Author: FLPC

Written by Gordon Merrick, 3L at Vermont Law School and FLSN Co-President

A recent announcement by the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) shows just how intersectional our food and energy systems are. Three billion people around the world still depend on cooking stoves fueled by biomass, which poses huge public health issues. In addition to indoor air quality issues, these fuel sources require substantial time, energy, and precious funds. These public health considerations are intensified by deforestation that occurs due to the necessity of these fuels. ISES’s announcement of the winner of their innovation-forcing challenge is exciting not only because it shows that there are people working to solve this problem, but that the international world is taking notice.

The reduced need for biomass to cook food increases the immediate health of those doing the cooking (women and children) and leaves the world’s forests to store carbon and water and provide food and resources to local populations. The world is changing at an incredibly rapid pace, and it is these simple technologies that will support the world’s exponentially growing electricity needs. Freeing up money and time will help address systemic issues that developing nations face. It will allow women and children to focus on what repeatedly is shown to improve quality of life: participating in local commerce and obtaining an education.

In sum, this announcement shows how momentous changes can come from simple ideas. Understanding how rural communities live and operate provides opportunities for residents to better their lives and pushes the world to address our changing climate.  

Written by Lauren Thomas, 3L at Texas A&M School of Law and 2018-2019 FLSN Careers Chair

As Career Chair for the National Food Law Student Network for the past year and a half, I have seen quite a few remote food law internships and jobs become available to students who are interested in food law. This shift in an increase in remote food law opportunities is an excellent way for students to meet other food law attorneys and work on projects that are not typically accessible to them.

In fact, I took a remote job as a Fellow for the National Agriculture Law Center (“NALC”). NALC is a non-partisan center for agricultural law research, and is based out of the University of Arkansas. NALC accepts legal research Fellows from all over the country. Fellows work on a wide variety of projects with NALC employees and associated attorneys. Since the Fellows are located all over the country,  NALC maintains contact with the Fellows through e-mail, phone calls, and monthly skype meetings.

It can be difficult to transition from working in an office to working in a remote job position. To adjust to working in remote job positions, here are a few things I have learned from my previous experience working in a remote position.

First: communicate. Actively choosing to communicate with my supervising attorney and other members of my team kept everyone informed and updated. Communication is key for getting the information you need to effectively complete a project. In remote jobs, there really isn’t a way to knock on someone’s door. Establishing positive e-mail rapport is crucial to sustain a working relationship.

Second: keep track of deadlines. When working in a remote position, it can be easy to forget about small deadlines such as turning in timesheets or replying to requested information by a specified date. Keeping track of the small deadlines, as well as the large due dates, will ensure that things are completed in a timely manner and not forgotten when the semester gets busy.

Third: designate time to work. Since I was not commuting to an office every day, I found it was best if I set aside specific time in advance to complete my work. Generally, remote positions are more project-focused instead of a typical 8 AM – 5 PM schedule. When I am working remote, setting aside a designated time in advance for me to put together my work helped me meet deadlines and complete the amount of hours I needed to complete.

For those of you considering applying to remote positions, I highly recommend it, and I hope you find my tips helpful!

Written by Talia Ralph, 3L at McGill Law and 2018-2019 FLSN Projects Chair

From February 18 to the 22, McGill’s Faculty of Law will be shining the spotlight on food law and policy—and 20 students will be getting course credit for it.

The initiative, Food for Law Week, is one of the classes on offer during McGill Law’s recently introduced Focus Week, a weeklong period in February where students can take 1-credit intensives on a range of topics, from labour negotiation to international environmental politics to, yes, food. However, the week also includes panels and cocktails that are open to the public, in addition to being mandatory for enrolled students.

The initiative is the result of a collaboration between the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), The McGill Food Law Society, and Lallemand, a global corporation which develops and produces yeasts, bacterias, and specialty ingredients. Three years after the McGill Food Law Society was founded, it has expanded to include over 80 members, and now runs the Food and Agriculture Law Clinic, Canada’s only food law clinic which offers students hands-on opportunities to do law and policy work for food-focused non-profits. This year’s Food Law Focus Week is the latest indication that food law and policy have become a vibrant part of the McGill Law learning experience.

“It’s critical that young Canadian jurists learn about the implications of food law and policy in this country and beyond,” says Jessica Cytryn, co-founder of the McGill Food Law Society. “I’m thrilled that the McGill Food Law Society has teamed with CIPP and Lallemand to bring such a dynamic workshop to McGill Law students, and hope that McGill can continue to be a food law pioneer for years to come.”

