L********o
发帖数: 2855 | | L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 2 蒙山度的问题就是垄断
黑心发财，利用垄断，来盘剥农民
这个跟转基因没有关系
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 3 因为垄断就要打倒蒙山度
邓产党不能接受射阳的思路
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 蒙山度的问题就是垄断
: 黑心发财，利用垄断，来盘剥农民
: 这个跟转基因没有关系
| w****n
发帖数: 25644 | 4 Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define "Natural" with Respect to
Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) Foods
By Lynn C. Tyler, M.S., Hae Park-Suk, Crystal T. Williams, Joan L. Long,
and Olivia Fleming
The National Law Review, August 2, 2013
Straight to the Source
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic
Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Natural Foods page.
Three federal district court judges have recently requested the FDA to state
whether the terms "natural" or "all natural" can be used to refer to foods
containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending
consumer class actions over the term. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
Northern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a
case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma's use of "all natural" on its
tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they
contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in
Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed
with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending
the FDA's response to Judge Rogers's request. Most recently, in Barnes v.
Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and
involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case
pending the FDA's response.
These cases are potentially important because there are many pending
consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of
some variant of the term "all natural" is proper in light of one of more
ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling
litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of
suit for the plaintiffs' bar. Thus, the FDA's response to the request by
these courts, and the courts' further actions based on the response, could
resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.
It is often said that the FDA does not have a definition of "natural." There
is reason to question this common wisdom. As noted in one of our Alerts
from December 2011, it is true that the FDA published a notice in the
Federal Register in 1993 stating that it declined to adopt a definition of "
natural." It is equally true, however, that at the end of that same notice
the FDA stated that it planned to maintain "its current policy not to
restrict the use of the term 'natural' except for added color, synthetic
substances, and flavors as provided in [21 C.F.R.] 101.22. Additionally,
the agency will maintain its policy regarding the use of 'natural,' as
meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives
regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food
that would not normally be expected to be in the food." |
|
