Suppr超能文献

关于建立芝麻过敏消费者集体诉讼的“天然”食品诉讼分析

An Analysis of “Natural” Food Litigation to Build a Sesame Allergy Consumer Class Action.

作者信息

Shaker Dana

出版信息

Food Drug Law J. 2017;72(1):103-40.

Abstract

In a world where food allergy is still an incurable disease, law and regulation stand as necessary mechanisms to provide food-allergic consumers with the information they need to protect their health. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 provided specific labeling requirements for the “Top Eight” allergens in the U.S.: milk, soy, gluten, egg, tree nut, peanut, fish, and Crustacean shellfish. Since then, sesame has become more prevalent as an allergen and remains just as dangerous, inducing anaphylactic shock in some sesame-allergic individuals. Yet sesame remains unregulated, despite advocates and congressional members arguing for its inclusion. This note entertains one solution to this problem by exploring the most strategic way to bring a sesame allergy class action against a private food company under California’s consumer protection statutes. Because this kind of class action does not have much, if any, precedent, this note analyzes the basic, preliminary issues that any litigant would have to navigate around to certify a class, including preemption, standing, and the claim itself, by focusing on how courts have examined these issues in the recent “natural” class action litigation. It also analyzes the legal, moral, and practical aspects of choosing a type of relief, as well as whom to include in the class. Finally, this note briefly considers how FDA itself can ensure sesame is regulated on the labels of food products, given that some of the legal issues may well be insurmountable for this particular class action. This note explores the potential solutions to difficult legal hurdles in constructing a sesame allergy class action, arguing that litigating a sesame allergy class action—even if it is not ultimately successful—could start a productive conversation that might lead Congress or FDA to provide greater public health and consumer protection for those with sesame allergy.

摘要

在食物过敏仍是一种无法治愈疾病的世界里,法律法规是为食物过敏消费者提供保护自身健康所需信息的必要机制。2004年的《食物过敏原标签和消费者保护法》对美国的“八大”过敏原规定了具体的标签要求:牛奶、大豆、麸质、鸡蛋、坚果、花生、鱼类和甲壳类贝类。从那时起,芝麻作为一种过敏原变得更加普遍,并且同样危险,会在一些对芝麻过敏的个体中引发过敏性休克。然而,尽管倡导者和国会议员主张将芝麻纳入其中,但芝麻仍然不受监管。本论文探讨了一种解决该问题的方案,即探索依据加利福尼亚州消费者保护法规对一家私营食品公司提起芝麻过敏集体诉讼的最具策略性的方式。由于这种集体诉讼几乎没有(如果有的话)先例,本论文通过关注法院在近期“天然”集体诉讼中如何审查这些问题,分析了任何诉讼当事人为使集体认证成立必须应对的基本、初步问题,包括优先权、诉讼资格和诉讼请求本身。它还分析了选择救济类型以及确定集体成员范围在法律、道德和实际方面的问题。最后,鉴于某些法律问题对于这一特定集体诉讼可能难以克服,本论文简要考虑了美国食品药品监督管理局自身如何确保芝麻在食品标签上受到监管。本论文探讨了构建芝麻过敏集体诉讼中艰难法律障碍的潜在解决方案,认为提起芝麻过敏集体诉讼——即使最终不成功——也可能引发富有成效的讨论,这可能促使国会或美国食品药品监督管理局为芝麻过敏者提供更强有力的公共卫生和消费者保护。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验