White House Boosts Fictional “Food Addiction” Concept to School Kids

BSFriesAs we’ve discussed numerous times here, some nutrition nanny activists, regulators, and plaintiffs’ lawyers have embraced and promoted the concept that food can be “addictive.” The term grabs people’s attention, conjuring up disturbing mental images of helplessness and withdrawal. It’s no wonder, then, that the notion of “food addiction” is often invoked in the context of greater government regulation, taxes, and advertising restrictions designed to redirect our dietary choices.

On September 26, the concept received its highest profile reference yet, from First Lady Michelle Obama, during an interview broadcast to millions of students on the in-school “Channel One News.” When asked about the criticism the federal government’s new school lunch rules have faced, the First Lady responded:

It’s natural. Change is hard. And the thing about highly processed, sugary, salty foods is that you get addicted to it. I don’t want to just settle because it’s hard. I don’t want to give up because it’s expensive. I don’t want that to be the excuse.

The interview appears to have been very carefully scripted, so her mention of “addiction” was hardly spontaneous or casual, nor was her referencing it in the context of “highly processed, sugary, salty foods.” Federal government regulation is taking direct aim at those demonized products and their ingredients.

For instance, the Department of Agriculture has proposed banning the sale of certain foods in public schools that don’t meet “Smart Snacks” guidelines, as well as banning advertising of those products in schools. Also, as part of its update of the Nutrition Facts label affixed to all packaged foods, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing a new “added sugars” item. FDA is pursuing this mandate even though the agency acknowledges that no chemical difference exists between naturally occurring and added sugars in food. The “added sugars” mandate would also expose federal regulators to constitutional challenges under the First and Fourth Amendments, as leading food regulation attorneys Richard Frank and Bruce Silverglade argue in a September 26 WLF Legal Backgrounder.

The First Lady’s reference to “food addiction” was ill-advised, especially considering the age and maturity level of her captive audience on Channel One News. The concept of addiction has been significantly dumbed down and politicized over the past few decades to the point where it has almost lost any objective meaning. Reputable scientists have questioned not only the methodology behind “food addiction” studies, but also the researchers’ motivation.

The “Let’s Move” effort led by the First Lady advances the indisputably worthy goal of a healthier America, but that goal cannot be met by fomenting faulty food addiction concerns. Such a concept creates a serious moral hazard—people struggling to lose weight may throw up their hands because they believe addiction to (insert high-calorie product) has taken hold. Talk of addiction, and the choice-restrictive public policies it fuels, also diverts attention and resources from actual solutions to obesity in America.

Also published by Forbes.com at WLF’s contributor page

Jurisdiction Still on Target for Supreme Court “Dart” Case

supreme courtAlthough the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on October 7 in a case addressing the scope of removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens—Public Citizen has urged the Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted based on what it views as procedural roadblocks to reaching the merits. Last Friday, Columbia Law Professor Ronald Mann’s column for SCOTUSblog spotlighted Public Citizen’s amicus argument and stated, “[M]y sense is that the jurisdictional question [raised by Public Citizen] will seem a lot more contestable to the Justices than the issue on the merits,” adding that the Court might even consider dismissing the petition. Mann is probably correct that the Court is likely to be unimpressed by the lower courts’ merits decision—that a removal petition is deficient unless accompanied by documentary evidence supporting the petition’s allegations that the prerequisites for removal have been met. But the Court is likely to be equally unimpressed by Public Citizen’s “jurisdictional” argument, which has not been raised by the parties at any stage of these proceedings.

Public Citizen bases its argument on the fact that the Tenth Circuit did not directly address the district court’s decision to remand a case removed from state court by the Petitioners under CAFA. CAFA permits defendants in class actions to appeal remand decisions, but they first must petition the appeals court for an order accepting the appeal. In this case, the Tenth Circuit (by an equally divided 4-4 vote) denied the defendants’ petition for permission to appeal. Public Citizen contends that the only issue properly before the Supreme Court is whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in denying permission for an appeal, not whether the district court erred in remanding the case.