The weeklong seminar will feature talks by some of the foremost international thought leaders and experts on food and agriculture law and policy, including:

• Don Buckingham, President and CEO of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
• Geneviève Parent, Professor at l’Université Laval à Québec law school and the Research Chair in Food Diversity and Security  
• Olivier De Schutter, Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
• Smita Narula, the Haub Distinguished Professor of International Law at Pace University, Elisabeth Haub School of Law
• Solange Henoud, the Director of Global Regulatory Affairs at Lallemand

The topics covered run the gamut from food security to cannabis law to contract farming, and are designed to give students and guests a well-rounded understanding of the various facets of food law at the local, national, and international levels.

“One event where a particularly high turn out is expected is our panel on cannabis law,” says Hannah Dean, the President of the McGill Food Law Society and one of the organizers of Food for Law Week. “The national legalization of cannabis has been a major shift in the Canadian legal landscape. We have assembled a panel of experts working in a diverse range of areas to discuss the challenges and opportunities that legalization poses for privacy, marketing, protecting innovation, and the well being of First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples in Canada.”

We hope to see more food-law-focused courses and events across the Food Law Student Network this year and beyond!

For more information about Food for Law Week, contact Hannah Dean at hannah.dean@mail.mcgill.ca. To view the schedule and more details about the speakers and schedule, visit the Food for Law website here.

 

Written by Teresa Smith, 3L at Lewis & Clark Law School and 2018-2019 FLSN Communications Chair

Sidewalk vendors have been a vibrant part of the food scene in Los Angeles for decades.[1] Walking down the streets of LA is a visual, audial, and aromatic journey as vendors set up on sidewalks and city parks. The aroma of tamales, tacos, and pozole wafts through the air as vendors, many of them immigrants, sell goods and food from the cultures of their native countries. Until recently, however, sidewalk vending was not only illegal, it was criminal. Fortunately, the dedication and determination of street vendors has resulted in many years of political organizing and legal battles, ultimately resulting in a community of vendor-led advocates that successfully worked towards the legalization and decriminalization of vending in Los Angeles.

Roughly 50,000 Angelenos make a living as vendors. Vending provides these entrepreneurs a way to support their families as well as provide a much needed service for their community. Vendors allow for communities to buy local and create a local economy. Additionally, some vendors often provide the only source of fresh food in what would otherwise be a food desert.  Other vendors may sell culturally important food and merchandise to predominantly immigrant communities that otherwise would have limited access to these goods.

Legal issues, racial discrimination, and even violence have affected the street vending community for years. Both police and immigration officials have cracked down on vendors recently, and violations have been prosecuted as criminal misdemeanors or infractions. Penalties ranged from fines up to $1000 for a misdemeanor to the threat of arrest and even jail time. For many immigrant vendors, these interactions affected access to citizenship programs and increased the risk of deportation.

Despite these dangers, street vendors have persisted through the years. Many vendors see the work as a way to make a living and to escape economic problems such as inadequate pay or wage theft. Others see it as the first rung on a ladder of economic success. Many vendors dream of building their sidewalk vending business into a brick and mortar restaurant or shop one day.

Since 2011, the Los Angeles Street Vendor Campaign (LASVC), a vendor-led coalition, has been working to legalize street vending – first in LA and eventually across the state. LASVC works with community organizers, food justice advocates, economic development organizations, and attorneys all over the city to end the criminalization of street vending and to create an inclusive permit system for legal sidewalk vending.[2] The coalition puts a major focus on building leadership within the vendor community itself in order to shift the power dynamic.

The campaign started by organizing Town Halls as a way for vendors across the city to get together and discuss specific challenges they faced and the priorities of individuals. By 2013, organizing efforts and political pressure resulted in a city council motion to look into the workability of legalizing street vending. The campaign drafted a model ordinance for decriminalization and legalization in 2014. Over the next few years there were various public hearings regarding legalizing street vending, but no policy was adopted. All the while, vendors continued to suffer and LASVC persisted by pressuring the city through demonstrations and organizing.

With the election of Donald Trump and the incoming administration’s proposed policies towards immigrants, Los Angeles city officials realized they needed to take some steps to protect immigrant communities. Using this momentum, LASVC pushed through a January 2017 ordinance which decriminalized vending in the City of Los Angeles. While still prohibited, street venders were now only subject to administrative fines instead of criminal charges.

