational and useful to your everyday lives and base our blogs on the basic premise, that the law does not always equal that which is fair.  This may be easily ascertained by simply looking at various FDA prescribed regulations, such as the one which is the subject matter of the within blog.  Accordingly, it is imperative that all consumers adhere to the legal principle of "Caveat Emptor" otherwise known as "Buyer Beware."

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.