That contention is without merit. First, the issue raised by Public Citizen cannot even remotely be deemed “jurisdictional” in nature. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over any case that has come before a federal appeals court, whether “before or after rendition of judgment or decree.” 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Supreme Court jurisdiction does not depend on whether the appeals court has rendered a judgment on the merits of the trial court’s determination. Because this appeal came before the Tenth Circuit, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review it. Continue reading

Federal Workplace Police Cast Aside Rules that Inhibit Capitalist Punishment

oshaNLRBAn excellent Economist article recently critiqued the ever-increasing criminalization of the American business community by federal regulators:

The formula is simple: find a large company that may (or may not) have done something wrong; threaten its managers with commercial ruin, preferably with criminal charges; force them to use their shareholders’ money to pay an enormous fine to drop the charges in a secret settlement (so nobody can check the details). Then repeat with another large company.

None of this is news to us here at WLF, where we have long been at the forefront of those who are concerned about the federal erosion of business civil liberties.

But what if, despite the heavy-handed leverage, government regulators still don’t get the results they are looking for? That’s easy—change the rules. That’s precisely what OSHA Administrator David Michael recently revealed he intends to do with the standard of proof required in whistleblower merits determinations.

Despite boasting to a recent meeting of the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee that, from 2009 to 2014, OSHA more than doubled the number of complaints it found to have merit, recovering over $119,000,000 in damages for whistleblower complainants in the process, Michael announced that OSHA will soon release a policy memo that will change the burden of proof in whistleblower investigations.

No longer will whistleblowers be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it is “more likely than not” that a violation occurred. Rather, under the new regime, whistleblowers will need only establish “reasonable cause” that a violation occurred. That lower bar will undoubtedly result in many, many more cases being found to have merit by OSHA, which is what OSHA wants.

OSHA is not the only federal workplace cop pursuing rule changes on the fly to advance its ideological agenda. As explained in a new WLF Legal Backgrounder by Littler Mendelsohn LLP attorneys Michael Lotito and Missy Parry, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is poised to radically alter long-standing definitions of who counts as an employer to favor unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and, of course, federal regulators.

Under the view of agencies like OSHA and NLRB, due process in the face of a government-decreed worthy goal is no virtue.  And drumhead justice in pursuit of that same goal is no vice.

Also published by Forbes.com at WLF’s contributor page

WLF Web Seminar to Address Lessons of “Stage-Managed” Litigation in Ecuador Vs. Chevron

PodiumPic1Tomorrow morning from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Washington Legal Foundation will be broadcasting a live Web Seminar program entitled Aguinda v. Chevron: The Remarkable Rise and Fall of a Stage-Managed Litigation & PR Crusade. You can register for free viewing by clicking on the program title.

Our speakers will be Paul M. Barrett, Assistant Managing Editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek and author of the just-released book Law of the Jungle; and Eric G. Lasker, a partner with the Hollingsworth LLP law firm.

Even though the litigation accusing Chevron of environmental harm in Ecuador has been going on for over two decades, the case itself, and Chevron’s counter-litigation alleging the plaintiffs’ lawyers committed fraud, remain unresolved. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will soon hear the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ appeal of Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan’s RICO ruling. And just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s order that two lawyers affiliated with lead plaintiffs’ lawyer Steven Donziger provide documents and computer drives Chevron sought in support of its RICO charges. Paul Barrett’s coverage of that Fourth Circuit ruling can be read here.

Not so “Grrr-eat”: The Response Nutrition Nannies Have Grown to Love

Half-full or half-empty?

Half-empty

Nice, but not good enough. That is the near-Pavlovian response professional activists routinely offer whenever their targets announce some voluntary action that, to the casual observer, seems to advance the activists’ agenda.

Consider, for instance, a September 23 Politico story, “Food, Beverage Firms to Dial Back Marketing to Kids.” The story reported on voluntary commitments International Food and Beverage Alliance member companies made to the World Health Organization regarding product marketing to children under 12. Those commitments include restrictions that nutrition activists have long sought from government regulators. Yet, there was the glass-half-empty response of Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) nutrition policy director, Margo Wootan:

If they’re saying they’re covering all media, they’re not. They’re missing on-package marketing [and] in-store and on-display marketing.

