by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The FDA oversees the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), who recently approved an application by Lipsmark company for the labels of Powdered alcohol known as Palcohol.  Then the TTB reversed their decision of approval, stating it was made in "error."  The New York State Senate, being concerned with the TTB's seemingly capricious decision making, has recently approved a bill that would make Palcohol illegal in New York should the TTB change their minds again.  The bill will now go to the New York State Assembly for a vote and if approved, New York State will join Alaska, South Carolina and Vermont in prohibiting Palcohol, which has been dubbed by many to be the new "Adult Kool-Aid."

Proponents praise Palcohol as being a mobile "party in a packet," opening the door for good times on the go.  But many people see Palcohol as a dangerous invention that will add fuel to the already raging fire of alcohol related problems.  One opponent in particular is U.S Senator Charles Schumer of New York.  Senator Schumer has asked the FDA to block federal approval of Palcohol, due to what he believes are inherent dangers. 

Lipsmark company has now reportedly resubmitted an application for Palcohol to the TTB.  Palcohol is to initially come in six different varieties including Rum, Vodka, Cosmopolitan, Mojito, Powderita and Lemon Drop.  Senator Schumer warns that, "Palcohol can be easily concealed and brought into concerts, school dances, and sporting events, it can be sprinkled on food and can even be snorted."  In a news release Senator Schumer continued, "Given that the federal TTB can only judge and approve new alcohol products based on taxation and labeling, it's clear the FDA must utilize its authority to intervene when alcohol products create significant health risks...and stop this potentially deadly product in its tracks." 

Palcohol is one of many health related political footballs that have been layed at the feet of the FDA.  The question now is as to what the FDA will do with it.  Will they pick it up and carry the ball in a way that protects the people or will they resort to politics as usual and just punt?

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

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In 2012 California voted on a GMO label law known as Proposition 37.  This law was narrowly defeated, thanks in no small part, to a last minute 40 million dollar plus media blitz by corporate opponents.  Since that time, only Vermont has succeeded in passing a state-wide GMO label law.

Notwithstanding the bitter defeat of Proposition 37, the good people of California have been continuously striving toward having a modified version of Proposition 37 made into law.  That version is known as SB 1381 and was purported to be a simpler version of Proposition 37. 

On May 29, 2014 SB 1381 was put to a vote by California Senate legislators.  In order to pass and move on to a vote in California's upper chamber, the bill need a minimum of 21 votes in favor.  Unfortunately the bill fell just short, with 19 votes in favor and 16 votes against.  Although reportedly in California the vast majority of the people are in favor of a GMO label law, the politicians empowered to represent the people have once again failed to do so.

At least in California they are continuously and aggressively striving to pick up the ball dropped by President Obama, when he went back on his word and failed to implement a federal GMO label law.  In contrast in New York State, which boasts to have "the city that never sleeps," efforts to pass a GMO label law are moving forward at what appears to be a narcoleptic pace.  Notwithstanding this latest defeat in California the people must keep on fighting, as you have to lose some battles in order to win the war.

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

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The GMO battle between the people and corporate greed rages on.  In the glaring absence of a federal GMO label law to uphold the peoples' right to know what is in our food, the state of Vermont has led the way by passing our country's first state GMO label law.  Certainly one would think that it is reasonable for a state to take action to protect its people, when our President fails to stand by his promise to do so.  But reasonableness does not necessarily apply when it comes to corporate greed.

As anticipated, the Grocery Manufacturers' Association (GMA) has formally announced their plans to undo the good work of the state of Vermont.  The GMA issued a statement yesterday on May 8, 2014, declaring, 

"Today, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law HB 112, a bill that is critically flawed and not in the best interests of consumers.  It sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers."

The statement continued, "Consumers who prefer to avoid GM ingredients have the option to choose from an array of products already in the marketplace labeled 'certified organic.'  The government therefore has no compelling interest in warning consumers about foods containing GM ingredients, making this law's legality suspect at best.  In light of this fact, in the coming weeks GMA will file suit in federal court against the state of Vermont to overturn the law."

As part of their statement, the GMA encouraged policymakers in Vermont to support the so called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would require GMO foods to be labeled only if the FDA determines there is a health or safety risk.  The GMA purported that it is in this way that, "Any labeling of GM ingredients would therefore be based on science, not fear… ."

It appears that the only fear present, is the GMA's fear of a lowered profit margin.  Perhaps that is why they support the so called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which makes GMO labeling contingent on the FDA determining a health or safety risk.  GMO proponents believe that waiting for the FDA to find a  health risk with GM foods, is tantamount to waiting for Christmas to arrive in July.

