[Podcast] Food for Thought and Thoughts on Food: What to Expect in 2023
[Podcast] Cellular Agriculture and the Evolving Legal/Regulatory Landscape: A Conversation with Ahmed Khan
Analyzing the Growing Complexity of Food Law, Industry Advances and the Road Ahead Under a New Administration
From Regenerative Agriculture to Transparent Processes — Organic Farming and Supply Chain Challenges and Opportunities
RCG Webinar | Where's the Beef?
Polsinelli Podcast - FDA Proposed Changes to Food Labels and What it May Mean for Manufacturers
A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the...more
Acrylamide, a Proposition 65-listed substance that naturally forms in the cooking and heating of many plant-based foods, has been the focus of court action over the past six years. However, companies will no longer be...more
After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more
There have been several major developments in the Proposition 65 world this summer. Below we summarize these latest developments in more detail. They include: (1) the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District...more
A California appeals court has reversed a trial court decision that would require businesses to post Proposition 65 cancer warnings on certain breakfast cereals for acrylamide. The court ruled that a Proposition 65 warning...more
A recent appellate decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has determined that breakfast cereals do not require a Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide. Post Foods, LLC v. Superior Court of Los...more
Last week, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff’s suit seeking to require Proposition 65 acrylamide based cancer warnings on 59 popular breakfast cereals was preempted by federal nutrition policies aimed at...more
On April 28, 2015, the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et...more
In a rare published decision concerning California’s expansive Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Prop 65,” the California Court of Appeal on March 17, 2015, dealt companies a victory in...more
Auburn Courthouse Prop 65Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. (See A Sane Tweak To Proposition 65 and...more