The Guardian has published an exclusive exposé claiming that fast-food companies and other industry interests helped write U.K. health policy at the behest of the secretary of state for health. According to the November 12, 2010, article, “In an overhaul of public health, said by campaign groups to be the equivalent of handing smoking policy over to the tobacco industry, health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five ‘responsibility deal’ networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies.” The newspaper has anticipated that these policies will feature in “the public health white paper due in the next month.” Although it acknowledges the involvement of consumer groups such as Which?, Cancer Research UK and the Faculty of Public Health, the article alleges that these responsibility deal networks are “dominated by food and alcohol industry members,” including trade associations, food manufacturers, beverage companies, and fast-food restaurants. Lansley has also reportedly…
Category Archives Issue 373
A coalition of 24 farmer- and rancher-led organizations has reportedly formed an alliance to “develop and implement a well-funded, long term, and coordinated public trust campaign for American agriculture.” The U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) includes organizations from virtually all aspects of agriculture that share the goal of bolstering the image of farm production methods. According to a November 11, 2010, USFRA press release, the alliance’s initial focus will be to (i) “increase consumer, consumer influencer and thought leader trust and confidence in today’s agriculture”; (ii) “serve as a resource to food companies on the benefits of today’s agricultural production”; (iii) “work with leading health, environmental and dietary organizations to demonstrate the benefits of today’s agricultural production”; and (iv) “increase the role of U.S. farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues.” Convening earlier this year to discuss media…
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has issued a report titled “Injustice on Our Plates: Immigrant Women in the U.S. Food Industry.” Based on interviews in early 2010 with 150 undocumented immigrant women working in the U.S. food industry in Arkansas, California, Florida, Iowa, New York, and North Carolina, the report highlights the dangerous conditions under which they often work and the sexual harassment and violence to which they are subject. According to SPLC, “Undocumented women are among the most vulnerable workers in our society today. They fill the lowest paying jobs in our economy and provided the backbreaking labor that helps bring food to our tables. Yet they are routinely cheated out of wages and subjected to an array of other abuses in the workplace. They are generally powerless to enforce their rights or protect themselves.” SPLC contends that laws protecting these workers are “grossly inadequate,” and workers’ ability…
Two California businessmen have reportedly filed a complaint in small claims court against a Marin County restaurateur, alleging that they were sprayed with hot garlic butter from an exploding snail. Chadwick St.-O’Harra, a former law student, and Steve Righetti were apparently celebrating Righetti’s birthday at a seafood restaurant, when the escargot purportedly exploded, dousing their faces and polo shirts. The men reportedly claim that the incident caused both “humiliation” and “a sense of genuine outrage” and that the restaurateur allegedly responded with “indifference” and “friggin’ rudeness.” The two were dining on a filet-and-lobster combo and a seafood medley and did not reportedly seek immediate medical treatment, choosing instead to finish their meals. According to the restaurant owner, the incident never happened and escargot does not explode. Still, some in the industry have characterized “escargot explosion” as a “rare but periodic phenomenon” that can be attributed to air bubbles trapped inside…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., in federal court, alleging that the company has violated consumer protection laws in labeling and promoting its “Snapple® Acai Mixed Berry Red Tea Immunity” product because “no known clinical study . . . adequately supports Snapple’s claims.” Meaunrit v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, LLC, No. 10-5153 (N.D. Cal., filed November 12, 2010). Seeking to certify a class of all product purchasers, the named plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express warranty. She asks for restitution, disgorgement, damages, and attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $5 million. Plaintiff Julia Meaunrit and her counsel, Florida-licensed Howard Rubinstein, previously filed an unsuccessful class-action lawsuit in California against a food company alleging inadequate cooking instructions for its frozen pot pies. Details about that…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a motion to dismiss a complaint charging the agency with exceeding its authority in requiring Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pre-approval for health-related claims on food products, violating advertisers’ constitutional rights by requiring compliance with these standards and failing to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in establishing the standards. POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, No. 10-1539 (D.D.C., motion filed November 16, 2010). Additional information about POM Wonderful’s complaint appears in Issue 364 of this Update. FTC contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the matter because the complaint is moot, the company lacks standing, the company is attempting to preclude an enforcement action, and the complaint does not challenge final agency action. Specifically, FTC claims (i) the agency merely created a possible remedy of FDA pre-approval in consent agreements with food producers making health-related claims and not an enforceable rule; (ii) it…
A federal court in California, presiding over two putative class actions alleging that I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®, Country Crock® and other cholesterol-free margarines were falsely advertised as nutritious, has denied a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Red v. Unilever PLC, No. 10-00387 (N.D. Cal., order filed November 16, 2010). The court was concerned about “the waiver of certain damages claims and need for opt-out in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) injunctive class where the proposed class received no monetary relief.” Scheduling a settlement hearing for the parties with a special master on or before December 13, 2010, the court allowed the parties to continue negotiating and expanded the special master’s authority “to negotiate a revised settlement to address the Court’s concerns.” The cases, filed in 2009, involve claims that butter-substitute makers have violated consumer protection laws by promoting their products as “healthy”…
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) has reportedly vetoed an ordinance that would have prohibited restaurants from offering toy giveaways in children’s meals deemed too high in calories, salt or fat. Approved in an 8-to-3 vote on November 2, 2010, by the city’s Board of Supervisors, the ordinance has the minimum amount of support needed to override the veto, an action which apparently has not yet been scheduled. The ordinance was discussed in Issue 371 of this Update. Announcing the veto on November 12, Newsom called the legislation an “intrusive and ineffective approach” to combat childhood obesity. “Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money,” he said in a statement. “Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented government intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.” According to the California Restaurant Association, the legislation may face a…
According to a news source, senators representing the Independent and Australian Greens parties have introduced legislation that would require food products to be labeled if they contain genetically modified (GM) material, regardless of amount or how it came to be incorporated in the product. The “Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Genetically Modified Material) Bill 2010” would require Food Standards Australia New Zealand to develop labeling standards and establish due diligence guidelines for products claiming to be GM free. Debate on the proposal was adjourned. Senator Nick Xenophon (I) said on introducing the bill, “Not enough Australians seem to realize the implications that the rapid introduction of genetically modified materials may have on our health and potentially on our ability to produce safe foods and foods free from GM contamination. Truth in labeling is vital to enable Australian consumers to have an informed choice about the food they eat and the…
The EU High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain recently held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium, where it reportedly discussed a work plan “to boost competitiveness and to promote best contractual practices in the European food sector.” Led by Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier, Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli, and Agricultural and Rural Development Commissioner Dacian Cioloş, the initiative involves 45 representatives from member states, companies “dealing with food production, processing or distribution,” and nongovernmental public interest groups. These participants are charged with following the recommendations of the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry and implementing the European Commission’s communication titled “A better functioning food supply chain in Europe” (COM (2009) 591). The forum will also feature several expert platforms focused on (i) “business to business contractual practices in the food supply chain,” (ii) “food price monitoring,” (iii)…
12
