Case 1:08-cv-02797-JBS-JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2548
`LAUREN COYLE, on behalf of
`herself and all those
`similarly situated,
`Civil No. 08-2797 (JBS)
`The Court hereby advises all counsel of the receipt of the
`attached letter dated September 16, 2010, received September 21,
`2010, from Michael M. Landa, Acting Director, Center for Food
`Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
`declining to provide an FDA determination of the question whether
`high fructose corn syrup qualifies as a “natural” ingredient.
`This Court had referred this issue to the FDA pursuant to the
`Order of June 1, 2010 [Docket Item 115] and the Order of June 25,
`2010 [Docket Item 118], and had stayed this litigation for six
`(6) months pending this referral.
`It now appears that the stay should be lifted so that the
`case may proceed, and the Plaintiff's remaining claims may be
`prosecuted and that a schedule should be set for the
`reinstatement of Plaintiff's motion for class certification
`[Docket Item 108] and for briefing and hearing of that motion;

`Case 1:08-cv-02797-JBS-JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2549
`and for these purposes a short scheduling conference will be
`convened by telephone on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 10:00
`23rd day of September, 2010, hereby
`IT IS, this
`ORDERED that the temporary stay of litigation from June 25,
`2010 will be dissolved and the case may proceed; and it is
`ORDERED that the Court will convene a telephone scheduling
`conference of all counsel on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at
`10:00 A.M., and Plaintiff's counsel is requested to arrange for
`the telephone conference call at that time.
`s/ Jerome B. Simandle
`U.S. District Judge

`Case 1:08-cv-02797-JBS-JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2550
`Case 1:O8—cv—O2797—JBS—JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: 2550
`Food and Drug Administration
`College Park, MD 20740
`l 5 203
`The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
`U s D’
`istrict Judge
`United States Courthouse
`One John F. Gerry Plaza
`PO. Box 888
`Camden, New Jersey 08101
`Re: Coyle V. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc, et al.
`Civil Number 08-2797 (JBS—J S)
`Dear Judge Simandle:
`EE§ V
`e «
`g 3
`.;.a%: W5 e. SW
`This is in response to your letter dated June 25, 2010, referring to the Food and Drug
`Administration (“FDA”) for an administrative determination under 21 C.F.R. l0.25(c) the
`question of whether high fructose corn syrup (“HFCS”) qualifies as a “natural” ingredient. For
`the reasons explained below, we respectfully decline to provide such a determination.
`First, for the FDA to resolve whether HFCS qualifies as a “natural” ingredient in defendants’
`beverages, in the absence of a pre—existing regulatory definition, the agency would expect to act
`in a transparent manner by engaging in a public proceeding to establish the meaning of this
`term. Given the issues involved, making such a determination without adequate public
`participation would raise questions about the fairness of FDA’s action. FDA’s experience with
`such proceedings suggests that it would take two to three years to complete. We recognize that
`such a timeframe would likely not be useful to the Court in resolving the current case.
`Second, priority food safety and applied nutrition matters are currently fully occupying the
`resources that FDA has available for public proceedings on foods matters. For example, the
`agency is involved in taking actions designed to improve (1) the safety of the food supply and (2)
`the dietary practices of Americans, because many of the underlying causes of chronic disease —
`high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, obesity and diabetes — are the result of lifestyle factors,
`including unhealthy eating, and are largely preventable. Proceedings to define “natural” do not
`fit within these current priorities. See 21 C.F.R. § l0.25(c).
`Consumers currently receive some protection in the absence of a definition of “natural” because
`the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA’s implementing regulations require that all
`ingredients used in a food be declared on the food’s label. Thus, the label provides consumers
`with information to decide whether to purchase the food. So, for the food product at issue in the
`above-captioned case, the consumer would know from the label whether the product contained

`Case 1:08-cv-02797-JBS-JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2551
`Case 1:O8—cv—O2797—JBS—JS Document 119 Filed 09/23/10 Page 4 of 4 Page|D: 2551
`Page 2 - The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
`The most relevant statement of the agency’s views is provided by the preamble language cited by
`the Court on page 6 of its June 15, 2010 opinion. The FDA there reiterated its interpretation that
`“natural” means nothing artificial or synthetic. This interpretation was not established by
`regulation but it is the most definitive statement of the agency’s view. By contrast, Geraldine
`June’s letter, which the Court cited on page 7 of its June 15, 2010 opinion, is an informal
`communication and does not provide a binding agency interpretation for the Court to follow.
`The opinions of individual employees do not bind the agency, and FDA has made clear that only
`the Commissioner can speak definitively for the agency. See 21 C.F.R. § l0.85(k); see also
`Western III. Home Health Care v. Herman, 150 F.3d 659, 662 (7th Cir. 1998) (agency action not
`final if only the ruling of subordinate official); Regenerative Sciences v. FDA, No. 09—cv-0041 1,
`2010 WL 1258010, at *7 (D. Colo. March 26, 2010) (finding that statements of lower level FDA
`officials do not rise to level of agency action even when contained in regulatory
`correspondence); Genendo Pharmaceutical v. Thompson, 308 F. Supp.2d 881, 885 (N.D. Ill.
`2003) (statements of FDA officials in warning letter do not constitute final agency action).
`We hope that this information is helpfiil to you.
`Michael M. Landa
`Acting Director
`Center for Food Safety
`and Applied Nutrition
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq.
`Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PC
`90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
`Woodbridge, NJ 07905
`Counsel for Defendants
`Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
`McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, NJ 07102

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket