While the federal government has often struggled to control drug usage, including drugs ingested via snorting like cocaine, it’s not often that officials have to make a call on snorting chocolate powder. But since Legal Lean, an Orlando-based business, recently created a product called Coco Loko, that’s exactly what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may need to do.

The name Coco Loko is actually a play on Four Loko, an energy drink and alcohol mix that was banned in 2010 and deemed a public health concern. Coco Loko shares plenty of similarities with its namesake, including the energy drink aspect. The fine, brown cacao powder contains taurine and guarana, which were both identified as dangerous substances in Four Loko. The energy-boosting benefits are another commonality between the two products, Legal Lean founder Nick Anderson said.

Anderson said that snorting the powder creates “almost like an energy-drink feeling, like you’re euphoric but also motivated to get things done.” The effects normally last between 30 minutes and one hour, Anderson told the Washington Post. The product, which hit shelves in June, is being marketed as a drug-free, non-addictive way to get a buzz and an energy boost.

An important distinction for the curious is that cacao powder is the purest, least processed form of chocolate while cocoa powder is the refined powder commonly found in American stores, according to One Green Planet.

Legal Lean and Anderson first became interested in developing the product after learning of the trend that was beginning in Europe. The mixture was popular in European nightclubs, culinary institutions, and even among cyclists, according to Daily Mail. Anderson said that while he was skeptical at first, he tried snorting powder and thought “this is the future right here.”

Soon after, Anderson invested $10,000 to create his own version and spent the next 10 months searching and testing for the right recipe. By June, Anderson had the right mixture and Coco Loko was on the shelves even without approval from the FDA up to this point. One tin of powder, which contains 10 servings, sells for $24.99, according to the Washington Post.

One issue that the FDA faces is that this is uncharted territory; no one really knows the risks of snorting cacao powder, Dr. Andrew Lane, director of the Johns Hopkins Sinus Center told the Washington Post. Lane expanded:

There are a few obvious concerns. First, it’s not clear how much of each ingredient would be absorbed into the nasal mucus membranes. And, well, putting solid material into your nose — you could imagine it getting stuck in there, or the chocolate mixing with your mucus to create a paste that could block your sinuses.

A spokesman for the FDA said the agency would need to “evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use” before making a decision. So, for now, the product can be sold even without FDA approval.

Concerns also circulated that snorting the powder could lead customers to try other drugs, but Lane said he isn’t particularly worried about that. The FDA has not decided if, or how, it will regulate consumption. Since the product is comprised of mostly chocolate, obviously a legal food, the powder may be challenging to federally regulate, according to U.S. News and World Report. 

Sales have increased in recent months according to Alex P. of Exclusive Distributors, which helps spread the product nationwide. “It’s not flying off the shelves or anything, but people are definitely curious,” Alex, who did not release his last name, told the Washington Post. Anderson’s brother, a rapper who goes by Bezz Believe, claims to have helped popularize the product by his own usage and its appearance in his music videos.

For now, snorting the cacao powder is more of a silly niche than the fad that swept Europe over the past year. Its popularity remains minimal, but interest has grown in Houston and Atlanta, according to the New York Post. Now that an American-based product has been introduced into the market, popularity could increase. As popularity increases, more attention will be paid to how (and if) the FDA opts to regulate the product.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Snorting Cacao Powder Become Popular? The FDA May Need to Decide appeared first on Law Street.

About once a week, I head to my local store to pick up some things that I’ll need for the week, including some milk. Milk is always one of those tricky purchases, because you have such a short amount of time to use all of it before it expires. Thats why, whenever I go to buy milk, the first thing I do is look at the “sell by” date printed on the carton. But if I were buying milk in Montana, this is something that I would not need to worry about. That’s because in Montana, there is a law stating that milk cannot be sold or donated 12 days after pasteurization. This unusually strict law has forced grocers across Montana to dump thousands of gallons of what most would consider perfectly good milk each week. It’s for this reason that a documentary film crew from Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic recently travelled to Missoula, Montana to get the inside scoop on the state’s milk law.

Montana has by far the stricted law in the United States governing the “sell by” date of milk, and is only one of two states to even have a law that has a requirement for the number of days that milk can sit on a retailer’s shelf. That other state is Pennsylvania, where milk is allowed to sit on shelves for 17 days. Other states either just require that a date is printed without actually specifying any guidelines for that date, or, do not have a law at all.

Harvard Food and Law Policy Clinic director Emily Broad Leib stated that “this has been part of a long-running interest of ours that’s around how we’re wasting so much of the food we produce in the U.S. We’re looking at how these laws–like the law we’re looking at in Montana–are the cause of that waste.” One of goals of the documentary crew to use this case to illustrate the issue of food waste and how food expiration and “sell by” dates contribute to that problem.

