by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Consumers have effectively taken a huge step forward in their quest to know what is in the food they buy and eat.  More than 2,000 grocery food retailers across the United States have agreed to support the consumer campaign for genetically engineered (GE) free seafood, by committing to not selling genetically engineered seafood if allowed onto the market.  These retailers include Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and Aldi, among others.

This committment proves significant in light of the fact that the FDA has already stated that they are not likely to require genetically engineered salmon to be labeled.  This FDA failure to label, will be the precedent for the more than 35 other species of genetically engineered fish currently being developed.  Reportedly, genetically engineered cows, chickens and pigs are not far behind.

Meanwhile back at the "congressional ranch", the US Congress is moving forward with the passage of the 2013 Agricultural Appropriations Bill (AAB).  This bill contains a little known rider dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act", that would effectively allow agricultural biotech companies such as Monsanto, to bypass the legal system in approving, growing and selling genetically modified seeds and crops. 

Currently, federal courts have the authority to stop the sale and planting of potentially hazardous GE crops, while the USDA assesses any such dangers.  If the Monsanto Protection Act is approved on the coat tails of the AAB, the courts would be stripped of this authority.  In doing so, it is argued that organic and non-GMO farmers would be denied equal protection under the law, especially in cases of alleged crop contamination and patent infringement. 

If approved the Monsanto Protection Act, actually named with irony as the Farmer Assurance Provision, threatens the existence and livelihood of the very farmers its name pretends to protect.  The "one step forward and two steps back" dance, between consumer protection and corporate greed continues.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In May of 2012, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine warned of a potential risk of heart failure associated with taking the popular antibiotic Zithromax.   The study claimed that people who take Zithromax were twice as likely to die of a heart attack or sudden cardiac event, than those people who take Amoxicillin.

Zithromax, commonly known as Z-Pack, has been prescribed for the past 20 years.  It has been popular among patients in part, due to the shortened duration required to take the pill to effectively eliminate a bacterial infection.   Needless to say, its popularity has generated huge profits for its manufacturer Pfizer.  In 2011 alone, Zithromax reportedly generated sales in excess of $450 million dollars.

The FDA was admittedly aware of the study published in May 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been "investigating" ever since.  Now almost one full year later, the FDA has issued a warning about heart related risks associated with taking Zithromax, similar to those set forth in the study published in May 2012.  In addition, the FDA has required a label change for Zithromax, to include a specific warning of heart related risks.  Although many related lawsuits have already been commenced regarding Zithromax, the recent FDA warning has effectively opened the litigation flood gates against Pfizer.

But more than Pfizer's imminent legal nightmare, the warning issued by the FDA raises some other serious questions.  If there are such heart risks associated with taking Zithromax, then why did it take 20 years  and an independent study for the FDA to become aware of them?  Why wasn't a more extensive study that would have produced these findings, conducted prior to the FDA approving this drug for sale to the very public it is designed to protect?  Is there a history of the FDA and Pfizer having "shared employees"?  Why, now that the FDA has come to believe there are serious heart risks associated with Zithromax, did it merely issue a warning and a label change instead of taking the drug off the market?

Perhaps the answer to these questions and many others, will be revealed in the litigation that is destined to follow.  Our legal system, as imperfect as it may be, strives to achieve equity and accountability.  Perhaps the time has come to hold the agency responsible for safeguarding the food and drug health of Americans, to a higher standard of care.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

An "Eleventh Hour" decision by  New York Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, has effectively stopped the NYC "Soda Ban" law from going into effect on March 12, 2013.  Accordingly, it will be business as usual in the NYC restaurant industry.

In its decision, the court stated as follows:

      "The Rule is nevertheless fraught with arbitrary and capricious          consequences.  The simple reading of the Rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.  Furthermore, as previously discussed, the loopholes in this Rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the Rule.  It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentration of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, ... defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule."

It is a virtual certainty that this decision will be appealed, still leaving the future of this law uncertain.  

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

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. Lauto, Esq.

In 2012, undercover video captured Whole Foods employees ill advising customers that their products contain, "Nothing artificial ever".  This discovery was made notwithstanding that certain Whole Food products contain GMO's and are not labeled as such.  In response, many customers abandoned Whole Foods and started food shopping with alternative companies such as Green PolkaDot Box.  