Ms. Wootan’s comments confirm a theory WLF has been arguing for the past several years in the context of plain packaging initiatives for tobacco: activists have their sights on more than one category of consumer products. Continue reading

Second Circuit Overturns Law that Compelled Businesses to Advertise their Competitors’ Services

2nd CircuitOn September 4, with Safelite Group, Inc. v. Jepsen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made an important contribution to the jurisprudence of compelled speech (an area of growing disharmony in the federal courts, as we’ve noted recently). The court unanimously struck down a Connecticut law that permitted certain businesses to promote their auto-glass repair services only if they mentioned the similar services of their competitors.

The Law at Issue. The Petitioner, Safelite Group, is an insurance claims management company that owns and operates a Connecticut affiliate, Safelite Auto Glass. If auto insurance companies direct Connecticut drivers with auto-glass claims to Safelite, Safelite can recommend (but, under state law, cannot require) Safelite Auto Glass to do the repairs. When it does so, Safelite voluntarily discloses its ownership interest to the insureds. If insureds cannot or do not want to utilize a Safelite Auto Glass shop, Safelite recommends another shop that Safelite has pre-approved.

Unaffiliated Connecticut auto-glass shops took their complaints about Safelite’s “unfair” practices to the legislature, which in May 2013 adopted a law that in part prohibits insurance companies or their claims administrators from mentioning their affiliate repair shops unless they also reference a competitor.

First Amendment Challenge. Safelite sought a preliminary injunction against Connecticut’s enforcement of the law, arguing in federal district court that the compelled speech requirement abridged its First Amendment rights. The district court denied the injunction, holding that the mandate simply required disclosure of factual, uncontroversial information that does not offend the company’s First Amendment freedoms. Continue reading

Federal Court “Shall” Hear Challenge on EPA’s Failure to Assess Job-Loss Impact of its Rules

EPA-LogoSection 321(a) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), titled “Continuous Evaluation of Potential Loss or Shifts of Employment,” states plainly:

The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long treated this as yet another optional duty, which it may or may not perform at its discretion. Murray Energy Corporation and a number of other coal companies that have suffered substantial job losses due to environmental regulations disagree. The word “shall” in § 321(a), they argue, reflects that Congress required EPA to do this. Last March, these companies filed suit in the Northern District of West Virginia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. A June 6 WLF Legal Backgrounder by Vermont Law School Professor Mark Latham and Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. attorneys Victor Schwartz and Chris Appel, Is EPA Ignoring Clean Air Act Mandate to Analyze Impact of Regulations on Jobs?, described the suit and its arguments.

On September 16, Chief Judge John Preston Bailey rejected EPA’s specious argument that the agency is protected by sovereign immunity and allowed the suit to proceed. The plaintiffs sued under a section of the CAA which permits actions if EPA has failed to perform a non-discretionary duty. The court thus had to determine whether EPA had discretion to ignore § 321(a).

As Chief Judge Bailey noted, courts need not defer to federal agencies’ positions when determining jurisdiction. And Chief Judge Bailey certainly offered no deference. He cited extensive case law that supported Murray Energy’s argument that “shall” reflects a mandatory duty. As one court stated, “The word ‘shall’ does not convey discretion. It is not a leeway word, but a word of command.” EPA argued that § 321(a)’s lack of a “date-certain deadline” renders the provision discretionary. Chief Judge Bailey found that while that issue “was open to question,” relevant precedent dictated that the lack of a deadline was not “fatal to plaintiffs’ case.”  He added, “While EPA may have discretion as to the timing of such evaluations, it does not have the discretion to categorically refuse to conduct any such evaluations.”

In addition, Chief Judge Bailey refused to strike the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

Given the enormous implications of this case for EPA and for regulated entities, this decision marks, as the saying goes, merely the end of the beginning for Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy.

Also published by Forbes.com at WLF’s contributor site