Tag Archives: food safety

Latest Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags Cloud

The Risks of Unproven Dietary Supplements

The dietary supplements industry has seen rapid growth over the last decade. Supplements are available in virtually every grocery store, with many more available online. The industry pays significant sums to promote products, often making wild claims about the health benefits customers will experience. But many dietary supplements aren’t subject to the kinds of regulations that protect consumers. Especially when a supplement claims to have drug-like efficacy, consumers need to be careful about consuming a product that may not work, or worse, may cause significant health problems.

The regulatory process for dietary supplements

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration enforces regulations related to dietary supplements. These regulations are distinct from those that apply to other kinds of food, and importantly, they do not come close to the standards used to regulate medicinal drugs. This despite the claims of many supplement manufacturers that their products have profound medical benefits, like enhanced brain function or improved sexual performance. The FDA’s regulatory authority has two prongs:
  • Selling adulterated products is prohibited. Adulteration simply means using a substitute ingredient for the one that is claimed on the label. The substitute typically is of lower quality than the ingredient that is described. A simple example would be if a business claims that its products’ ingredients are 100% organic, but in fact they include non-organic materials.
  • Selling misbranded products is prohibited. This rule is important, because brand information is key to determining the source of, and therefore the responsibility for a product’s safety.
Applicable rules place the burden on manufacturers and marketers to test the safety of their products within the parameters of applicable food safety laws. There is no independent process of review that applies to all products. Some companies have gone to great lengths to devise showy “testing” procedures that in fact are grounded in arbitrary measures and not in a rigorous and studiously neutral scientific process.

The potential health risks of dietary supplements

One hopes that at worst a supplement simply doesn’t do anything other than drain one’s wallet. But organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society have raised the possibility of serious complications arising from their use. These complications can include:
  • Unforeseen interactions with medications, such as reduced effectiveness of birth control pills.
  • Potential complications for women who are pregnant or nursing.
  • Dangerous overdoses of certain vitamins or minerals, especially when taken in conjunction with other foods.
  • Lack of disclosure of allergens, especially from businesses operating behind the relative anonymity of websites.
Someone who suffers serious side effects from a supplement should stop taking the supplement and consult with a doctor. In severe cases, pursuing compensation through a lawsuit may be appropriate. A lawsuit may be especially appropriate if the manufacturer or seller of the product has failed to disclose a significant danger associated with the supplement, but there may be other circumstances where a lawsuit makes sense. The attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented Nevada clients in products liability and personal injury cases for over 45 years. If you have been injured by a dietary supplement and you would like to discuss your legal options, please reach out to us today for a free attorney consultation. We can be reached at 702-388-4476 or through our website.

Interesting Product Recalls from 2018

Consumer product recalls often offer interesting insights into the concerns manufacturers have about the risk of injury posed by their products. Recalls happen when a flaw in a product’s design or manufacture creates an unacceptable danger. Examining them reveals the sort of injuries that may give rise to products liability lawsuits. Manufacturers often voluntarily recall their products that have proven dangerous. Sometimes these recalls are triggered by lawsuits bringing risks to the manufacturers’ attention, while in other situations the problem is discovered through the manufacturer’s internal testing procedures, or through investigations by regulators. Sometimes regulators sue manufacturers to force recalls for violations of safety standards or other compliance problems. Regulators maintain lists of recalled products on their websites. Two examples are the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In 2018 there were plenty of product recalls to watch. The recalls ran the gamut:
  • Many products designed for children were recalled for choking hazards, such as this jacket with a zipper that could become detached.
  • Numerous high-profile lettuce recalls due to coli and other contaminants disrupted supplies enough to force many restaurants to stop serving lettuce altogether.
  • Major home appliances like this water heater are often recalled for problems with minor parts that can be replaced with a minor, manufacturer-provided repair.
  • An elevator model was recalled due to the alarming possibility that it could “fall unexpectedly to the bottom of the elevator shaft and abruptly stop.”
  • Nearly 1.4 million units of this printer power supply were recalled due to a fire hazard.
Manufacturers issue recalls to prevent injuries to their customers. Besides not wanting to hurt people, these companies also want to avoid expensive products liability litigation. Issuing a recall doesn’t absolve a business of its products liability obligations, but it may reduce the chance that someone will be seriously injured and sue. Consumers should take recall notices seriously. A consumer who knows about a recall and is injured while using the product anyway should still consider filing a lawsuit, but may have a more difficult legal case to make. Even in such cases, products liability law provides consumers with powerful tools for pursing compensation from manufacturers who sell defective goods. If you have been injured by a defective or improperly designed product you should consult with an attorney as soon as possible to explore your legal options. The attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented Nevada clients in products liability cases for over 45 years. Call today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476 or request a call through our website.

