Section Newsletters

Articles From A. Bryan Endres

Food and Our Laboratories of Democracy By A. Bryan Endres & Jessica L. Guarino Corporate Law Departments, January 2024 One of the more recent state food regulatory developments is California Assembly Bill 418. Effective January 1, 2027, California will prohibit individuals or entities from engaging in the manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale of a food product for human consumption in commerce if it contains brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, or red dye 3 (erythrosine).
Food and Our Laboratories of Democracy By A. Bryan Endres & Jessica L. Guarino Food Law, December 2023 One of the more recent state food regulatory developments is California Assembly Bill 418. Effective January 1, 2027, California will prohibit individuals or entities from engaging in the manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale of a food product for human consumption in commerce if it contains brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, or red dye 3 (erythrosine).
Restaurant Responses to Food Allergies By Nabilah Nathani, Jessica Guarino, & A. Bryan Endres Food Law, January 2023 The onus of knowing what potential allergens are in a dish at a restaurant should not be on the consumer.
Nothing-but-Cheese and the Uncommon Sense of the Reasonable Consumer: Bell et al. v. Publix et al. By Jessica Guarino & A. Bryan Endres Intellectual Property, March 2021 How reasonable is the hypothetical reasonable consumer when buying a food product and, perhaps, reading the principal display panel and the ingredients statement. In Bell v. Publix, does “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” mean there is no cellulose power and potassium sorbate added to the product?
Nothing-but-Cheese and the Uncommon Sense of the Reasonable Consumer: Bell et al. v. Publix et al. By Jessica Guarino & A. Bryan Endres Food Law, December 2020 A summary and analysis of Bell et al. v. Publix et al.
Disaster Planning for Food Crisis Response By Jessica Guarino & A. Bryan Endres Food Law, October 2020 An overview of the limited progress the federal and state governments have made to update and modernize food crisis planning.
The missing link: Farmers’ class action against Syngenta may answer legal questions left after the StarLink and LibertyLink litigation By Lisa R. Schlessinger & A. Bryan Endres Agricultural Law, February 2015 Although the increasingly vocal debate over the labeling of food containing genetically modified  organisms has captured most of the public and agricultural community’s recent attention, two other controversies working their way through the court system may have an equally significant impact on farming and coexistence.
1 comment (Most recent February 11, 2015)
A move towards a more fair division: Envisioning a new Illinois Fence Act By A. Bryan Endres & Lisa R. Schlessinger Agricultural Law, March 2013 This article describes fence law models applied in major agricultural producing states, examines the current Illinois statute and case law, and recommends, based on economic efficiency principles, revising the Illinois Fence Act to reflect modern land use practices based on the equitable cost-sharing model adopted by the Missouri Legislature in 2001.
Federal preemption and animal regulation By A. Bryan Endres & Megan R. Galey Animal Law, July 2012 The recent case of National Meat Association v. Harris, pitted a trade association against California’s Attorney General. Although the litigation was confined to the scope of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Court’s holding could apply to other state efforts to regulate animal welfare.
Federalism and animal welfare: Court upholds California animal welfare rules By Nicholas R. Johnson & A. Bryan Endres Animal Law, April 2011 A look at the repercussions of National Meat Association v. Brown.
Distinguishing marketing claims for grass-fed, organic, and pasture-raised livestock By A. Bryan Endres & Stephanie B. Johnson Animal Law, January 2010 In an effort to distinguish their products from those of competitors, some segments of the livestock and meat industries make labeling claims referring to special attributes of their product or process
The Farmdoc project extends education to farmers, attorneys By A. Bryan Endres, Stephanie B. Johnson, Donald L. Uchtmann, & Scott H. Irwin Agricultural Law, September 2008 The University of Illinois’ Farm Decision Outreach Central, commonly known as the farmdoc project, is an extension program that aims to improve risk-based farm decision-making through education and research.
NEPA and the economic impacts of biotechnology on the food-feed supply chain By A. Bryan Endres & Thomas P. Redick Agricultural Law, September 2008 A brief summary of recent developments in agricultural biotechnology.
Coexistence failures and damage control: An initial look at genetically engineered rice By A. Bryan Endres & Justin G. Gardner Agricultural Law, November 2006 Riceland Foods, the nation’s largest rice cooperative, alerted Bayer CropScience (Bayer) in June 2006 of its discovery of genetically engineered rice in the 2005 rice harvest. Shortly thereafter, Bayer confirmed this finding and reported the results to USDA.
Risk management strategies for identity preserved grain exports By A. Bryan Endres International and Immigration Law, December 2005 Emerging foreign regulations for imported grain ultimately may result in trace-back liability to U.S. farmers for the commingling of even miniscule amounts of genetically engineered DNA.
Risk management strategies for identity preserved grain exports By A. Bryan Endres Agricultural Law, September 2005 Emerging foreign regulations for imported grain ultimately may result in trace-back liability to U.S. farmers for the commingling of even miniscule amounts of genetically engineered DNA.
Illinois Supreme Court narrows scope of landowner protection under the Illinois Recreational Use Act By A. Bryan Endres Agricultural Law, April 2004 In December 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court decided Hall v. Henn, 208 Ill. 2d 325, 802 N.E.2d 797 (2003), which held that the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act2 ("Recreational Use Act") offers protection from negligence liability only to those landowners who open their property to the general public for recreational use.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author