[{"description":"A Ninth Circuit panel has partially revived (Law360 subscription required) a lawsuit alleging that FDA and USDA nutrient content claim regulations violate First Amendment rights by preventing the inclusion of certain information about fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and poloyols (FODMAPs) on food labels. The lawsuit was initially filed against FDA, USDA, and USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in March 2023 after one plaintiff submitted a label to FSIS for approval. FSIS denied the approval, telling the company that it must “remove all references to digestible, gut loving, and fodmap.” According to the plaintiff, FDA had never raised concerns about the claims on labels of FDA-regulated foods. According to the Ninth Circuit, FSIS told the company that it discussed the proposed label with FDA, and FDA agreed that the FODMAP claims were impermissible nutrient content claims. The company modified the label, then filed the lawsuit along with a consumer plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim that the challenged regulations violate their rights to speak and to receive information. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show they had standing and exhausted their administrative remedies. The panel reversed that decision in part, finding that the consumer plaintiff adequately showed standing as a “listener” under the First Amendment, based on needs for a low-FODMAP diet and because she alleged that food producers “would be reasonably likely to include FODMAP-related information on food labels in the absence of the challenged FDA and USDA regulations.” The panel also found that the company plaintiff sufficiently pleaded standing related to claims on FDA-regulated products based on the Agency's threatened enforcement of its regulations. However, the panel found that the company plaintiff did not exhaust its administrative remedies and, therefore, upheld the lower court's ruling on that issue. While this ruling deals only with the standing issue in the case, it highlights that both consumers and companies may have standing to challenge food labeling regulations on a First Amendment basis. Here, the claims that food products are “low-FODMPAP foods” would currently be considered an impermissible nutrient content claim because “low” claims must be made in accordance with the definitions in 21 CFR 101 Subpart D , 9 CFR 317 Subpart B , and 9 CFR 381 Subpart Y . Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor food labeling","id":3077463,"source":"The Daily Intake","titre":"Ninth Circuit Partially Revives ‘Low-FODMAP’ Labeling Suit","url":"https://www.dailyintakeblog.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-partially-revives-low-fodmap-labeling-suit/","pubDate":"Wed, 05 Aug 2026 07:59:31 +0200"},{"source":"Consolidated Statutes of Canada","id":2950057,"description":"First Nations Elections Act was modified or came into force on","pubDate":"Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:04:18 +0200","titre":"First Nations Elections Act, SC 2014, c 5 [Modified on May 13, 2026]","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2014-c-5/latest/sc-2014-c-5.html"},{"source":"Consolidated Statutes of Canada","id":2950056,"description":"First Nations Elections Act was modified or came into force on","pubDate":"Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:04:14 +0200","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2014-c-5/235486/sc-2014-c-5.html","titre":"First Nations Elections Act, SC 2014, c 5 [Modified on Mar 20, 2026]"},{"titre":"First Nations Fiscal Management Act, SC 2005, c 9 [Modified on Apr 24, 2026]","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2005-c-9/latest/sc-2005-c-9.html","pubDate":"Sat, 06 Jun 2026 08:03:19 +0200","description":"First Nations Fiscal Management Act was modified or came into force on","id":2935772,"source":"Consolidated Statutes of Canada"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:08:22 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-seeks-comment-x-corp-petition-set-aside-or-modify-ftc-order-concerning-twitter","titre":"FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter","id":2930078,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition from X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the agency . In its petition to the Commission, X Corp. cited several reasons why it believes that the order should either be set aside or modified so that it terminates at the end of 2026. The petition argues: The order was imposed on a company that no longer exists, that every individual responsible for the underlying failures has left the company and that X Corp. has since built a world-class privacy and data-protection program; The order no longer serves any valid regulatory purpose, imposing millions of dollars in needless costs to address obligations and protections already required by domestic and international privacy regimes and industry-recognized frameworks that X Corp. follows; Setting aside the order safeguards First Amendment values; and Setting aside or modifying the order is critical to advancing American leadership in artificial intelligence. The public will have 30 days, until July 2, 2026, to submit comments on the petition . Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on  Regulations.gov . After the comment period closes, the Commission will vote to determine how to resolve the","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"}]