A California court has reportedly dismissed claims filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) against fast-food chains, finding that the group failed to investigate its allegations before suing under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). PCRM v. McDonald’s Corp., No. BC383722; PCRM v. KFC Corp., No. BC457193 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided August 15, 2012). Filed in 2008 and 2011, the suits alleged that the restaurants failed to warn consumers that their grilled chicken menu items contain PhIP, a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Yet, PCRM did not apparently visit the restaurants until February 2012 to take pictures of the posted warnings. The restaurants reportedly post notices that some of their products contain cancer-causing chemicals and refer customers to nutritional brochures for additional details. They contend that their warnings comply with Prop. 65. Information about similar litigation filed in San Francisco County appears in Issue…
Category Archives Issue 450
According to the quarterly Securities and Exchange filing of Monster Beverage Corp., an unnamed state attorney general (AG) subpoenaed company records in July 2012 regarding its energy beverages. The subpoena apparently concerns “the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks.” The company further notes, “As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.” News sources indicate that Monster had a 35 percent share of the energy drink market in 2011, and at least one financial analyst understands that others in the industry may also be targeted in the probe. While the caffeine in…
A nonprofit family farming organization, the Center for Food Safety and several seed companies have sued the Oregon Department of Agriculture seeking court review and a stay of a temporary rule that would open 1.7 million acres to genetically modified (GM) canola plants. Friends of Family Farmers v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., No. ___ (Or. Ct. App., filed August 15, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that opening formerly protected acreage to GM crops in the Willamette Valley without imposing appropriate buffers would harm them through cross pollination, seed crop contamination, increased pests and disease, and escaped canola weeds. They claim that the rule was adopted under the agency’s temporary rulemaking authority which does not include opportunity for public notice, review and comment. “The critical prerequisite for adopting a temporary rule is the requirement to demonstrate that an agency’s failure to act promptly will result in ‘serious prejudice’ to the public interest or the…
Dole Food Co. has filed a motion to dismiss or strike claims in a putative class action alleging that its food product labels mislead consumers. Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. 12-1831 (N.D. Cal., motion filed August 13, 2012). Identifying the plaintiff as a “repeat class representative” who recently received an incentive award in another lawsuit, Dole argues that his claims are preempted under federal law, he lacks standing because he has not been injured, the claims are not plausible, and he has failed to state a claim under California law. The company also notes that the case is “one of 24 (and counting) nearly identical ‘misbranding’ class action cases filed during a 15-week blitz by nine law firms from six different states,” thus making it an “assembly-line” complaint that follows “a common recipe.” In summary, Dole contends, “By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks colossal damages, punitive damages, and a nationwide injunction…
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has issued a draft food inspection model as part of its Inspection Modernization: Optimizing Confidence in Food Safety plan. According to CFIA, the modernized approach to food inspection will apply to both imported and domestic commodities and, in addition to the inspection model, rely on modern science, improved data collection and better training and tools for CFIA inspectors. The new draft model apparently favors a risk-based approach to regulatory oversight and covers the following components: (i) licensing and registration, (ii) CFIA oversight, (iii) inspection, (iv) compliance and enforcement, and (v) system performance. In particular, food and beverage manufacturers would need to develop “preventative control plans scalable to the size and complexity of their operation” that “mitigate all sources of food safety risk and demonstrate that the measures effectively meet regulatory requirements.” CFIA would in turn determine the level of required oversight—enhanced, normal or reduced—based…
12
