Law Review Highlights:

Food safety concerns have grown over the last few years as salmonella outbreaks and other food-related illnesses have increasingly made the news. Two recent symposia - one on food policy and one on food regulation - have addressed some of the legal issues of current U.S. food production and acquisition. Three of the related articles are discussed below.

In his article On (Credibility: Why Food in the United States May Never Be Safe, Denis W. Stearns examines how the regulation of the food industry interacts with a "free" marketplace in the U.S.1 The author argues that a true free market is not possible where food needs to be safe for consumption. Regulations, on the other hand, may not do much better in producing safe food, especially where they have the effect of limiting competition. The author then proposes four suggestions for regulating food in a way that will create a market that is free in a meaningful sense, but will still result in safe food. Those four suggestions are: (1) increase visibility; decrease irresponsibility, (2) increase accountability; decrease externalities, (3) increase reliability; decrease fraud, and (4) increase traceability; decrease anonymity.

A second article from the same Food Policy Symposium above considers the effect Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation and regulations have on food safety. In An Examination of Whether U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Legislation Plays a Role in Protecting Consumers from Contaminated Food, Wendy A. Johnecheck looks at how the COOL regulatory regime might be used for reasons beyond their intended purposes.2 Though the U.S. government has stated that COOL is not meant to be a food safety measure, many consumers would like to use the information about where food come from for just that purpose, when making buying decisions. In addition to providing an overview of the primary legislation and regulatory regime, the article evaluates how COOL might be used to protect consumers from bad food products.

For the second symposium, The Future of Food Regulation, Sandra Hoffman and William Harder looked at food safety in the context of global trade in Food Safety and Risk Governance in Globalized Markets.1 Their article provides an overview of existing food safety problems as well as discussing the ways global governments are responding in order to minimize the risk to consumers. Finally, the authors examine food safety reforms being implemented on both the national and regional level and how those reforms are being shaped by the larger global framework.

The following list is a selective bibliography of current law review literature thought to be of interest to civil defense counsel.

U.S. and International

Damages

Michel F. Baumeister and Dorothea M. Capone, Recent Developments in Regional Air Carrier Litigation and the Carriers' Exposure to Punitive Damages Under Supreme Court Precedent, 75 J. AIR L. & Com. 323 (2010). http://www.smu.edu/lra/jalc/

Danica Curavic, Note, Compensating Victims of Terrorism or Frustrating Cultural Diplomacy? The Unintended Consequences of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's Terrorism Provisions, 43 Cornell Int' L L.J. 381 (2010). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/researc h/ilj/index.cfm

Christine Piette Durrance, Noneconomic Damage Caps and Medical Malpractice Claim Frequency: A Policy Endogeneity Approach, 26 J. L. ECON. & ORG. 569 (2010). http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/

Sol?ne Rowan, Reflections on the Introduction of Punitive Damages for Breach of Contract, 30 OXFORD J. LEGAL Stud. 495 (2010). http://ojls.oupjournals.org/

Julian T. Stein, Comment, Backdoor Eugenics: The Troubling Implications of Certain Damages Awards in Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life Claims, 40 SETON Hall L. Rev. 1117 (2010). http://law.shu .edu/journals/lawreview/lawrev/

Neil Vidmar and Mirya Holman, The Frequency, Predictability, and Proportionality of Jury Awards of Punitive Damages in State Courts in 2005: A New Audit, 43 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 855 (2010). http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/st uorgs/lawre view/index. cfm

Evidence

Debra Lyn Bassett, Reasonableness in EDiscovery, 32 CAMPBELL L. REV. 435 (201 0). http://law.campbell.edu/pubs/ lawrev.html

Steven C. Bennett, Civil Discovery of Social Networking Information, 39 Sw. U. L. Rev. 413 (2010). http://www.swlaw.