By 2018, LASVC was growing dramatically. Vendors and advocates began hearing from other cities in California and it became clear that the problems experienced in Los Angeles were occurring statewide. In January, State Senator Ricardo Lara met with LASVC in Los Angeles and then introduced SB 946. SB 946 would decriminalize sidewalk vending in California as well as provide retroactive relief allowing vendors with pending charges or prior convictions dismissed. The Bill also provides standards for local governments to legalize and regulate sidewalk vending. Vendors and allies across the state began to advocate for SB 946 by providing testimony at Assembly and Senate hearings as well as meeting with elected officials across the state.

In September, 2018 SB 946 was adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor. By November, the LA City Council approved an ordinance to legalize sidewalk vending across the city. Vendors across Los Angeles as well as other cities in California now have the opportunity to participate in a legal economy as well as clear any previous records under the retroactive relief provision of SB 946.

The legal battle to ensure Los Angeles communities have access to the right to participate in street vending activities is far from over as organizers and legal advocates now work out the implementation of the city ordinance and state law. However, the recent win for this community is a beacon of hope and a prime example of how community organizing and community-centered policy making can help ensure that communities achieve their desired goals, and of course, access to their desired foods.

[1] Street vendors in Los Angeles include “sidewalk vendors.” These are not permitted food trucks or loncheros, but consist of smaller operations set up on sidewalks and in parks that sell both food and merchandise.

[2]   In addition to vendor leaders, core organizations include: Public Counsel, East LA Community Corporation (ELACC), Leadership for Urban Renewal Network (LURN), and LA Food Policy Council.

 

 

Written by Ariel Ardura, 3L at Georgetown University Law Center and 2018-2019 FLSN Projects Chair

First came Bitcoin, then came spinach and lettuce?

As you may have heard, blockchain technology is poised to take over the food industry – Walmart is requiring its spinach and lettuce producers to put their records on a blockchain, Sweetgreen is using it to collect massive amounts of data, and that’s just the beginning. Blockchain is being touted as a way to transform the entire food industry, by increasing efficiency, transparency, and collaboration throughout the food system.

Blockchain is the technology underlying cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. It records transactions on a public, distributed ledger using a consensus of computer systems.

Walmart recently made headlines by announcing that it will begin requiring its lettuce and spinach suppliers to contribute to a blockchain database. The technology will enable the retailer to trace the source of its leafy greens much more quickly than it is able to under the current paper trail system. This could have huge implications for food safety, because it will allow the retailer to pinpoint a source of contamination when food-borne illness occurs much faster than it previously was able to. Walmart estimated that under the company’s current tracking system, it took days or even weeks for Walmart to track a package of mangos all the way back to the farm they were grown on. With its blockchain track-and-trace solution, they were able to pinpoint the original farm in seconds.

At the same time, it’s not exactly clear why using blockchain technology to do this is better than something like a database or other form of digital information storage. Blockchain is just a digitized record of whatever data is added by its members; it has no ability to verify the accuracy of the underlying data itself. Because the truth of the data is not evaluated by the blockchain, there’s no aspect of blockchain technology that can make sure that Walmart’s lettuce, for example, is actually free from contamination. So rather than use a blockchain, Walmart could simply build a database, give its leafy greens suppliers access to it, and have them input all of the required data to the database.

It may be that blockchain is just the en vogue technology at the moment. However, that does not mean it’s without value. Blockchain’s true potential may lie in using it in combination with other technologies and systems. Blockchain can be used in concert with sensors and precision delivery systems that all connect to a network, enabling the connected blockchain to capture large amounts of data, which can then be used to make the producer’s operations more efficient. For example, the sensors can capture information about water use, and from that data figure out how water usage can be reduced. Blockchain might also provide a way for farmers to get more information to consumers, such as whether a product was grown with herbicide.

The food industry’s use of blockchain technology is still in the beginning stages, but the possibilities look promising. Perhaps most importantly, blockchain can help improve trust in the food system by providing visibility to consumers into how the products they are consuming were produced.

