As we say goodbye to 2014 and welcome 2015, it’s time for a little backward and forward looking.
Here’s what we saw in the 2014 rear view mirror in our little corner of the Universe devoted to the regulatory aspects of foods, drugs, medical devices, agriculture, and the like.
In January, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its long-awaited, long-overdue draft guidance on the promotion of drug and biologic products in interactive social media. The draft guidance, formally entitled “Fulfilling Regulatory Requirements for Post-Marketing Submission of Interactive Promotional Media for Prescription Human and Animal Drugs and Biologics,” is long on process (how and when to make required submissions to FDA), and short on substance. Presumably, draft guidances that will address FDA’s views on the substantive content of drug and biologic promotion through social media will follow.
The Agricultural Act of 2014, almost universally known as the 2014 Farm Bill, became law in February. The Farm Bill is the primary agriculture and food policy tool of the federal government. Enacted every five years, plus or minus (mostly plus), the Farm Bill addresses a broad range of substantive programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including commodity programs, rural development, foreign agriculture and trade, conservation, renewable energy, forestry, nutrition, and other topics. Unbeknownst to the average American, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as “food stamps”) and other nutrition assistance programs represent by far the biggest expenditure of funds under the Farm Bill.
In March, FDA proposed to update its “Nutrition Facts” nutrition labeling requirements, which have largely been unchanged for over 20 years. The proposed changes appear to be significant for industry, as FDA estimates the compliance price to be $2 billion. Even if the proposed changes are not readily noticeable to more casual observers (like me), they are surely of major interest to my colleagues who spend their time looking at the back or side panels of pasta sauce jars or cereal boxes.
In April, President Obama appeared to signal his support for the important role that biotechnology plays in modern agriculture. Mr. Obama did so in a letter to the granddaughter of Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel laureate who is often recognized as the “Father of the Green Revolution.”
In May, Vermont became the first state to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Effective in 2016, Vermont will require the affirmative labeling of foods containing ingredients that are commonly referred to as “genetically modified organisms” or “GMOs.” The legislation may be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge under the First Amendment. It, and the prospect of similar legislation in other states, may also serve as the impetus for federal legislation that would preempt some or all state labeling laws related to GMOs.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. The Court held that a company may bring a private lawsuit against a competitor under the Lanham Act to challenge the competitor’s food label, even if the competitor’s label technically complies with FDA requirements. In essence, the Pom Wonderful decision means that FDA food labeling requirements are a floor, but not a ceiling. It appears that Pom Wonderful is limited to FDA-regulated products where FDA does not approve or mandate specific labeling, such as food and beverage products.
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act became federal law in 2009, creating a regulatory pathway for FDA approval of “biosimilar” products. In July, FDA finally accepted the first biosimilar application under that statute.
In August, Grocers Manufacturers Association (GMA) announced an industry initiative that is, in its view, designed to improve the process and transparency for making “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) determinations for food ingredients. GMA’s GRAS initiative is intended to respond to criticism about the widespread use of the GRAS process, including FDA’s GRAS notification pilot program, as a mechanism for the review and marketing of new or modified food ingredients.
September marked the 30th anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Hatch-Waxman is the legislative foundation for the modern generic drug industry in the United States. Today, generic drugs account for about 80 percent of all prescriptions filled in the U.S. My personal musings on 30 years of Hatch-Waxman can be found here.
In October, the World Trade Organization ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico, rejecting USDA’s mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for meat products. The current U.S. labeling rules, which went into effect in 2013, require meat sold at the retail level to identify the country or countries where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. The USDA COOL requirements were upheld by the D.C. Circuit earlier in 2014. The U.S. has appealed within WTO; a decision early in 2015 is expected.
In November, OFW Law celebrated its semiseptuagennial anniversary. Phil Olsson and Rick Frank founded Olsson and Frank in 1979 as a two-lawyer shop. Fast-forward 3½ decades to 2014. OFW Law now has nearly 40 lawyers and Policy Advisors, and is one of the few remaining FDA/USDA law and lobbying boutique firms. Phil’s and Rick’s musings on the past 35 years can be found here. We look forward to our second 35 years of providing outstanding client service, with creative solutions to difficult problems.
In December, FDA published two companion final rules regarding the labeling of foods sold in chain restaurants and in vending machines. Covered chain restaurants (and similar chain retail food establishments) will have to declare the caloric content of standard menu items on menus and menu boards and make other nutrition information available on the premises. Restaurants that are not covered by the final rule may voluntarily register with FDA to receive the protection of federal preemption from inconsistent state and local menu labeling laws. Foods sold in vending machines will also have to declare caloric content. Most packaged foods sold in vending machines likely will provide caloric information in the form of a “front-of-pack” label that can be viewed by prospective purchasers.
* * *
Enough looking back. Let’s briefly turn our attention to looking forward, to see what 2015 may have in store for us. The following come to mind:
- FDA final rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on produce safety, preventive controls for human food, preventive controls for animal food, and foreign supplier verification, presumably by the court ordered deadlines in 2015. (Other FSMA final rules have 2016 deadlines.)
- FDA’s first biosimilar approval. There is no track record here, so no one knows quite what to expect. For whatever it’s worth, FDA review of biosimilar applications is subject to user fee performance goals, much like user fee performance goals for a variety of other products that require FDA premarket approval.
- Additional FDA guidance on drug and biologic promotion through social media, hopefully addressing the substance of what FDA considers acceptable and not acceptable.
- Federal GMO labeling legislation to preempt some or all state requirements in this area.
- The WTO’s final decision on USDA’s COOL requirements.
- The extent of cooperation between President Obama and the Republican Congress. Personally, I’m skeptical that they can work together towards less gridlock and more bipartisanship going forward.
* * *
Thanks for reading! Best wishes to one and all for a wonderful 2015, personally and professionally. May 2015 be better than 2014!