Edu/academics/concurricular/Iawreview Nathan J. Buchok, Plotting a Course for GPS Evidence, 28 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 1019(2010). http://law.quinnipiac.edu/x195.xml

Colin Caffrey, Can a Computer Read a Doctor's Mind? Whether Using Data Mining As Proof in Healthcare Fraud Cases Is Consistent with the Law of Evidence, 30 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 509 (2010). http://law.niu.edu/law/ organizations/law_review/index.shtml

David M. Flores, et al., Examining the Effects of the Daubert Trilogy on Expert Evidence Practices in Federal Civil Court: An Empirical Analysis, 34 S. ILL. U. L.J. 533 (2010). http://www.law.siu.edu /research/ljindex.htm

J.D. Heydon, The Origins of the Indian Evidence Act, 10 OXFORD U. Commonwealth L.J. 1 (2010). http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/ou clj.php

Keith Kendall, The Economics of the Attorney-Client Privilege: A Comprehensive Review and a New Justification, 36 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 481 (2010). http://www.law.onu.edu/ organizations/LawReview/index.htm

Elizabeth King, Waving Goodbye to Waiver? Not So Fast: Inadvertent Disclosure, Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege, and Federal Rule of Evidence 502, 32 Campbell L. Rev. 467 (2010). http://law.campbell.edu/pubs/lawrev.html

John Leubsdorf, Evidence Law As a System of Incentives, 95 IOWA L. Rev. 1621 (2010). http://www.law.uiowa.edu/ journals/ilr/index.php

Jonathan L. Moore, Time for an Upgrade: Amending the Federal Rules of Evidence to Address the Challenges of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Litigation, 50 JURIMETRICS 147 (2010). http ://new.abanet.org/periodicals/j urimetr ics/Pages/default.aspx

Jerald D. Stubbs, The Federal Circuit and Contract Interpretation: May Extrinsic Evidence Ever Be Used to Show Unambiguous Language Is Ambiguous?, 39 Pub. Cont. LJ. 785 (2010). http://www.pclj.org/

Insurance

Tom Baker and Peter Siegelman, Tontines for the Invincibles: Enticing Low Risks into the Health-Insurance Pool with an Idea from Insurance History and Behavioral Economics, 2010 Wis. L. REV. 79. http://hostedlaw.wisc.edu/lawreview/

Hazel Beh and Jeffrey W. Stempel, Misclassifying the Insurance Policy: The Unforced Errors of Unilateral Contract Characterization, 32 CARDOZO L. REV. 85 (2010). hup://www.cardozolawreview.com/

Joshua Fox, Comment, Softening the Short Shrift: Regulating Homeowners Insurance Limits As Causes of Underinsurance, 46 CAL. W. L. REV. 369 (2010). http://www.cwsl.edu/main/default.asp7na v=journals.asp&body=journals/home.asp

Colleen D. Holland, Autism, Insurance, and the IDEA: Providing a Comprehensive Legal Framework, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 1253 (2010). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/researc h/comell-law-review/index.cfm

Kenneth S. Klein, Following the MoneyThe Chaotic Kerfuffle When Insurance Proceeds Simultaneously Are the Only Rebuild Funds and the Only Mortgage Collateral, 46 Cal. W. L. REV. 305 (2010). http://www.cwsl.edu/main/de fault.asp?nav=journals.asp&body=journals /home.asp

Nicole Melvani, Comment, The Fourteenth Exception: How the Feres Doctrine Improperly Bars Medical Malpractice Claims of Military Service Members, 46 Cal. W. L. Rev. 395 (2010). http://www.cwsl.edu/main/default.asp7na v=journals.asp&body=journals/home.asp

Jeffrey E. Thomas, Insurance Perspectives on Federal Financial Regulatory Reform: Addressing Misunderstandings and Providing a View from a Different Paradigm, 55 VlLL. L. Rev. 773 (2010). http://www.law.villanova.edu/Academics /Journals/Law Review.aspx

Amy R. Willis, Note, Business Insurance: First-Party Commercial Property Insurance and the Physical Damage Requirement in a Computer-Dominated World, 37 FLA. ST. U. L. Rev. 1003 (2010). http://www.law.fsu.edu/ Journals/lawreview/