Written by Christina House, 3L at Thurgood Marshall School of Law and 2018-2019 FLSN Student Organizations Chair

This past summer I interned at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. While interning at the court, I had the pleasure of hearing a range of cases, which included facets of law such as criminal, commercial, immigration, and even food law. More specifically, the topic of content-based speech appeared in reference to food advertisements and food branding. It reminded me of the heavily litigated issue of the term “natural.”  Across the nation, manufacturers have used various terms to appeal to the public such as the term “natural.”  However, federal food and beverage regulatory agencies—like the FDA—have continued to refrain from defining the term “natural.” Because the FDA has refused to define the term “natural,” the term’s interpretation has been left up to courts across the nation.[1]

Many have argued that the term “natural” is confusing to the public, and, thus, food manufacturers should refrain from using the term on marketing and commercial products for food.  Consumers believe that “natural” should be used to describe a food product that is good for you which does not contain “synthetic, highly processed or genetically modified ingredients.”[2] Surveys have shown that because of the public’s uncertainty, product launches using the term “natural” have drastically decreased.[3]

Consumers have become increasingly frustrated and have brought their complaints to the courts.  “Nineteen all-natural class actions have been filed… as of July 2017. There were 27 such suits for the entire year of 2016.”[4]  Consumer’s suits claim that the confusing term causes them to buy more expensive products specifically because the product is labeled “natural.”  In response, manufactures claim there are few guidelines to clarify the rules of food labeling; they are eager for a definitive line to drawn to help them avoid future legal actions.

A definition from the regulatory bodies will help the courts as they continue to decide these cases. Additionally, a concrete definition will create uniformity within the courts as to whether manufactuers have engaged with the marketplace properly or have indeed mislead the public. Ultimately as my summer came to a close, I made a recommendation to the Court on how to solve the food advertisement and food branding dispute based on the caselaw available under First Amendment commercial speech. Thankfully, in this case, the courts’ rulings within our jurisdiction were consistent and the laws were plain. However, in cases of “natural” litigation the courts are still seeking the same level of uniformity and simplicity.

[1] Stephen Safranski & Adams Welle, Natural-Labeling Litigation: Preparing for the Next Five Years, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, https://www.packagingstrategies.com/ext/resources/files/All-Natural-Article-3.pdf.

[2] Caitlin Dewey, The raging legal battle over what makes a food ‘natural’, Wash. Post (Aug. 30, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/30/the-raging-legal-battle-over-what-makes-a-food-natural/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b535ccb44692.

[3] Cathy Siegner, Report: Why brands should stop using the term ‘natural’, FoodDive (Jan. 29, 2018),  https://www.fooddive.com/news/report-why-brands-should-stop-using-the-term-natural/515626/ (describing that FONA found that new product launches making “all-natural claims” have fallen by 51% during the past five years, reflecting a growing level of consumer skepticism.”).

[4] Dewey, supra note 2.

Written by Kristina Ellis, 3L at University of Denver – Sturm College of Law and 2018-2019 FLSN Co-President

Out in Boulder, Colorado sits small goat farm. Mountain Flower Goat Dairy (the “Dairy”) not only gives tours to tired law students who want to cuddle baby goats, but it also sells raw milk to buying customers in the area. The Dairy does not worry about not having enough customers with a waitlist for new customers constantly overflowing, which is no surprise being out in Boulder. While urban agriculture is becoming scarce, the growth of agritourism and the ability to sell products consumers demand are keeping places like the Dairy open. However, the Dairy’s biggest threat sits right down the street: the dreaded health department.

The Raw Food and Cottage Food movement is changing how food is regulated in not only municipalities like Boulder, Colorado but in states and cities across the nation. But what are Raw Foods or Cottage Foods and how did this change begin?

What is cottage food? Certain types of food from your home kitchen intended for sale to the public. An example of this is someone who bakes cookies from home and sells them at a farmer’s market. How are these different from raw foods? Raw foods not only include all fresh fruits and vegetables but also all cold-pressed oils and juices, unpasteurized milks, raw honey and nut butters. Raw foods are not typically made from home but may sometimes be produced in a home kitchen.

While neither of these types of foods are new, both types are getting more and more name recognition. The federal government first addressed cottage foods in 1993 in the first federal food code, recommending that food made at home should not be sold in a commercial food establishment. Soon after the food code was released, a few states which were opposed to the prohibition in the code, started to adopt state laws allowing cottage foods. In 2007 and throughout the subsequent years, more states began to adopt laws allowing cottage foods to be sold as a way for their citizens to make some income during the recession. Thus, began the local food movement. [1]

The raw food movement had a slightly different rise to fame. The raw food movement became popular in the United States based on a belief that eating raw foods better preserves the food’s nutrients and enzymatic content.[2] While this may prove true for many fruits and vegetables, the most popular raw foods today for sale include raw milk and raw honey. Raw milk is the most controversial of the raw foods. In the 1920s, in an attempt to keep people from getting sick the dairy industry started pasteurizing milk to kill bacteria and requiring certification of dairy farmers ensuring the cows were being raised and milked in sanitary conditions.[3]  Since then the great debate of to pasteurize or not to pasteurize has been a hot ticket item in the food world.