Now Whole Foods has announced that they will require GMO labels on all products by 2018.  Whole Foods maintains that their decision was based on ethical considerations and the good of their customers.  However, many believe that the decision was purely a business decision made to re-establish their reputation and customer base.  Regardless of the reason, it appears that, "the change it had to come".

Whole Foods maintains that they are the first national grocery chain to set such a deadline for its stores.  In our age of rising awareness and increased educated consumers, it is believed that in time other stores will follow.  In this single announcement, Whole Foods has delivered a decisive blow to Monsanto and the biotech industry, who appears to prefer ignorant consumers over educated ones.

While Whole Foods should be applauded for their decision, regardless of what their true motive may be, waiting 5 long years to put their plan into action is questionable.  That time frame gives Monsanto and company 5 years too many, to launch legal challenges against Whole Foods in an effort to protect their multi billion dollar industry.

The stage has been set and the consumer war to re-gain the right to know what is in the food we buy and the right to choose what food we put in our bodies has begun.   With this commendable stand by Whole Foods, consumers have effectively launched their most meaningful retaliatory defensive strike to date.  Full disclosure food label laws in the United States  suddenly appears quite feasible and no longer just a dream.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our January 15, 2013 Scales of Justice blog, we detailed a class action lawsuit against Pepsico and Kellogs for alleged false "All Natural" labeling of Kashi and Naked Juice products.  Similarly, a new proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in Brooklyn federal court against Pepsico and Frito Lay North America. 

The Brooklyn federal court action alleges that SunChips and Tostitos are falsely labeled as "All Natural", when they contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.  Further, that consumers pay 10 cents per ounce more for these products, which they are falsely led to believe are all natural chips.  While 10 cents per ounce may not sound like a lot of money, the suit estimates the total damages to exceed $5 million dollars.

In response to the filed class action suit, a spokesperson for Frito Lay stated that the company was confident the labeling on its packaging "complies with all regulatory requirements".  Notwithstanding, the claimants assert that a reasonable consumer assumes that all natural food does not include food with genetically modified organisms created artificially in a laboratory with intermingling of genetic materials. 

A similar lawsuit was filed last December in California federal court, also seeking to recover money damages alleged to have been paid by consumers in search of all natural food products.  The Center for Food Safety  indicates that a comprehensive formal definition of the term "natural"  does not exist  with regard to food labels, with minor exception for some meat products.  In 2011 the Center for Food Safety unsuccesfully petitioned the FDA to require all food with genetically modified ingredients to be clearly labeled as such.

In that we do not have full disclosure food label laws in the US to afford consumers both choice and protection, lawsuits of this nature will likely prove difficult to win.  Ironically, many politicians that support the status quo with regaqrd to our food label laws or lack thereof, do not serve genetically engineered food in their own homes.  If you believe we should have full disclosure food label laws in the US, then email, Tweet or otherwise notify Senators Chuck Schumer (schumer.senate.gov) and Kirsten Gillibrand (gillibrand.senate.gov). 

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.

First it was Minor League pitcher Nick Goody, who sprained his ankle in a multi-vehicle accident last month on Florida's Intestate 4.  More recently, this past Saturday, Yankee starting outfielder Ichiro Suzuki was involved in a three car accident.

The accident occurred at approximately 4 pm on Saturday on Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa, Florida within three miles of Steinbrenner Field.  While Ichiro was driving southbound, another vehicle cut in front of him causing impact to the front driver's side of Ichiro's Land Rover and  then went on to impact another vehicle.  Tampa police stated that Ichiro had the right of way with a green light and that the other person failed to yield the right of way. 

Although Ichiro's air bags deployed and his vehicle had to be towed from the scene, he stated that he fortunately was not injured in the accident.  As a precaution, Ichiro was scheduled  to submit to a medical examination on Sunday, but is not expected to miss any Spring training games as a result of this accident.

With Yankee starting outfielder Curtis Granderson already on the disabled list with a fractured right arm until at least May, the Yankee organization breathed a sigh of relief that Ichiro remained essentially unscathed.  Opening Day is scheduled for April 1, 2013 at Yankee Stadium, with the Yankees facing off against the arch rival Boston Red Sox.

Long Island Lawyer 
Paul A. Lauto