Procedure

Thomas A. Cooper, Comment, Jurisdictional, Procedural, and Economic Considerations for Non-Party Electronic Discovery, 59 EMORY LJ. 1339 (2010). http://www.law.emory.edu/students/elj/

Geoffrey Fisher, Anti-Suit Injunctions to Restrain Foreign Proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration Agreement, 22 BOND L. REV. 1 (2010). http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/

Carrie Leonetti and Jeremy Bailenson, High-Tech View: The Use of Immersive Virtual Environments in Jury Trials, 93 MARQ. L. Rev. 1073(2010). http://epublications.marquette.edu/mulr/

Yongdan Li, Applying the Doctrine of Unconscionability to Employment Arbitration Agreements, with Emphasis on Class Action/Arbitration Waivers, 31 WhittierL. Rev. 665 (2010). http://www.law.whittier.edu/index/studen t-organizations/whittier-law-review/

Max Minzner, Saving Stare Decisis: Preclusion, Precedent, and Procedural Due Process, 2010 BYU L. REV. 597. http://lawreview.byu.edu/

A.C. Pritchard and Janis P. Sarra, Securities Class Actions Move North: A Doctrinal and Empirical Analysis of Securities Class Actions in Canada, 47 ALTA. L. REV. 881 (2010). http://www.albertalawreview.com/

John B. Snyder, III, Dispositions Unsettled: What Tax Court Procedure Can Teach Us About Federal Civil Procedure, 36 OhioN.U. L. Rev. 359 (2010). http://www.Iaw.onu.edu/organizations/La wReview/index.htm

Laura B. Stewart, et al., Don 't Strike Out: Affidavit Evidence on Motions and Applications, 37 ADVOC. Q. 163 (2010). http://www.canadalawbook.ca/Advocates -Quarterly-The.html

Brent T. White, Putting Aside the Rule of Law Myth: Corruption and the Case for Juries in Emerging Democracies, 43 Cornell Int'l LJ. 307 (2010). http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/researc h/ilj/index.cfm

Elizabeth M. Williamson, Note, When Talk Isn't Cheap: The Hidden Costs of Communication with Putative Class Members for Class Action Defense Counsel in a Post-Financial Recession World, 5 Entrepreneurial Bus. LJ. 453 (2010). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/

Products Liability

Michael A. Carrier, Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product Hopping, 62 FLA. L. Rev. 1009 (2010). http://www.floridalawreview.org/

Michael Donovan, The Impact of "Hurricane" Hannah: The Government's Decision to Compensate in One Girl's Vaccine Injury Case Could Drastically Alter the Face of Public Health, 50 Jurimetrics 229 (2010). http://new.abanet.org/periodicals/jurimetr ics/Pages/default.aspx

Nasim Hashemi, Note, Is This Drug Safe? Federal Preemption and State Tort Law: Manufacturer Liability After Wyeth v. Levine, 31 WhittierL. Rev. 525 (2010). http://www.law.whittier.edu/index/studen t-organizations/whittier-law-review/

Sandra Hoffmann and William Harder, Food Safety and Risk Governance in Globalized Food Markets, 20 Health Matrix: J.L.-Med. 5 (2010). http://law.case.edu/student_life/organizat ions/healthmatrix/

Wendy A. Johnecheck, An Examination of Whether U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Legislation Plays a Role in Protecting Consumers from Contaminated Foods, 21 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 191 (2010). http://slpr.stanford.edu/

Denis W. Stearns, On (Cr) edibility: Why Food in the United States May Never Be Safe, 21 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 245 (2010). http://slpr.stanford.edu/

Brandon M. Watson, Comment, Vaccination Incapacitation - Structuring Successful Products Liability Claims Against Vaccine Manufacturers in the Face of the Vaccine Act and the United States Court of Federal Claims ' Cedillo Holding, 9 Whittier J. Child & Fam. ADVOC. 405 (2010). http://www.law.whittier.edu/index/studen t-organizations/whittier-journal-of-childfamily-advocacy/