Emily Deddensm, a law student working on the documentary, explained that they “went through a bunch of big ideas throughout the semester and finally settled on this law in Montana, which requires milk to be thrown out 12 days after pasteurization” because they “just thought this is good because it’s such an extreme example of the bigger problem.” To them, this was a perfect example of food being thrown out and wasted far before it needs to be.

This Montana law was established in 1980 by the Montana Livestock Board, and despite people’s countless attempts to change it, has remained firmly in place since then. Since studies show that the milk is actually just as fresh after 28 days, the documentary team set out to try and figure out what consumers actually think that arbitrary “sell by” date means.

According to Broad Lieb:

This law makes no sense. It’s really bad for consumers. But even though Montana is the strictest on milk, other states are strict on other things. Again, it’s not just milk. With all of these foods, it’s a quality date. It’s when the manufacturer thinks you get the peak quality on that food. And yet, 90 percent of consumers think it’s about safety, and they throw perfectly good food away.

While being interviewed, Missoula grocer Jim Edwards explained that dairies are the ones that do not want this rule to change. That’s because it means that grocers like him have to buy more milk to fill up their shelves. In addition, it keeps milk prices higher in Montana than in surrounding states.

He also explained that this law makes no sense when actually considering how long it takes a gallon of milk to go bad. According to Edwards:

Little cartons of milk, they go bad quick. But they’re dated for 30 days or something like that. But the gallons never go bad. Half gallons go bad before gallons because anything in a bigger container will last longer. It’s just like wine. A great big huge bottle of wine will age better than a small bottle of wine.

Yet it is the larger gallons that have the sooner expiration dates while the smaller, half gallons have later dates.

According to the documentary crew, most people are unaware that they are throwing away perfectly good milk. Broad Lieb explained that “most people think that if they eat that food after the date, they are going to get sick.” From personal experience, I can say that this is something that I have thought–and have never chanced. I’ve always thrown away food or milk that has reached the date printed on the container.

This is why another goal of the documentary is to raise consumer awareness about the actual meanings of expiration and “sell by” dates. So far, they are already doing a decent job just by sharing information about the documentary. Next time I’ll think twice about throwing away my “spoiled” milk.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law Documentary Uncovers the Truth About Expiration Dates appeared first on Law Street.

A man breaks the law by selling bread from his home in California. While this sounds like a scene from Les Mis, or something of that era, it was in fact an incident a few years back, involving the bread baker, Mark Stambler in Los Angeles.

Stambler began his craft of baking bread over thirty years ago. However, things did not really begin to get serious in the bread business until years later in 2005, when Mark Stambler and his wife Suzette began building a massive 6 foot tall oven in their back yard. This hobby soon became an idea for a full fledged home business labeled the Pangoul Boulanger. His private business soon became public with a featured story regarding his bread baking in the Los Angeles Times in May 2011.

These fifteen minutes of fame were indeed short lived, as the complete description of Stambler’s home baking business became a lead for the health department to follow all the way to Stambler’s doorstep. That day, the stores selling Stambler’s french loaves were forbidden from passing along his home made bread. In the words of Stambler, “the health department descended like a ton of bricks on the two stores that were selling my bread.” Following this departmental shut down, Pagnoul Boulanger went into hiding for 18 months.

Stambler decided to take a stand in order to follow his passion by becoming an activist and researching the cottage laws across the state. These laws classify cottage products as those that are low risk for spreading bacteria. With the help of his assemblyman, Mike Gatto, Stambler began to draft of the California Homemade Food Act (AB 1616). This law would allow low risk foods to be made in the home and sold for public consumption. This act sailed through the California State Assembly in a vote of 60 to 16 and later also passed through the Senate in 2012. 

The law went into effect in January 2013, and Stambler became one of the first to legally sell food from home in Los Angeles County. Stambler laid out a path for many other home business owners to follow, as currently there are around 270 cottage businesses within his county and an approval of around 1,200 across the state. 

The passage of the California Homemade Food Act, came with specific procedures to follow, as home business owners are required to pass a food processor course, must label goods, and follow sanitation precautions. Also, homemade food producers must obtain a permit falling under Class A or B. Class A permits pertain to direct sales, from provider to consumer, allowing a bypass of inspections. Class B permits require inspections but can be used to make indirect sales through a third party such as a restaurant or bakery.

The food created by the home businesses in California include such as cookies, coffee, tea, jellies, etc, rather than any type of meat, dairy or seafood. These limitations have presented the cottage sales as safe business ventures. Multiple health departments have inspected several of the home businesses, however, they have received no complaints within the Los Angeles County and have not been forced to revoke any permits.

