The foodralist paradigm

by Diana R. H. Winters

Laurie Beyranevand at the Vermont Law School and I wrote a paper about striking a balance between federal and state decision-making in the area of food policy, called Retooling American Foodralismand the University of Pennsylvania’s Regulatory Review wrote a thoughtful analysis of the paper here.  In the article, author Nicholas Bellos writes:

“[F]or an industry as sprawling and complex—and vital—as the nation’s agricultural sector, should states be the principal actors ensuring consumer safety?

In a recent paper, two scholars argue that they should. University of Vermont Law School’s Laurie Beyranevand and University of Indiana Robert H. McKinney School of Law’s* Diana Winters say that more states should take initiative like California to enact food safety regulations of their own, rather than depend on federal regulators to lead the way. The balance between federal and state decision-making—what they call “foodralism”—needs to tilt more toward state governments, they argue. States need to fill the gaps in the current patchwork of U.S. food regulations and serve as laboratories for developing new rules and standards.”

Retooling American Foodralism is forthcoming in the American Journal of Law and Medicine.

 

*Although I used to be at I.U. McKinney, I am now the Assistant Director of Scholarship at the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.

 

Reefer Madness

by Diana Winters

I just read two very interesting articles, both arguing that states and the federal government have to do more to regulate marijuana products as more and more states move to legalization. In Marijuana Edibles and “Gummy Bears,” published this month in the Buffalo Law Review, Paul J. Larkin, Jr. looks closely at marijuana edibles, discussing their retail distribution, potential harms, and regulatory options available to local, state, and federal governments. The solution Larkin advocates is compelling—that the FDA declare foods with THC as adulterated, and either seize such products or require edibles to comply with standards that reduce the risk that children would ingest the product.

In “High” Standards: The Wave of Marijuana Legalization Sweeping America Conveniently Ignores the Hidden Risks, forthcoming in the Ohio State Law Journal, Steve P. Calandrillo and Katelyn J. Fulton also focus on marijuana edibles and argue that these products pose special risks to the population. The authors make certain specific recommendations, including the increased study of edibles, a refinement of edible labels, a ban on edibles that resemble children’s candy, and more.

Beyond the specific issues of marijuana regulation, these articles are fascinating in regards to the federalism issues they present, especially in this time of some confusion about the federal government’s stance towards the state legalization of medical and recreational marijuana. I better go eat some “brownies” and try to figure it all out…

State regulation and the precautionary principle – comments open

Check out this interesting article published in the New York Times’ Sunday Review yesterday.  It discusses the role of the states in regulating a class of chemicals called PFAS chemicals, which include PFOA and PFOS.  Washington State recently banned firefighting foam and food packaging containing the entire class of chemicals even without definitive research showing the effect of all of these chemicals on the human body.  The article notes federal inaction on these chemicals and supports Washington State’s approach as a way to avoid scattershot regulation that leads to the substitution of other harmful chemicals for those banned.

The tension between regulating based on the precautionary principle and regulating only after all of the evidence is one we see often in the food arena.  Thoughts?

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