A consumer has filed a proposed class action against Hormel Foods Corp. alleging the company misrepresents its meat products as natural and free of preservatives despite containing synthetic or genetically modified ingredients, including cultured celery powder, baking powder and maltodextrin. Phelps v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 16-62411 (S.D. Fla., Ft. Lauderdale Div., filed October 11, 2016). The lawsuit, focused on Hormel’s Natural Choice® line of products, echoes similar claims in a complaint filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund in June 2016. Details on that complaint appear in Issue 610 of this Update. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (‘USDA’) takes into account the level of processing in its policy on natural claims on food labeling,” the consumer complaint asserts. “The USDA allows such products to be labeled ‘natural’ when ‘(1) The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative [], or any other artificial…
Tag Archives natural
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment to Dole Packaged Foods in a lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers by labeling its packaged fruit products as “all natural” in violation of California consumer-protection statutes. Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, No. 12-1831 (9th Cir., order entered September 30, 2016). The appeals court reviewed the evidence before it—including the plaintiff’s testimony that the “all natural” label deceived him, the label itself, Dole’s consumer surveys and U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning letters—and found that “this evidence could allow a trier of fact to conclude that Dole’s description of its products as ‘All Natural Fruit’ is misleading to a reasonable consumer.” Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims alleging Dole sold “illegal products.” The plaintiff “seems to be…
A New York federal court has stayed a proposed class action alleging Kind LLC misleads consumers by describing its products as “all natural” and free of genetically modified organisms. In re Kind, No. 15-2645 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 15, 2016). The court noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested comments on the use of the term “natural” in food labeling in November 2015 and closed the comment period in May 2016, suggesting that FDA is “prepared to address the core issues in this case.” The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims that Kind’s use of “healthy” on its labels was misleading following FDA’s determination that it would permit Kind to use the term as the agency considers redefining it. Details on that determination appear in Issue 604 of this Update. Issue 618
A California federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. misleadingly advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite allegedly selling flour and corn tortillas with GMOs, using GMO soy in its cooking oils and serving meat and dairy products derived from animals fed GMO feed. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2016). Chipotle argued that reasonable consumers would not “equate ‘nonGMO ingredients’ with ingredients not derived from animals that have eaten genetically modified feed.” The plaintiff argued that the reasonable consumer standard was not applicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a fraud or deception case, but the court found that the standard could be used to hold the plaintiff’s allegations to be implausible. The court compared the plaintiff’s meat and dairy allegations to a case…
A consumer has filed a projected class action against Drew’s LLC, maker of Drew’s salad dressings and marinades, alleging the company misrepresents its products as “all natural” because they contain xanthan gum, disodium phosphate, lactic acid and citric acid. Haack v. Drew’s LLC, No. 16-6022 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 28, 2016). The complaint cites draft guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture distinguishing natural and synthetic ingredients and guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to support the argument that a reasonable consumer would be confused by the company’s use of “natural” on its packaging. “Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify whether a product is natural, especially at the point of sale,” the plaintiff asserts. “Consumers would not know the true Nature of the ingredients merely by reading the ingredients label.” For alleged fraud and violations of New York and other state consumer-protection laws,…
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Hormel Foods challenging the company’s Natural Choice® brand of lunch meats and bacon, which it advertises as “100% Natural” and “All-Natural.” In a June 30, 2016, press release, an ALDF attorney argued that the Natural Choice® meats “come from the same pigs and the same giant, factory slaughterhouses that are used for the company’s canned Spam® products” and that the products are treated with “acid starter culture” to produce artificial preservatives. “Meat companies like Hormel have been quick to pounce on misconceptions about what ‘natural’ means,” Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells was quoted as saying in the press release. “As an organization dedicated to transparency in animal agriculture and truth in meat advertising, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is standing up to vindicate the rights of deceived consumers and to prevent Hormel from wrongfully gaining…
A Massachusetts federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging ACH Food Companies Inc. mislabeled its Weber® barbecue sauce as “All Natural” despite containing caramel coloring, finding that a $75 rebate rendered the case moot. Demmler v. ACH Food Cos. Inc., No. 15-13556 (D. Mass., order entered June 9, 2016). Details about the complaint appear in Issue 582 of this Update. The court found ACH had tendered full relief to the plaintiff by sending him treble statutory damages. Further, “the $75 check did not represent a settlement offer—ACH sent the check unprompted, and did not impose any preconditions on [the plaintiff] for doing so. This distinction makes all the difference,” the court held. The plaintiff could not pursue damages when he had already been made whole, the court noted, and his “refusal to accept the $75 is immaterial. The question under Article III is whether a live case or controversy exists,…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against The Quaker Oats Co. alleging the company misrepresents its oatmeal products as natural and “eco-friendly” despite containing glyphosate, “a potent herbicide that last year was declared a probable human carcinogen by the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.” Wheeler v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-5776 (N.D. Ill., removed to federal court June 1, 2016). The complaint argues that although “[t]here is nothing unlawful about Quaker Oats’ growing and processing methods,” the company has misled consumers by claiming “that Quaker Oats is something that it is not in order to capitalize on growing consumer demand for healthful, natural products.” The plaintiff asserts that no reasonable consumer would believe that Quaker’s products “contain anything unnatural, or anything other than whole, rolled oats” after seeing Quaker’s packaging and advertising. For allegations of unjust enrichment, breach of warranties and violations of Illinois’ consumer-protection…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a dismissal of a consumer lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. alleging mislabeling claims against VitaRain Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage. Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13-36089 (9th Cir., order entered May 9, 2016). The plaintiff had alleged the product was mislabeled because the product contains added caffeine, precluding the use of “natural” on the label. The district court dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not read the label before purchasing it; on appeal, the plaintiff asserted that he could amend the complaint to add “a subclass of plaintiffs who did read the relevant parts of the label.” Because he did not rely on the label, the plaintiff’s claim failed, and “the potential existence of other classes of which Plaintiff is not a member is irrelevant,” the court found. Further, the “district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Outernational Brands, Inc. mislabels its Vivaloe aloe-vera beverages as “All Natural” and preservative-free even though the products contain citric acid. Chen v. Outernational Brands, Inc., No. 16-1634 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 4, 2016). “The term ‘All Natural’ only applies to those products that contain no non-natural or synthetic ingredients and consist entirely of ingredients that are only minimally processed,” the complaint asserts. The plaintiff argues that the presence of citric acid, “which is not extracted from citric fruits but industrially synthesized via complex chemical synthetic routes and thus cannot be considered ‘minimally processed,’” precludes Outernational from labeling Vivaloe as “All Natural” or free of preservatives. The complaint admits the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not defined “natural,” but argues “there is no reasonable definition of ‘All Natural’ that includes ingredients that, even if sourced from ‘nature,’ are subjected to extensive transformative…
