A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Frito-Lay falsely labels its snacks, including “Bean Dip products,” as “ALL NATURAL” despite the use of ingredients—particularly soy—containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Altman v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-61803 (S.D. Fla., filed September 13, 2012). The gist of the complaint is that products containing GMOs should not be labeled “all natural” unless they also disclose that the products contain GMOs. The plaintiff contends that she would not have purchased the company’s bean dip if she had known the company “could not support its claim that the Product is all natural.” Seeking to represent a class of Florida consumers who purchased Frito-Lay “All Natural” products over the past four years, the plaintiff alleges violations of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. She requests injunctive relief, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs,…
Category Archives Issue 454
The day after a California court apparently refused to approve the settlement of class claims against the company that makes “All Natural Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream,” an Illinois resident filed a putative class action against the company in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that the product contains many unnatural ingredients including those that are genetically modified. Tobin v. Conopco, Inc., No. 12-5881 (D.N.J., filed September 13, 2012). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals who purchased the products since 2006 relying on the allegedly false “all natural” label. According to the complaint, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) tested the company’s products in 2010 and found that they contain “alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, or other ingredients that either don’t exist in nature or that have been chemically modified.” CSPI’s letter to the manufacturer, claiming that the products…
Finding that California law applies to a dispute between Costco Wholesale Corp. and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., a federal court has dismissed Costco’s claims for violations of Washington state law and for bad faith coverage by estoppel arising out of the insurer’s refusal to handle claims of personal injury from cheese that Costco sold. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-1550 (W.D. Wash., Seattle, decided September 20, 2012). The court determined that, under the “most significant relationship” test applied in the context of a conflict of laws, “the most significant contacts between Costco and Nationwide occurred in California.” Because California law does not provide relief as to a number of Costco’s claims, the court dismissed them but gave the company the opportunity to amend the complaint by November 1, 2012. If it does not do so, the matter will be dismissed.
A federal court has reportedly denied the request of Canadian and U.S. foie gras producers to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of California’s law barring the sale of food products made from force-feeding birds. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., order entered September 19, 2012). More information about the case appears in Issue 446 of this Update. According to a news source, the court will issue a formal ruling on its denial of injunctive relief at a later date. A hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for November 19. See Law360, September 20, 2012.
A federal court in Rhode Island has reportedly agreed to enter a default judgment of $33 million against a spice company purportedly involved in a 2010 Salmonella outbreak affecting a salami product that sickened more than 250 people in 44 states. Daniele Int’l, Inc. v. Wholesome Spice & Seasonings, Inc., No. 10-155 (D.R.I., decided September 17, 2012). The court granted the request for default judgment filed by meat producer Daniele International, which was forced to recall in excess of 1.2 million pounds of meat. Health officials traced the contamination to the pepper supplied by the defendant, a company that was reportedly dissolved in April 2012. According to a news source, Daniele’s counsel is uncertain whether they will be able to collect the judgment. See The Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2012.
While a federal court in Florida has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Target Corp. violates consumer fraud laws by selling honey that does not conform to the state’s honey standard, it gave the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint and also found that (i) the plaintiff had standing to bring the claims, (ii) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard did not apply, and (iii) the claims were not preempted by federal law. Guerrero v. Target Corp., No. 12-21115 (S.D. Fla., decided September 4, 2012). The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it failed “to provide any more specific details regarding how Plaintiff knows that Defendant’s honey did not contain pollen. Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s Complaint, as currently plead (sic), fails to state a claim because it does not provide fair notice to Defendant regarding the factual basis for Plaintiff’s…
A federal jury has reportedly awarded $7.2 million to a man who claimed that he developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a debilitating lung disease also known as popcorn lung, from consuming two to three bags of microwave popcorn every day for six years. Watson v. Dillon Cos., Inc., No. 08-91 (D. Colo., decided September 19, 2012). Details about the case appear in issue 244 of this Update. The settlement that the plaintiff reached with one of the defendants, a flavoring manufacturer, is discussed in Issue 331 of this Update. According to a news source, the jury found that Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., which manufactured the popcorn, and a retailer were negligent for failing to warn that diacetyl, the butter flavoring chemical in the product, was dangerous. The manufacturer was found liable for 80 percent of the damages, and the supermarket chain was found liable for 20 percent. The retailer has indicated that it…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has launched a public consultation on new “draft Guidance on the Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products [PPPs] on Bees (including Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees).” Intended to help applicants and authorities evaluate PPPs “and their active substances under Regulation (EC) 1107/2009,” the draft guidance outlines a process “by which [PPPs] can be evaluated for their potential risk in causing unacceptable harm to a group of non-target organisms (bees).” To these ends, EFSA has identified a maximum level of harm as defined by Specific Protection Goals (SPGs), which aim to protect the survival and development of bee colonies, preserve biomass and reproduction to ensure long-term survival, and minimize the effect of PPPs on larvae and bee behavior. Recognizing that the viability of a colony depends on the number of bees it contains, the SPGs establish that the magnitude of PPPs’ effects on…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) has issued a final rule permitting the use of synthetic methionine in organic poultry production. Effective October 1, 2012, the final rule reduces the maximum levels of methionine per ton of feed as follows: (i) 2 pounds for laying and broiler chickens, and (ii) 3 pounds for turkeys and all other poultry. The final rule also amends the Chemicals Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers “for the allowable forms of synthetic methionine.” According to NOP, “[m]ethionine is classified as an essential amino acid for poultry because it is needed to maintain viability and must be acquired through the diet… Natural feed sources with a high percentage of methionine include blood meal, fish meal, crab meal, corn gluten meal, alfalfa meal, and sunflower seed meal.” In reviewing the rules governing the use of synthetic methionine, a water-soluble crystalline powder, in organic poultry production, the National…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a notice seeking “any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of a nonvoting industry representative to the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee [TSEAC].” Organizations that wish to participate in the selection of this nonvoting member should submit a letter stating their interest to FDA by October 18, 2012. The agency has also requested nominations for the post by the same date. FDA has charged TSEAC with reviewing and evaluating “the available scientific data concerning the safety of products which may be at risk for transmission of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health.” The committee includes 15 voting members “knowledgeable in the fields of clinical and administrative medicine, hematology, virology, neurovirology, neurology, infectious diseases, immunology, transfusion medicine, surgery, internal medicine, biochemistry, biostatistics, epidemiology, biological and physical sciences, sociology/ethics, and other related professions.” See Federal Register, September 18, 2012.