Unfortunately, our President failed to honor and keep his campaign promise to the people, that he would make sure that we would know whether or not our food was genetically modified.  Had Obama kept his promise, upon being elected he would have taken steps to enact a federal GMO label law.  A federal GMO label law would have obviated the need for the long and costly battle on the state level that has ensued and continues to this day.  But alas, once again it seems to be politics as usual.  However, it is the people and not the politicians, that will pay the price.

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

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

New York's gift and estate tax law has changed effective April 1, 2014 and some of it is good, some of it is bad and some of it is really ugly.  The law enacted differs from the proposed law, as detailed in our March 10, 2014 blog. 

The good news is that the NYS estate tax exemption limit, will gradually increase over the next five years to match the federal estate tax exemption limit.  The increased limits  are as follows:
            1.  $2,062,500 from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015.
            2.  $3,125,000 from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016.
            3.  $4,187,500 from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017.
            4.  $5,250,000 from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018.
            5.  From January 1, 2019 on, it will match the federal exemption.

The bad news, is that the new law has imposed a 3 year look back period for gifts.  That means that gifts made within 3 years prior to death, will be added back in to the estate for tax purposes.  The exceptions are gifts made prior to April 1, 2014, gifts made while not a New York resident and gifts made on or after January 1, 2019.  

Now for the ugly part of the new law.  Previously, estate tax was payable on the amount that exceeded the estate tax exemption limit.  Under the new law, if the taxable estate is more than 5% over the estate tax exemtion limit, the entire amount of the estate becomes taxable.  In this scenario, the tax consequences far exceed that under prior law.

Accordingly, all gift giving and estate planning should be guided by the changes in the new law.  Governor Cuomo and state legislators have effectively given new meaning to the adage, "They give with one hand and take with the other."  We will probably never know the true reason as to why the new law underwent last minute changes to become what it is today.  However, it would appear that it is the work of politics as usual.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

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

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Notwithstanding the best efforts of the Biotech Industry to stop GMO labeling at the state level, the GMO label movement in support of the peoples' right to know what is in our food is rapidly growing across the country.  Monsanto and company have to date, successfully expended millions of dollars to fight against GMO labeling on a state by state basis.  However, even a blind man can see that the "tide has changed" and GMO labeling is virtually inevitable.  

In that the Biotech Industry holds on to profits like a mother to her newborn, they have now brought out their proverbial ace up their sleeve.  U.S. republican congressman Mike Pompeo from the great state of Kansas, has just introduced legislation that seeks to effectively preclude states from passing a GMO label law.  Ironically, he has dubbed his legislation "The Safe And Accurate Food Labeling Act Of 2014," which would give sole authority to the FDA to enact a GMO label law if foods with genetically modified ingredients "… are ever found to be unsafe… ."

According to Pompeo's press release, "GMO's are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet.  GMO crops use less water and fewer pesticides and reduce the price of crops by 15 - 30 percent. "  The press release continues to state that, "Contrary to claims by activists, there is no scientific evidence that suggests foods that contain GMO's are anything but safe."

Congressmen are elected by the people and are suppose to represent their best interests.  One can't help but question the true agenda behind the proposed legislation, which appears to be more representative of big business than the people.  Whether you believe GMO's are safe or unsafe, we the people should have the basic right to know what is in the food we eat.  

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

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the United States doctors and patients alike have long been blamed for over prescription and use of antibiotic drugs, resulting in the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.  In fact, Americans consume approximately 6 million pounds of prescribed antibiotics every year.  However, this pales in comparison to the almost 30 million pounds of antibiotics used in our food production.  Almost 80 percent of the total antibiotics sold in the U.S., is used for livestock whether they are sick or not.

In many European countries, they have recognized the serious health risks associated with the growth promoting use of antibiotics in animal feed and accordingly such use has long since been banned.  Notwithstanding, in the U.S. antibiotics are continuously added to feed for animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), in an effort to increase size at an accelerated rate and counteract the deplorable germ infested conditions in which the animals are "raised."  In fact, a third strain of MRSA has also evolved among livestock animals and there is increasing concern that this strain could result in widespread human infection.

Unfortunately, the FDA and the USDA have failed to take any significant action to safeguard the American people and instead have asked food producers to voluntarily limit the use of certain antibiotics.  Congress has been equally ineffective, as U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has now in vein introduced four versions of her proposed Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Although the proposed bill, would logically ban non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in food animal production, it has yet to pass.

