The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety and U.S. Food and Drug Administration are convening a March 7, 2016, public meeting in College Park, Maryland, to evaluate draft positions for consideration at the 10th Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food slated for April 4-8 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Agenda items for the March 7 meeting include papers about maximum levels for methylmercury in fish and mycotoxins in spices; and discussions of a draft Code of Practice to prevent and reduce arsenic contamination in rice and proposed draft maximum levels for cadmium in cocoa and cocoa-derived products. See Federal Register, February 11, 2016. Issue 594
Posts By Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
Citing annual costs of $1,500 in wasted food to the average American family, and a “dizzying array of misleading labels,” U.S. Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is reportedly poised to introduce a proposal that would establish uniform national standards for food dating. “Terms like ‘best by,’ ‘sell by’ and ‘use by’ have no bearing on food safety, leading 90 percent of Americans to throw away food past those dates out of mistaken concern for food safety risks,” Blumenthal said in a February 19, 2016, Facebook post. According to the Hartford Courant, Blumenthal’s legislation would require labels to indicate the duration of a product’s quality by providing dates preceded by “best if used by.” The proposal would also mandate that “high-risk foods,” including hot dogs and deli meats, to carry labeling with “expires on” dates. A similar initiative was included in provisions of the Food Recovery Act of 2015 (H.R. 4184), which…
Led by the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers’ Association (VMSMA), the maple syrup industry has penned a February 15, 2016, letter asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take enforcement action “concerning misrepresentative labeling of food products whose labels incorrectly indicate the presence of maple syrup.” The signatories—which include the International Maple Syrup Institute and North American Maple Syrup Council, as well as several state organizations—identify several instant oatmeal, natural sweetener and other products that allegedly violate Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations by using the word “maple” in their product descriptions without containing maple syrup. Drawing parallels to the agency’s conclusion that Hampton Creek’s Just Mayo® eggless sandwich spread was mislabeled because “mayo” has “long been used and understood as shorthand or slang for mayonnaise,” the letter argues that the term “maple” “has long been used and understood to refer to ‘maple syrup.’” As VMSMA opines, “This unchecked…
Viacom International Inc. has filed a lawsuit against IJR Capital Investments alleging that a restaurant owned by the company infringes on Viacom’s intellectual property in the “SpongeBob SquarePants” franchise. Viacom Int’l Inc. v. IJR Capital Invs., No. 16-0257 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div., filed January 29, 2016). As the complaint explains, “The ‘Krusty Krab’ is owned by Eugene H. Krabs, a prominent and recurring character in the SpongeBob universe. SpongeBob SquarePants works at the ‘Krusty Krab’ as a fry cook, but he also performs a myriad of other duties, and once stated that his official title is ‘Vice Assistant General Manager in charge of certain things.’” IJR operates The Krusty Krab in Texas and has filed for trademark registration. Viacom argues that IJR is “attempting to trade off of the goodwill and reputation of the ‘SpongeBob SquarePants’ media franchise’ and that consumers are likely to be confused by IJR’s use of “Krusty…
A New York consumer has filed a putative class action against Victoria Fine Foods alleging the company falsely advertises its vodka sauce as “all natural” and free of preservatives despite containing citric acid. Shmidt v. Victoria Fine Foods, No. 16-0230 (E.D.N.Y., filed January 15, 2016). The complaint asserts that Victoria “sought to capitalize on consumers’ preference for natural products and the association between such products and a wholesome way of life.” The plaintiff argues that the primary jurisdiction doctrine does not apply because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “has repeatedly declined to adopt formal rule-making that would define the word ‘natural,” although she asserts that FDA “has loosely defined the term ‘natural’ as a product that ‘does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.’” The complaint also cites the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, “which states that the term ‘natural’ may…
Bacardi Ltd. has reportedly filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on the renewal of a trademark registration for “Havana Club” granted to Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios (“Cubaexport”), a Cuban government-owned entity. Cubaexport had filed for a renewal in 2006, but the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) refused to grant the license required to renew the trademark. Cubaexport sold its rum recipe and the rights to “Havana Club” to Bacardi in 1994, 30 years after the United States prohibited the import of Cuban goods. Bacardi sold rum under the “Havana Club” name while disputing the rights to the mark with Pernod Ricard, which owns the rights to sell Havana Club worldwide. In January 2016, Cubaexport sought to renew its trademark in “Havana Club,” arguing that it had obtained the necessary license from OFAC, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office…
A Shanghai court has reportedly fined three Chinese technology companies for their part in spreading rumors that KFC fare is produced with “mutant chickens” with eight legs and six wings. KFC filed a lawsuit in June 2015 seeking damages for economic losses and damage to its reputation. The court reportedly ordered the companies to make an official apology and pay a total of $91,191 (600,000 yuan) to KFC. Additional details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 567 of this Update. See Reuters, February 2, 2016. Issue 593
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. (PETA) alleging Whole Foods Market Inc. falsely advertises its meat as ethically slaughtered. PETA v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., No. 15-4301 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 29, 2016). The organization challenged Whole Foods’ five-step Global Animal Partnership rating as misleading consumers because the assessments are allegedly insufficient. Details on PETA’s complaint appear in Issue 579 of this Update. The court first found that PETA had standing to sue despite the organization’s not being a customer of Whole Foods. The court then turned to Whole Foods’ argument that PETA failed to plead its fraud allegations with the specificity required. The photos included with the complaint were insufficient to fulfill the requirement, the court found, because PETA did not clarify which aspects of the in-store displays were at issue. That vagueness also prevented the court…
Contradicting an advisory jury verdict, a Pennsylvania federal court has allowed Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co. to void its policy with H.J. Heinz Co. covering damages related to the manufacture and sale of lead-tainted baby cereal. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Ins. Co., No. 15-0631 (W.D. Penn., order entered February 1, 2016). Surplus sought to rescind the policy, and the jury agreed with its argument that Heinz had made material misrepresentations on its application for product contamination coverage. The jury concluded that the insurance company knew about the misrepresentations and sold the policy anyway, thus losing its grounds for rescinding the policy; the court disagreed, finding “Heinz did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Starr had sufficient knowledge of the misrepresented facts prior to issuing the policy.” Accordingly, the court voided the policy. Additional information about the jury decision appears in Issue 588 of this Update.…
An Ohio appeals court has affirmed a lower court decision finding that two consumers’ mislabeling allegations against The Kroger Co. are preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). Arnold v. Kroger Co., No. C-150291 (Ohio Ct. App., 1st App. D., Hamilton Cty., order entered January 22, 2016). The consumers alleged Kroger’s chickens were not subjected to “a humane environment” as the company advertised and thus were not worth the premium the store charged. The trial court dismissed the claims as preempted by the PPIA, and the plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ argument that the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (FSIS’) inspection and approval of Kroger’s slaughtered chickens were insufficient to determine whether the chickens were in a humane environment while alive. “FSIS has determined that humane treatment of poultry directly implicates its fitness for human consumption because ‘under the PPIA, poultry products are more…
