The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period about whether styrene meets the criteria for authoritative bodies listings under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) until April 29, 2015. OEHHA announced its intent to list styrene as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism of Prop. 65 on February 27. Styrene is used in the manufacture of various consumer products, including polystyrene packaging, synthetic rubber and food containers. Two previous attempts to list styrene as known to cause cancer under Prop. 65’s Labor Code listing mechanism failed. The agency’s latest attempt relies on findings in the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) 2011 Report on Carcinogens which concluded that styrene is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” based on studies showing that inhalation and oral exposure to the chemical…
Posts By Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a docket for comments related to the agency’s implementation of food safety standards mandated under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA) and announced an April 23-24, 2015, public meeting in Washington, D.C., to solicit input about operational work plans. Operational work plan discussions will focus on produce safety, preventive controls for animal feed and food manufacturing facilities, measures to address intentional adulteration, the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, and FDA’s third-party accreditation program. Meeting participants will also have the opportunity to attend various break-out sessions on particular topics. Registration information is available on FDA’s website, and stakeholders may submit written or electronic comments to the docket by May 26. See Federal Register, March 24, 2015. Issue 560
The World Obesity Federation is convening clinicians, researchers and policymakers in Berlin, Germany, for a June 29-30, 2015, conference titled, “Dietary Sugars, Obesity and Metabolic Disease Risk.” Sessions will include those addressing studies allegedly linking dietary sugars to the development of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and fatty liver disease; global consumption patterns; and policy solutions. Issue 559
A Florida consumer has filed a proposed class action against Hampton Creek, maker of vegan spread “Just Mayo,” in Florida state court alleging that the product is falsely labeled and advertised because it does not contain eggs. Davis v. Hampton Creek Inc., No. 2015-5993-CA (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Ct., filed March 13, 2015). The complaint cites definitions of “just” and “mayo” to argue that the product name fools reasonable consumers into believing that it is mayonnaise despite containing no eggs. The plaintiff further points to the label, which includes an egg-shaped outline, and to the website, which previously advertised the product as “an outrageously delicious mayonnaise that’s better for your body, for your wallet, and for the planet.” She alleges a violation of Florida’s consumer-protection statute and unjust enrichment and seeks class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction, and attorney’s fees. Unilever, producer of Hellmann’s mayonnaise, challenged Hampton Creek’s “Just Mayo”…
Citing independent product tests, four consumers seeking to represent a class have filed a lawsuit in California state court alleging that dozens of wineries in the state manufacture and sell wine that contains as much as five times the maximum safe daily limit of arsenic. Charles v. The Wine Grp., Inc., No. BC576061 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed March 19, 2015). “[J]ust a glass or two of these arsenic contaminated wines a day over time could result in dangerous arsenic toxicity to the consumer,” the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs apparently hired BeverageGrades, an independent laboratory in Colorado, to test for levels of inorganic arsenic, which is “substantially more toxic and dangerous to humans” than organic arsenic, the complaint says. Ingestion is reportedly linked to a variety of health issues, including nausea, vomiting, disturbances of the cardiovascular and nervous systems, and type 2 diabetes. The complaint asserts that in…
The European Court of Justice has refused to void a lower court’s decision against Dole Foods confirming an $83 million fine shared with other companies resulting from a finding of collusion to fix the prices of bananas sold in several European countries. Dole Food & Dole Germany v. Commission, No. C-286/13 P (E.C.J., order entered March 19, 2015). Dole sought to annul or reduce its fine, arguing the commission had not proven that the weekly communications between banana-producing companies just before prices were set were intended to fix prices. The company also argued that the lower court had lumped price quotes for green bananas and yellow bananas when the price-quoting schemes are separate. The prices of some bananas were set weeks before they were sold, while other companies sold their inventories at different times, Dole argued; as a result, the bananas from different companies were not in direct competition. The…
Food Network’s “Barefoot Contessa” and her company have reportedly reached a settlement agreement with Aqua Star (USA) Co. less than one month after the celebrity chef filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement for frozen dinners bearing the phrase “Contessa Chef Inspired.” Barefoot Contessa Pantry LLC v. Aqua Star (USA) Co., No. 15-1092 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., settlement reached March 12, 2015). Ina Garten and her company, Barefoot Contessa, alleged that Aqua Star and its subsidiary, OFI Imports, manufactured and sold frozen dinners too similar to products made by a former licensee of Garten’s name and likeness. Aqua Star has reportedly agreed to stop selling products with the Barefoot Contessa mark, remove and destroy the products from shelves by early May, and pay an undisclosed amount of money. Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 556 of this Update. See SeafoodSource.com, March 13, 2015. Issue 559
Two plaintiffs who alleged that Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. conceals the unsafe nature of its Redline® Xtreme energy drink have settled with the company for the approximate purchase price of a single product plus interest. Mirabella v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 12-62086 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., joint stipulation and notice of settlement filed March 16, 2015). According to a notice filed with the court, the company has agreed to pay each plaintiff the cost of one drink—$2.50 to one, $2.99 to the other—along with accrued interest within 10 days of receiving general releases from the plaintiffs. A Florida federal court refused to certify the plaintiffs’ proposed class on February 27, 2015. Additional details about that decision appear in Issue 557 of this Update. Issue 559
A California federal court has approved the proposed settlement in a class action alleging that Jamba Juice® mislabels its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients gelatin, xanthan gum, ascorbic acid, steviol glycosides, and modified corn starch. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., settlement approved March 18, 2015). The December 2014 proposed settlement was reached three months after the court certified the class for liability but not for damages. Under the agreement, Jamba Juice® will remove “all natural” on the product packaging and the company website by March 31, 2015. Additional information about the settlement appears in Issue 547 of this Update. Issue 559
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Kind misleadingly labeled its Vanilla Blueberry Clusters as having “no refined sugars” despite containing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) and molasses. Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC, No. 12-50377 (N.D. Ill., order entered March 12, 2015). The plaintiff had alleged that ECJ and molasses result from refining sugar cane—albeit less refining than what is required to produce table sugar—and as a result, the label’s claim of “no refined sugar” was fraudulent, breached an express warranty and violated the state’s consumer-protection law. The court found the plaintiff’s claim that she read the entire package, including the ingredients list, before purchasing the product contradicted her claim that she did not understand that the product contained partially refined sugars, noting that courts “have dismissed complaints premised on such logical inconsistencies.” The court also compared what she claimed to believe to what a reasonable consumer would believe upon…
