The consumer group Citizens for Health has launched a website, FoodIdentityTheft.com, change of High Fructose Corn Syrup” and urges readers to contact federal agencies to oppose relabeling the ingredient “corn sugar.” The site also targets tomato sauces advertised as using “only the finest tomatoes” and blueberry-flavored products that allegedly contain “absolutely no blueberries.” “Many consumers believe that the U.S. government will protect us from false advertising or stop corporations from making unproven claims about their products,” said the site’s senior editor Linda Bonvie in a September 27, 2011, Citizens for Health press release. “But the truth is, corporations and their lobbyists have a huge influence in Washington. We as consumers have to protect ourselves, stay informed, and tell our legislators and government agencies that we won’t accept being lied to.” Dedicated to the “natural health consumer,” Citizens for Health has also organized a march from New York City to the…
Category Archives Issue 411
Two nutritionists have published commentary in the September 2011 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that calls for the federal government to revisit a ban on using food stamps to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages. Authored by Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity Director Kelly Brownell and Harvard School of Public Health Professor David Ludwig, the article responds to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) rejection of a New York City proposed pilot program that would have prohibited soda purchases under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Additional details about USDA’s decision appear in Issue 407 of this Update. The article notes that opposition to the proposal came from industry groups like the American Beverage Association but also “prominent antihunger groups,” some of which felt the ban would stigmatize SNAP recipients “and make them less likely to want to participate in the program.” To meet this…
A new Food & Water Watch report claims that the “genetic engineering [GE] of crops and animals for human consumption is not the silver bullet approach for feeding a growing population that the agribusiness and biotechnology industries claim it is. Conversely, studies find that GE plants and animals do not perform better than their traditional counterparts and raise a slew of health, environmental and ethical concerns.” According to the consumer watchdog, potential GE food risks include “increased food allergies and unknown long term health effects in humans; the rise of superweeds that have become resistant to GE-affiliated herbicides; the ethical and economic concerns involved with the patenting of life and corporate consolidation of the seed supply; and the contamination of organic and non-GE crops and livestock through cross-pollination and seed dispersal.” Food & Water Watch recommends that U.S. regulators (i) “enact a moratorium on new U.S. approvals of genetically engineered…
Cara Wilking, a Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) staff attorney, has authored an issue brief intended to provide a legal foundation for consumer protection lawsuits against food companies that advertise “unhealthy food and beverage products” to children in a manner that she describes as “pester power” marketing. She explains that such marketing “targets children who, unable to purchase products for themselves, nag, pester and beleaguer their parents into purchasing unhealthy food products for them.” Wilking’s premise is that “[p]ester power marketing tactics are similar to oppressive and unscrupulous ‘high pressure’ sales tactics,” and that parents, for a number of reasons, are unable to say “no” when their children beg for these products in public. According to Wilking, two primary legal theories can support private litigant claims and are also “applicable to actions initiated by state attorneys general to protect the public interest.” Those theories are (i) “pester power marketing as…
The European Union Court of Justice has determined that Anheuser-Busch and Czech competitor Budejovicky Budvar may both use the Budweiser trademark in the United Kingdom. Budejovicky Budvar v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., No. C-482/09 (ECJ Sept. 22, 2011). Emphasizing the exceptional circumstances of the case, the court found that because the companies used the marks in good faith for nearly 30 years and because U.K. consumers “are well aware of the difference between the beers of Budvar and those of Anheuser-Busch, since their tastes, prices and get-ups have always been different,” the company that owns the earlier trademark cannot “obtain the cancellation of an identical later trade mark designating identical goods.” The court relied on European law to decide the case and in so doing rejected an advocate general opinion that indicated the issue must be decided as a matter of national law. Information about a related decision appears in Issue 388 of…
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. has filed a notice of dismissal in a Maryland federal court after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to lift the import alert it imposed on cantaloupes from Guatemala that had purportedly been linked to a Salmonella outbreak. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States, No. 11-2338 (D. Md., dismissed September 27, 2011). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 407 of this Update. According to an FDA spokesperson, the agency lifted the restrictions on the basis of a company submission that included an independent audit showing that the Guatemalan farm was following good agricultural practices and tests indicating that none of the farm’s cantaloupes were positive for Salmonella. Public health advocates had reportedly called the lawsuit a bullying tactic, and Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Caroline Smith DeWaal said, “We would certainly hope that FDA has proof that…
According to a news source, two antitrust lawsuits were filed in a California federal court this week alleging that dairy trade groups and coops manipulated dairy prices between 2003 and 2010 under a program that slaughtered more than 500,000 cows. The suits reportedly allege that the National Milk Producers Federation and major dairy farmer cooperatives, under a “dairy herd retirement program,” cost consumers in excess of $9.5 billion. Plaintiff’s counsel Steve Berman released a statement claiming that the lawsuits, brought on behalf of individual consumers in California, New York and Wisconsin, as well as Compassion Over Killing, “will protect consumers from artificially inflated milk prices and also will prevent the unnecessary and shameful killing of tens of thousands of cows each year.” One of the lawsuits, Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, seeks to certify 27 state classes and a District of Columbia class, alleging violation of state antitrust and…
A Texas resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against the Naked Juice Co., alleging that its “100% Juice,” “100% Fruit,” “All Natural,” and “non-GMO” beverage products are falsely labeled because they contain synthetic and genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Sandys v. Naked Juice Co., No. 11-8007 (C.D. Cal., filed September 27, 2011). The complaint claims that the defendants concealed the nature, identity and source of their products’ added ingredients, such as vitamins and “natural flavors,” and that the plaintiff paid a premium price for falsely labeled products and ingested substances she did not expect and did not consent to. The plaintiff also contends that some of the product ingredients are harmful to human health and the environment as well as to the workers who produce them. Alleging numerous violations of state and federal consumer fraud and product warranty laws, negligence and negligent misrepresentation, strict liability, assault and battery, and conspiracy,…
California residents have filed a putative class action in federal court against a company that promotes its granola, cookie and trail mix products as “100% Pure and Natural,” despite making them with some purportedly synthetic ingredients. Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., No. 11-4678 (N.D. Cal., filed September 21, 2011). Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiffs allege that they would not have purchased the defendant’s products at a premium price if they had known that “synthetic ingredients were used in the product.” According to the complaint, the company’s products contain cocoa processed with alkali, glycerin and lecithin. The plaintiffs allege unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and false advertising under California law; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. They seek restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and “[a]n order requiring an accounting for, and imposition of,…
The Office for the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have announced an October 4, 2011, public meeting in Washington, D.C., to provide information and receive public comments on draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 19th session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) on October 17-21 in Cairns, Australia. CCFICS is responsible for such things as “harmonizing methods and procedures which protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs.” Agenda items include relevant activities of the World Health Organization and draft guidelines for national food-control systems. See Federal Register, September 27, 2011.
12