A Restaurant’s Responsibility to Respond to Allergic Reactions

People with severe food allergies know that they need to take care when they eat at restaurants. Especially if an allergic reaction can be life-threatening, knowing what’s in the food is essential to avoiding injury. But if a restaurant’s patron has a significant allergic reaction, the restaurant has some responsibilities to respond appropriately.

Nevada requires restaurants to account for food allergies

Nevada’s laws and regulations governing restaurant food safety include a number of obligations related to preventing injuries to patrons that have food allergies. Restaurants must foster an awareness of food-related allergies among their employees.  NAC 446.053(12). “Awareness” should at a minimum include a sensitivity to the importance of a patron’s request related to allergens, so that an employee can track down information the patron needs to make a safe choice. Restaurants must also provide appropriate labels for packaged or repackaged food, such as to-go sandwiches or salads. Some restaurants may go further, by including specific warnings about the presence of common allergens in their dishes. Like every establishment that is open to the public, a restaurant has a general obligation to take reasonable care to ensure that its premises are safe and that visitors are not harmed while they are present. In this respect, a patron who suffers an allergic reaction and requires medical attention is no different from a patron who chokes on food or happens to suffer a heart attack while at the restaurant. The reasonable steps a restaurant might take include calling 911. Restaurants are not legally required to stock specific antidotes to allergic reactions, like single-use injectable medication.

A restaurant’s negligent response to an allergic reaction may create liability

When a patron suffers an allergic reaction there may not be much time for medical intervention. A restaurant can be liable for negligence if its staff fails to take reasonable steps to respond to the emergency, or if it makes the problem worse by doing things that hurt the patron further. Negligence might apply in cases such as these:
  • The staff does nothing to assist.
  • If the patron indicates that he or she is carrying an injectable medication to relieve the reaction, restaurant staff may have an obligation to assist with the injection.
  • If the patron notifies staff about the allergy but the restaurant serves food with the allergen anyway.

GGRM is a Las Vegas personal injury law firm

For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented clients in personal injury cases. Our attorneys are available for free consultations to discuss your case. We can be reached at 702-388-4476, or ask us to call you through our contact page.

Restaurant Sanitation Requirements in Nevada

Restaurant Sanitation Requirements in Nevada
Restaurants and other places that sell food to consumers in Nevada are subject to a broad range of regulations designed to protect the public from illness and other problems. A customer who suffers a serious illness as a consequence of a restaurant’s failure to follow food regulations may have an ability to sue the restaurant to recover compensation for medical bills and other expenses related to the illness.

Scope of regulatory coverage

The Southern Nevada Health District adopts food and other health regulations that apply in Las Vegas and the rest of Clark County. The regulations apply to any “food establishment,” which is defined as “an operation at a particular location that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption.” The definition includes restaurants, catering services, and food markets. “Food” is defined to include raw, cooked, or processed edible substances, ice, beverages, or ingredients that can be used for human consumption. Establishments that fall within the definition of “food establishment” must hold a permit to sell food products to consumers. NRS 446.870. There are a range of exceptions to the definition of “food establishment,” including private homes, social clubs, religious and charitable establishments that serve food in occasional fundraisers (i.e., bake sales and pancake breakfasts). The Health District is also authorized to exempt establishments that it determines do not pose a hazard to public health.

What food establishments must do

Capturing the full scope of food safety regulations is naturally beyond the scope of this short introduction. But here are some examples that give a sense of the obligations that come with selling food to the public:
  • Many types of regulated food establishments must prepare a sanitation plan as part of their permitting process. Compliance with the approved plan is a central part of maintaining an establishment’s permit.
  • Equipment and surfaces that will come in contact with food must be kept “clean to sight and touch,” and must be regularly cleaned and sanitized.
  • Utensils that will be used to prepare food or by consumers must be kept sanitary according to the guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute.
  • Food must be properly labeled while in storage and offered to consumers in a way that does not mislead them about the contents, quality, or other details of the food.

Enforcement and private lawsuits

Food regulations are enforced by the Health District. Violations of food safety laws and regulations are misdemeanors—that is, they are subject to enforcement through the criminal justice system. In practice this means that a consumer on their own can’t sue a restaurant for regulatory violations. However, the violation of safety regulations can be a critical fact in a civil lawsuit. The fact that a regulation has been breached can be used by a consumer to show that the food establishment was negligent, a key component of recovering compensation. Such cases will require careful consideration of the available facts. For example, a plaintiff that seeks to prove that an establishment wasn’t complying with its sanitation obligations will need to prove that fact in court. The plaintiff will also need to show that the violation of regulations caused the plaintiff’s illness. A likely defense a restaurant will raise is that the illness may have been caused by something other than the restaurant’s inadequate sanitation.

Talk to an attorney about foodborne illness

The challenges of suing a restaurant for failing to follow good sanitation practices should not discourage an injured consumer from exploring legal options. For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented clients in personal injury cases. If you have suffered a serious illness from a restaurant’s food, call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.