A National Natural Standard for Food Labeling

What do Juicy Juice fruit punch, SunChips, Nature Valley granola bars, and Skinny Girl Margaritas have in common? These products are all branded with the term “natural.” From canned vegetables to cereals to soft drinks, the term “natural” has become one of the most common claims on food, drugs, dietary supplements, and personal care products. The word “natural on the label or in advertising brings to mind nature, and things that are pure, clean, healthy, free of artificial additives, and therefore safe, harmless, and beneficial to overall health. In 2011, “all-natural” was the second-most-used claim on the new American food products. The food industry’s marketing of such products has been extremely successful. In 2009, sales of products with a “natural” claim reached $22 billion, and a recent study found that the “natural” claim is the most popular among consumers. When asked “which is the best description to read on a food label,” 31% of the consumers selected “100% natural” and 25% selected “all natural ingredients.” Although both Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USA) are statutorily mandated to protect consumer interest by prohibiting false and misleading labeling, both agencies define the term. As a result, food manufacturers have been free to use the term as they see fit. As the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) explains, the term “natural” “applies broadly to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic preservatives; artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors, and other artificial additives; hydrogenated oils; stabilizers; and emulsifiers.” However, this restrictive definition is merely aspirational. As a wave of recent lawsuits demonstrates, some food manufacturers have taken great liberties with their use of the term. Although the FDA has indicated that the issue is not a priority for the Agency because of the limited resources and because there was not enough evidence that consumers are willing to pay for “natural” foods, recent polls demonstrating consumer concern and confusion over such claims, and an influx of recent lawsuits alleging that “natural” claims do not meet consumer expectations of natural ingredients or minimum processing

The SNAP Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Debate: RestrictingPurchases to Improve Health Outcomes of Low-IncomeAmericans

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a highly effective government program that reduces poverty and improves food security for millions of our country’s most vulnerable families. Amid threats of budget cuts to this critical program in the 2018 Farm Bill, advocates representing various interests have banded together in support of this vital program. However, the issue of restricting the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) with SNAP benefits has divided anti-hunger and public health advocates. While public health and medical officials support the idea of restrictions on junk food, arguing that SNAP should improve health and nutrition, not contribute to the obesity epidemic, anti-hunger advocates fervently oppose restrictions for being too burdensome to implement, stigmatizing, unlikely to change eating habits, and used as a vehicle to cut the size of SNAP. This article will evaluate the debates surrounding a restriction on the purchase of SSBs with SNAP benefits. It will draw on research that examines the impact of SNAP on food consumption and evaluates various factors affecting food choice and access. This article ultimately proposes a state or local pilot program in the 2018 Farm Bill to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a restriction on SSBs

Implicit Bias and the Legal Profession\u27s Diversity Crisis : A Call for Self-Reflection

Racial and gender disparities persist in the legal profession. A 2013 study commissioned by Microsoft revealed that the diversity gap in the U.S. legal profession has worsened, lagging behind other professions. While many efforts have been undertaken, diversity remains elusive. One reason the diversity efforts have been unsuccessful may be due to a lack of focus on a key reason for the persistent disparities—the “reforms are unlikely to stick until people understand how race actually operates in the brain. The goal of this article is to apply social science insights to understand and address the diversity “crisis.” Social science studies demonstrate that the continued underrepresentation of women and minorities in the legal profession is unlikely due predominately to explicit or “first generation bias,” which involves “deliberate exclusion or subordination directed at identifiable members of disfavored groups Rather, this bias has been supplanted by “second generation” forms of bias, which are attributable to implicit bias

Judicial Decisionmaking, Empathy, and the Limits of Perception

This Article explores the effects of a judge’s prior assumptions, values, and experiences on judicial decisionmaking. In Part II, this Article will explore the cognitive science research regarding decisionmaking and implicit bias to reveal how each of us develops values, intuitions, and expectations below the level of our consciousness that powerfully affect both our perceptions and our judgments. Although there are many types of cognitive biases and heuristics involved in decisionmaking, for purposes of this Article, I focus on implicit biases towards various social groups. “[E]xplicit” biases are attitudes and stereotypes that are consciously accessible through introspection and endorsed as appropriate. By contrast, “implicit” biases are attitudes and stereotypes that are not consciously accessible through introspection and are more likely to emerge during stressful situations or when someone is forced to make a decision in a short amount of time. Many of these biases are pervasive and not in line with our beliefs. If we find out that we have them, we may indeed reject them as inappropriate. Part III will summarize recent studies regarding judges, cognitive illusions, and implicit bias to demonstrate that a judge’s past experiences, prior assumptions, and resulting cognitive schemas, or cognitive shortcuts, do influence her decisionmaking, whether or not she is aware of it. In light of the cognitive science research, Part IV proposes the tool of judicial empathy to mitigate the inevitable implicit biases each judge brings to the bench. Part V discusses judicial empathy in the context of Fourth Amendment, discrimination, criminal, and Establishment Clause cases in which courts apply reasonableness standards. The cases discussed in Part V illustrate that a judge’s work requires a capacity to understand the challenges faced by a wide range of potential litigants from across the spectrum of our society

Navigating the Pitfalls of Implicit Bias: A Cognitive Science Primer for Civil Litigators

Cognitive science has revealed that past experiences and prior assumptions, even those of which we are not conscious, greatly influence how humans perceive the world. Emerging research has demonstrated that attorneys and judges, like everyone else, are the products of their gender, ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status. As a consequence, legal decision-making is susceptible to the subtle influences of implicit bias. Effective and ethical client advocacy requires an attorney to understand how her own implicit biases will affect her interactions with clients. An attorney should also acknowledge that implicit biases may affect a judge’s interpretation of her client’s story and legal arguments. This Article explains how insights from cognitive science should inform an attorney’s representation of clients in civil litigation

Taking (Animal-Based) Meat and Ethics off the Table: Food Labeling and the Role of Consumers as Agents of Food Systems Change

72 pagesThis Article is the first legal scholarship to critically examine one market-based strategy to actualize the change—the production and widespread availability and acceptance of plant-based meat to shift consumers away from industrial animal-based meat—and to explore the role of labeling in effectuating the theory of change. In particular, this Article identifies and then applies the seemingly contrasting narratives of plant-based meat as both normal and transformative—that is, the same as, but critically different and better than animal-based meat

Opening the Barnyard Door: Transparency and the Resurgence of Ag-Gag & Veggie Libel Laws

Over the past several decades, as the agricultural system became increasingly industrialized and the steps from farm to plate multiplied, consumers became farther removed from the sources of their food. Until recently, most consumers in America were content to eat their processed, cheap, and filling foods without giving a second thought to how these foods were produced. The tides are changing. Increasingly, consumers are calling for more transparency in the food system. Repulsed by images of animal cruelty and shocked by unsavory food production practices, consumers want the food industry’s veil lifted and are demanding changes in food production. The booming success of restaurants such as Chipotle, “the food industry’s fastest-rising star,” which serves “naturally-raised” meats and is committed to sourcing “Food with Integrity,” is evidence of this consumer demand for higher quality food