Professional Responsibility

Panagiotis Delimatsis, "Thou Shall Not... (Dis)trust": Codes of Conduct and Harmonization of Professional Standards in the EU, 47 COMMON ??t. L. Rev. 1049 (2010). http://www.kluwerlawonline. com/toc.php?pubcode=COLA

Renee Newman Knake, The Supreme Court's Increased Attention to the Law of Lawyering: Mere Coincidence or Something More?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 1499 (2010). http://www.wcl.american.edu/ journal/lawrev/

Ariana R. Levinson, Legal Ethics in the Employment Law Context: Who Is the Client?, 37 N. Ky. L. Rev. 1 (2010). http://chaselaw.nku.edu/law_review/abou t.php

Ernest F. Lidge III, Client Interests and a Lawyer's Duty to Expedite Litigation: Does Model Rule 3.2 Impose Any Independent Obligations?, 59 Def. L.J. 1 (2010). http://bookstore.lexis.com/ bookstore/product/41036.html

Christine Parker, et al., Regulating Law Firm Ethics Management: An Empirical Assessment of an Innovation in Regulation of the Legal Profession in New South Wales, 37 J.L. & Soc'Y 466 (2010). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jou rnal.asp?ref=0263-323X

Torts

David S. Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law, 45 F-ARV. C.R.-C.L. L Rev. 261 (2010). http://harvardcrcl.org/

Lesley-Anne Barnes, Contributory Negligence and the Child, 2010 JURID. Rev. 195. http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Cata logue/JournalDetail.aspx?prodid=7122

Shawn J. Bayern, The Limits of Formal Economics in Tort Law: The Puzzle of Negligence, 75 BROOK. L. Rev. 707 (2010). http://www.brooklaw.edu /intellectuallife/lawjournals/brooklynlawre view/generalinformation.aspx?

Andrew F. Daughety and Jennifer F. Reinganum, Population-Based Liability Determination, Mass Torts, and the Incentives for Suit, Settlement, and Trial, 26 J.L. Econ. & Org. 460 (2010). http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/

Steve C. Gold, The More We Know, the Less Intelligent We Are? - How Genomic Information Should, and Should Not, Change Toxic Tort Causation Doctrine, 34 Harv. Envt'l L. Rev. 369 (2010). http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org s/elr/

Michele Goodwin, A View from the Cradle: Tort Law and the Private Regulation of Assisted Reproduction, 59 Emory LJ. 1039(2010). http://www.law.emory.edu/students/elj/

Ori J. Herstein, Responsibility in Negligence: Why the Duty of Care Is Not a Duty "To Try," 23 CANADIAN J. L. & Jurisprudence 403 (2010). http://www. law.uwo.ca/info-publications/cjljfiles/main .html

Andrew T. Kenyon, What Conversation? Free Speech and Defamation Law, 73 Mod. L. Rev. 697 (2010). http://www.wiIey.com/bw/journal.asp?re f=0026-7961

Barbara Kritchevsky, Tort Law Is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence-Per-Se Litigation, 60 Am. U. L. Rev. 71 (2010). http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/law rev/

Kyle D. Logue, Coordinating Sanctions in Tort, 3 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 2313 (2010). http://www.cardozolawreview.com/

Ralph D. Mawdsley, Standard of Care for Students with Disabilities: The Intersection of Liability Under the IDEA and Tort Theories, 2010 BYU Educ. & LJ. 359. http://www.Iaw2.byu.edu/jel/

Itai Maytal, Libel Lessons from Across the Pond: What British Courts Can Learn from the United States' Chilling Experience with the "Multiple Publication Rule" in Traditional Media and the Internet, 3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L. 121 (2010). http://www.swlaw.edu/academics/ entertainmentlaw/journal