Why are cottage foods and raw foods such a hot button topic? Well its easy, many link both of these types of foods to food borne illnesses. In creating cottage foods in an at home kitchen, its easy to see how food borne illnesses can breed and find a way into the consumers body. At home kitchens aren’t regulated like commercial kitchens or food establishments. The health department does not show up to Susie’s house to make sure she is sanitizing her counters and cleaning her utensils properly while she’s making her chocolate chip cookies for the market the next day. As for raw foods, not pasteurizing milk can lead to finding harmful bacteria like listeria and E. coli when not handled correctly. Yet the other side claims extreme health benefits from consuming raw products and finds great economic value in purchasing local cottage foods. So how do states and local governments handle this?

By creating laws. States across the nation are creating and adopting new laws each year regarding cottage foods and raw foods. In 2018 the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic released its Cottage Food Laws in the United States guide listing every state’s laws regarding cottage food. Make sure to check it out! As for the raw foods, each state, county, and municipality handle these foods a little differently. Remember the goat dairy farm out in Boulder, Colorado? Like many food places, the local health department inspects the farm annually, ensuring that the areas the milk is retrieved and bottled in are sanitary. The farm has to ensure it has proper sinks and drains available as well as ensuring its employees follow all health standards like washing hands and not working while sick.

So, whatever your stance on both raw foods and cottage foods take heart in knowing that there are laws out there, ever changing with research and new technology, ensuring that these foods are somewhat regulated. And the next time you have a chance to play with baby goats, take that chance.

[1] https://forrager.com/faq/

[2] https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/06/09/Raw-food-on-the-rise

[3] https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2009/12/16/history-raw-milk/

Written by Lauren Thomas, 3L at Texas A&M School of Law and 2018-2019 Careers Chair

This summer I traveled to South Korea to visit a good friend of mine from college and learn about his home country. I stayed at his family’s home in Pocheon, a city north of Seoul. Their home was beautiful. My friend informed me that many Koreans prefer to live in apartments in Seoul, but my friend’s parents opted for the “country” life. Their country life came with a spacious floorplan, high ceilings, a beautiful gated yard, and an organic garden just outside the back porch.

I learned during my stay that Koreans have amazing food, and they are very passionate about traditional Korean cuisine. I tried bulgogi (Korean marinated BBQ), naengmyeon (a cold noodle dish), and many types of banchan (small dishes typically consisting of various types of vegetables). One evening after dinner, in an effort to help clean the table, I threw leftovers from a side dish into the trash can, and my friend’s mother quickly retrieved the leftovers from the trashcan. She placed them into a separate plastic bag, and explained that in Korea, the food waste must be separated from the rest of the waste.

In 1995, Korea buried 72.3% of food waste. In 2009, Korea recycled 60% of food waste. The Korean government’s food waste reduction laws are governed by the 1986 Wastes Control Act and the 1992 Act on Promotion of Saving and Recycling Resources. In 1995, South Korea began a volume-based waste fee system that is based on the “polluter pays” principle; the producer of the waste is responsible for paying a fee that is determined by the weight of the food waste they produce.

In order to implement this law, local governments have the authority to determine how to implement the polluter pays principle, and they typically choose between three different approaches to implement the laws: the plastic bag approach, the sticker approach, and the RFID approach. The plastic bag approach permits local governments to specially designate plastic bags for citizens to collect their food waste for weighing. The sticker approach requires the resident to purchase a sticker and place the sticker on their garbage bin. The garbage will only be picked up and weighed if the sticker is on the bin. Finally, the radio frequency identification tags (“RFID”) approach involves local governments assigning RFID cards to residents for them to log their waste when they dispose of their food waste in designated bins. The RFID cards then allow the local governments to charge the residents for their food waste volume accordingly.

 

As a law student, I am thankful for the opportunity to witness first-hand how a government’s food waste policy transformed into law. As a foodie and traveler, I am grateful for my friend’s hospitality, for good Korean food, and for the opportunity to visit a new country and observe new things. From my observations, I think the Korean government has figured out a solid solution for their country’s abundance of food waste.

 

Legislative Council Commission, Information Note, South Korea’s Waste Management Policies, 26 March 2013, retrieved from: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/sec/library/1213inc04-e.pdf (last accessed Aug. 12, 2018).