Journal of Food Law & Policy

Vol. 19, No. 1 (2023)

Article

Re-Regulating Dietary Supplements

Jessie L. Bekker,Alex Flores, Michael S. Sinha

In 1994, Congress introduced the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to create a regulatory framework for the dietary supplement industry. Despite the increased market size of dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) pre-market authority to regulate the introduction of dietary supplements into the stream of commerce has remained subdued. Under DSHEA, the FDA has limited authority to review dietary supplements before entering the market. Unlike pharmaceuticals, which must be proven safe and effective prior to approval and marketing, dietary supplements can be sold to consumers without such reassurances. We call on Congress to amend DSHEA to grant the FDA the additional express statutory authority to fix these problems.

Article

The Contradictory Nature of U.S. Laws and Nutrition Programs and Their Effects on Infant Feeding

Lily Patel

The contradictory nature of U.S. laws, including the laws concerning infant feeding, though supposedly aligned with policies to promote wellness in Americans, can exacerbate gender and race inequality and work against the National Strategy. The overarching goal of U.S. laws concerning infant feeding is to ensure that infants are fed, nourished, and receive proper nutrition. However, the laws often appear to be directly contradictory to one another in the priorities they are promoting.

Article

Growing Agriculture Literacy’s Presence in America’s Classrooms

Emily Stone

“Americans, as a whole, were at least two generations removed from the farm and did not understand even the most rudimentary of processes, challenges, and risks that farmers and the agricultural industry worked with and met head-on every day.” This quote perfectly describes the mindset of agriculture stakeholders in 1981 as they began to realize the drastic steps our education system had taken away from using principles of agriculture in K-12 education. As they saw it, Americans were moving out of rural America, away from farms, and becoming less connected to the food they daily consumed. Simultaneously, the education system did nothing to preserve the use of agriculture principles as tools for teaching. If they were worried in 1981, just imagine what they would say if they saw American society in 2023! Today, most school-aged children are very limited in the knowledge of their food’s origin. The lack of attention given to agriculture in schools is especially problematic when combined with the number of food systems issues the next generation is bound to face. This article seeks to demonstrate the food systems-related dangers facing the next generation and explain the benefits of teaching agriculture literacy to school-aged children; to describe the origins of the Agriculture in the Classroom program and evaluate its success; and to propose new ways to improve and incentivize agriculture literacy’s presence in K-12 schools.

Article

Chewing the Welfare Cud: A Digested Analysis of a Consumer Versus Producer-Defined Standard of Welfare Practices in Animals Raised for Human Consumption

Caitlin C. Robb

Since the eighteenth century, animal well-being remains a concern for American citizens. Yet, underlying this concern is the thought that while humans should not be cruel to animals, animals are still private property subject to human ownership. Therefore, multi-faceted questions of what constitutes “animal welfare” find a place in modern American debate. One such question becomes: should the producer or the consumer define welfare practice standards of animals raised for human consumption?7 This note provides an answer to this question by first analyzing the robust history of animal welfare in the United States, along with the domestic and international impact of the livestock industry on the U.S. economy in Parts I and II. Next, in Part III, the note connects that history to constitutional rights and how the Commerce Clause influences consumers’ relationships to food, even though there is no constitutional right to food, or right to know about food. To illustrate the concepts in the first three parts of the article, Part IV reviews the arguments concerning California’s Proposition 12 (“Prop 12”)–a recent ballot initiative limiting pork pen size currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Part IV parses whether such a ballot initiative adequately resolves the tension between producer-defined and consumer-defined standards. Using precedent, Part IV also examines the tendency of courts to favor producer interests over consumer interests. Part IV further examines when, if at all, morality expressed through animal welfare regulations become constitutional violations. The note concludes by summarizing potential solutions found in current case law and the livestock industry generally.

Article

Free For All: Proposing Legislation to Eliminate Food Insecurity in Arkansas Public Schools

A. Mills Bryant

Schools serve millions of students daily as one of the largest food distribution sites in the United States. However, more than 13.1 million children in the United States, and almost 150,000 in Arkansas, are food insecure. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most Arkansas schools offered free and reduced lunch to students at or below the poverty line through participation in the National School Lunch Program (“NSLP”). During COVID-19, Congress passed The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) and The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES”) (hereinafter “The Acts”). This legislation effectively eliminated food insecurity in participating American public schools, including many in Arkansas, as it provided free lunch to all students, regardless of household income. Now, as COVID-19 has largely subsided, Congress has eliminated the funding allowed by The Acts and many states, including Arkansas, have reverted to pre-COVID-19 funding mechanisms using the NSLP. The Arkansas General Assembly must utilize its current tax surplus, or alternatively increase taxes to fund a state-wide subsidy to the NSLP.