When U.S Rep. Slaughter was questioned as to what can be done to effectuate change, she stated that we need to get consumers to say, “We’re not going to eat it. We will not feed this to our families. Cut it out... I learned from another bill that I was carrying how much the publicity matters, and the only way I could ever get the majority in the House to even take up a bill like that would be an outcry from the public."

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Although the final vote will not be known for days, the latest numbers on Washington's I-522 vote to be the first state to label genetically modified (GM) foods, indicate that it has failed.  Counted votes show that 55% have voted against the measure and 45% have voted for the measure.  This vote comes one year after the failure of California's Proposition 37 to require GM foods to be labeled.  Both votes beg the question as to why a measure would fail that supports the consumer's right to know what is in their food?

One main reason appears to be the power of money, which is a sword wielded in mighty fashion by corporate America.  Monsanto and friends spent over 22 million dollars to stop I-522, while proponents spent only approximately 7 million.  The result was a successful re-direction campaign that left many people misinformed and confused.  Perhaps it is time to change our voting system, so  that money expended on campaigns are both limited and equal on both sides.  Perhaps then, votes may be cast based more on the issues rather than by the persuasive and corruptive power of money.

Another main reason why I-522 may have failed, appears to be a lack of fully informed decision making when voting.  More than 60% of the voters polled in Washington, said that they either did not understand GMO's to be harmful to their health or that they were confused about the issue.  I-522 in chief, was about the consumer's right to know what is in our food.   Whether or not the genetic modification of our food is harmful to our health, is a related but totally separate issue.  Voters were also misled to believe that if they approved I-522,  the result would be a substantial increase in the cost of food.  In that Americans in general are financially strapped in our depressed economy, this tactic proved to be most effective.  

The pending failure of I-522, represents yet another victory for Monsanto and friends and a severe loss for consumers.  Notwithstanding, the fight to enforce consumer rights on this issue will continue in the "trenches" on the state level.  Unfortunately, consumers are not likely to receive any help on the federal level.  This is a direct result of President Obama's broken campaign promise to the people, that he would support the consumer's right to know what is in our food.  Fortunately for the Obama family, there is no shortage of organic and GMO free food being served in the White House.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

It was one year ago when California's Proposition 37 to label genetically modified (GM) foods, was narrowly defeated by a few percentage points.  Monsanto, DuPont and the like, in a true Davey and Goliath battle, poured millions and millions of dollars into an anti-label campaign designed solely to defeat Proposition 37.  The result was a victory for "Goliath" and a defeat for consumers.

This election day 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.  

Many people believe that the time for America to stand up and support the consumer's right to know what food they are putting in their bodies, is long overdue.  Well over 60 countries world wide support that consumer right by law, yet in America corporate greed still prevails.  I-522 is not necessarily about whether or not you believe in the genetic modification of our food, as much as it is about the consumer's right to know.

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 have been implemented without any significant increase in cost to the consumer and are considered to be a staple in the consumer's right to know.  

 If I-522 passes, food manufactures will no longer be able to deceptively label GM foods as "natural" or "all natural" in the state of Washington and will be required to clearly label all GM foods.  The likelihood will be that other states will follow Washington's lead, until a federal GM food label law is enacted.  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.  Would you vote for or against the consumer's right to know?

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

New York State has implemented a drug monitoring database system known as I-STOP (Internet System For Tracking Over Prescribing).  The law, which went into effect August 27, 2013, requires both doctors and pharmacists to track a patient's prescription history.  In addition, doctors are now required to consult the database before prescribing schedule II, III or IV controlled substances.  Under the new system, pharmacists will perform real time reporting when filling most controlled substances.

The purpose behind the new law is multi-fold and is professed to include, among other things:

    1.    Detection and prevention of dangerous drug interactions.
    2.    Identification of patterns of abuse.
    3.    Prevention of drug addiction.
    4.    Improvement of patient care.
    5.    Reduction in stolen and forged prescriptions.
    6.    Prevention of "Doc Shopping".
    7.    Assist in the prosecution of controlled substance offenders.
    8.     Money savings to insurers and the public.

Perhaps the most publicized potential benefit to the new law, is that by design it will drastically reduce the ability of people to "Doc Shop".  That is the ability of someone to receive and fill duplicitous prescriptions, by going from doctor to doctor and pharmacy to pharmacy.  In a further effort to eradicate stolen and forged prescriptions in NY, by December 2014 controlled substances will only be available by e-prescription.  It appears that the new law ultimatley seeks to prove the adage "An ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure".

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.