The law contains both pros and cons for small food entrepreneurs. On one side, it has freed many home bakers from having to rent commercial kitchens in order to bake their goods. Instead, cottage laws have allowed these business owners to cook from their own kitchens, escaping the costly fees of renting a kitchen. On the down side, the California Homemade Food Act, does not encompass all small business owners but instead sets a price cap that could prevent some from its protection. Once over the earnings cap amounting to $45,000, business owners must rent out a commercial kitchen. Many owners are calling to get rid of this cap, saying that it prevents small businesses from ever growing into large companies.

Giving small business owners a chance to legally expand their product by selling it to the public is only fair. However, the cottage laws do seem rather limiting, including a small list of goods that are labeled as available for home sale and the price cap placed on profits. California has a more liberal program regarding cottage foods than other states, one that should really set the precedent. Other states such as Minnesota have very restrictive laws, caping profits at $5,000 and only allowing bakers to sell goods in farmer’s markets. Anyone found denying these limitations can face both fines of up to $2,500 or three months in jail. Thus, the less strict application of cottage laws within California is making strides for home business owners. While there is still a ways to go before the cottage law program seems completely fair to all of these similar entrepreneurs, the program that California has instated is off to a good start.

[Forbes] [LaTimes]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [web4camguy via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Knew Selling Baked Goods From Your Home was Once Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, compiles a list of intangible cultural heritages. These can include a variety of things like music, dance, social practices, or art. The entire list of intangible cultural heritages can be found here, and I would highly recommend you check it out. A lot of them are really cool and some even have video demonstrations. There’s Tsiattista poetic duelling from Cyprus, the Tango from Argentina and Uruguay, and the Dragon Boat Festival of China, among hundreds of others.

But Germany is trying to get something a little different — and really fun — on the list. Beer!

Historically in Germany, specifically Bavaria, there was a law called Reinheitsgebot. Translated into English, it roughly means “German Beer Purity Law.” It required that brewers only use water, hops, and barley malt in creating beer. No flavorings or preservatives are allowed in the creation of Reinheitsgebot beer.

Put your reading glasses on, and let’s check out some beer history:

Ready? Ok, so Reinheitsgebot beer certainly fits the idea of “heritage’ — the law was created in 1516 in the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt by the Dukes Wilhelm IV and Ludwig X. The law was written both to set basic standards for making and selling beer, and also to stem conflict between bakers and beer makers, who competed over wheat, yeast, and other grains. If a brewer was found breaking the law, they could have their beer confiscated without any sort of compensation. In 1871, the law was incorporated into the unification of Germany.

While German beer laws have changed slightly since then, there are still regulations that brewers must follow. The current beer law is called Biergesetz, and allows only a few more ingredients than the original Reinheitsgebot. Most brewers claim to follow Reinheitsgebot, even if they actually really just follow Biergesetz.

And believe me, Germany takes its beer very, very seriously. For 10 years in the 1990s, after the reunification of East and West Germany, there was the infamous “Brandenburg Beer War.”

Unfortunately, not this kind of beer war.

The Fritsche family in Brandenburg brewed a beer called the “Black Abbott.” They added just a little big of sugar to give it a distinctive taste. Germany informed them that they could not market their brew as real beer, so the Fritsches said the government couldn’t tax it as real beer. After about 10 years of back and forth, they eventually received a special permit to label Black Abbott as beer.

According to some historians, Reinheitsgebot is the oldest remaining food or drink regulation in the world, and therefore deserves to be on the UNESCO intangible heritage list. Germany has around 1,300 separate breweries, and 5,000 brands of beer.

Those in favor of including Reinheitsgebot on the next UNESCO list, such as craft beer expert Matt Simpson, emphasize the important role that beer has played in cultural human history. Simpson stated, “Considering beer’s place in human history, I would say that it certainly deserves a place among other cultural phenomena.”

Want to try some Reinheitsgebot-approved beer without traveling all the way to Germany? Here are some American breweries that create beers that, for the most part, strictly follow Reinheitsgebot:

• Olde Mecklenburg Brewery, Charlotte, NC
• Sierra Nevada, North Carolina and California
  
• Redhook Brewery, Woodinville, WA
• Deschutes Brewery, Portland, OR

There are obviously many more, but those should put you all off to a good start (assuming you’re 21+, if not, save these suggestions for after your birthday). So, next time you’re in the mood for a drink, get some future-potential-intangible cultural heritage at the same time!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Kasia Wallis via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Get Some Beer & Cultural Heritage appeared first on Law Street.