Christopher Ogolla, What Are the Policy Implications of Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Mass Torts and Public Health Litigation?, 23 St. Thomas L. Rev. 157 (2010). http://www.stu.edu/ Academics/Programs/StThomasLawRevie w/tabid/854/Default.aspx

Martin Petrin, The Curious Case of Directors' and Officers' Liability for Supervision and Management: Exploring the Intersection of Corporate and Tort Law, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 1661 (2010). http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/law rev/

Daniel J. Pylman, Note, Res Ipsa Loquitur in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability Based upon Naked Statistics Rather Than Real Evidence, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 907 (2010). http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/

Elizabeth A. Rowe, Contributory Negligence, Technology, and Trade Secrets, 59 DEF. LJ. 103 (2010). http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/pro duct/4 1036.html

Joseph Sanders, Applying Daubert Inconsistently? : Proof of Individual Causation in Toxic Tort and Forensic Cases, 75 Brook. L. Rev. 1367 (2010). http://www.brooklaw.edu/intellectuallife/ lawjournals/brooklynlawreview/generalinf ormation.aspx?

Christopher D. Seps, Animal Law Evolution: Treating Pets As Persons in Tort and Custody Disputes, 2010 U. III. L. Rev. 1339. http://home.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/

Jed Handelsman Shugerman, The Twist of Long Terms: Judicial Elections, Role Fidelity, and American Tort Law, 98 GEO. LJ. 1349(2010). http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/

Thomas C. Smith, Note, Global Warming and Common Law Tort Claims: Did the Fifth Circuit Open Up Pandora 's Box, 17 Mo. Envt'l L. & Pol'y Rev. 559 (2010). http://www.law.missouri.edu/melpr/

Alissa J. Strong, "But He Told Me It Was Safe!": The Expanding Tort of Negligent Misrepresentation, 59 DEF. LJ. 45 (2010). http ://bookstore . lexis .com/bookstore/pro duct/4 1036.html

Andre J. van der Walt, Sport and Nuisance Law, 127 S. AFR. LJ. 274 (2010). http://www.journals.co.za/ej/ejow_ju_sal j.html

Vanessa R. Waldref, The Alien Tort Statute After Sosa: A Viable Tool in the Campaign to End Child Labor?, 31 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 160 (2010). http://www.bjell.org/

James Windon, Fee Shifting in Libel Litigation: How the American Approach to Costs Allocation Inhibits the Achievement of Libel Law's Substantive Goals, 3 J. Int'l Media & Ent. L. 175 (2010). http://www.swlaw.edu/academics/enterta inmentlaw/journal

FOOTNOTE

1 Denis W. Stearns, On (Credibility: Why Food in the United States May Never Be Safe, 21 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 245 (2010).

2 Wendy A. Johnecheck, An Examination of Whether U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Legislation Plays a Role in Protecting Consumers from Contaminated Foods, 21 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 191 (2010).

FOOTNOTE

3 Sandra Hoffmann & William Harder, Food Safety and Risk Governance in Globalized Food Markets, 20 Health Matrix: J.L.-Med. 5 (2010).

Subject

FOOD SAFETY (92%); PRODUCT SAFETY (90%); FOOD & BEVERAGE (90%); FOOD BORNE ILLNESS (90%); CONFERENCES & CONVENTIONS (90%); FOOD LABELING (90%); CONSUMER LAW (89%); GLOBALIZATION (89%); REGULATORY COMPLIANCE (89%); RESTRAINT OF TRADE (79%); FOOD & BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION (78%); FOOD LIABILITY LITIGATION (78%); FOOD & BEVERAGE TRADE (78%); PRODUCT LABELING (78%); BACTERIA (78%); US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (77%); ENTERPRISE GLOBALIZATION (76%); FOOD INDUSTRY (75%); LAWYERS (75%); DAMAGES (71%); PUNITIVE DAMAGES (62%); SUPREME COURTS (62%); AIRLINES (60%); INTERNATIONAL TRADE (60%)

Geographic

UNITED STATES (94%)