Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and the Berkeley Media Studies Group have published a report criticizing top cereal manufacturers for allegedly targeting children with “sophisticated online marketing techniques.” Andrew Cheyne, et al., “Marketing Sugary Cereals to Children in the Digital Age: A Content Analysis of 17 Child-Targeted Websites,” Journal of Health Communication, February 2013. Focusing on 17 branded cereal websites between October 2008 and March 2009, the study’s authors reported that these sites employed a mix of techniques such as “advergames, videos, site registration, and viral marketing” to engage children in “lengthier and more sophisticated” interactions “than are possible with traditional, passive media such as television advertisements or product packaging.” In particular, the study relied on Internet traffic data to allegedly suggest that children spent more time on sites with higher levels of immersion, that is, “the most and most sophisticated techniques.” These high-immersion sites reportedly brought…
Category Archives Issue 473
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules requiring California almonds sold domestically to be treated with heat or chemicals to prevent the spread of Salmonella. Koretoff v. Vilsack, No. 12-5075 (D.C. Cir., decided February 22, 2013). According to the court, the almond producers who mounted the challenge had waived their claims “by failing to raise them during the rulemaking process.” They had contended that the USDA secretary exceeded his authority in requiring the treatment of all almonds “irrespective of whether they are contaminated” and that the secretary failed to determine that the treatment rule was “the only practical means of advancing the interests of the producers.” Finding no error in the lower court’s disposition, the court affirmed its grant of summary judgment for the secretary.
Putative class actions have been filed against the Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB) in federal courts in California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, alleging that “consumers receive watered down beer containing less alcohol than is stated on the labels of AB’s products.” Giampaoli v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-0828 (N.D. Cal., filed February 22, 2013); Wilson v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1122 (D.N.J., filed February 25, 2013); Greenberg v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1016 (E.D. Pa., filed February 25, 2013). Claiming that the company uses a technology enabling it to create precise alcohol levels in its beer products, each plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased AB products such as Budweiser®, Bud Ice®, Bud Light Premium®, Michelob®, Michelob Ultra®, Hurricane High Gravity Lager®, King Cobra®, Busch Ice®, Natural Ice®, Black Crown®, and Bud Light Lime®. Alleging violations of consumer fraud laws and breach of state and federal warranty laws, the plaintiffs…
The Dearborn, Michigan-based attorney who was ordered to remove statements from his Facebook® page opposing a proposed class-action settlement in a case raising allegations that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee purported to sell halal chicken when some of the products were not prepared according to Islamic law has filed a motion to vacate the order and to extend the period for filing objections or opting-out. Ahmed v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-014559 (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., motion filed February 22, 2013). Represented by advocacy group Public Citizen, Majed Moughni claims that the court’s order “was a prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment.” Additional information about the proposed settlement and Moughni’s criticism of it appear in issues 468 and 471 of this Update. According to the brief accompanying the motion, Moughni, his wife and children have eaten at McDonald’s and are thus members of the class. The brief further contends, “Giving Moughni only…
A U.S. attorney in Illinois has announced charges filed against two companies and five individuals in a five-year investigation of imports that allegedly circumvented $180 million in anti-dumping duties on honey from China and involved purportedly “adulterated” honey containing the antibiotics chloramphenicol and tetracycline. Groeb Farms, Inc., described as the largest industrial honey supplier in the United States, knowingly avoided more than $78.8 million in antidumping duties by buying mislabeled honey imported from China and has agreed to pay a $2 million fine and “to dispose of any illegally-entered Chinese-origin honey in its possession.” It will also institute a corporate compliance program to ensure supply chain integrity and conduct “reasonable inquiries to safeguard against any illegal activity.” Jun Yang, Urbain Tran and Hung Yi Lin were all charged with brokering or transporting illegal Chinese-origin honey in the United States. Yang will plead guilty and has agreed to a fine of $250,000…
A California federal court has dismissed with prejudice claims filed against a yogurt maker and its parent company alleging that its Greek style yogurt product was misbranded under federal food regulations. Smith v. Cabot Creamery Coop., Inc., No. 12-4591 (N.D. Cal., decided February 25, 2013). The putative class plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used whey protein concentrate (WPC) and milk protein concentrate (MPC) as “filler material” to “thicken Cabot Greek and increase its protein content, instead of making Greek yogurt the ‘authentic’ way which involves filtering the liquid whey byproduct during the manufacturing process and keeping only the protein-rich solid portion.” They also alleged that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forbids the use of WPC and MPC. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims because they were premised on the alleged unlawful use of these ingredients, arguing that FDA allows WPC and MPC to be used lawfully “as optional ingredients…
A federal court in California has denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss putative class claims that many of their food products are sold with labels that are unlawful and/or mislead consumers. Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 12-2554 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 25, 2013). Among the products are chewing gum, crackers, granola, fruit punch, cheese, nut mix, lemonade, stuffing mix, Jell-O®, and Easy Mac®. The labels at issue include the following statements: “natural,” “all natural,” “no artificial” colors/sweeteners/flavors/preservatives/ingredients, nutrient content, health claims, “sugar free,” “sugarless,” certain serving sizes, and “evaporated cane juice.” The allegations are also apparently based on products the named plaintiff did not purchase. The court determined that (i) the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury in fact by claiming she would not have purchased the products but for the alleged unlawful or misleading labels; (ii) the plaintiff cannot bring claims relating…
A federal court in California has dismissed some of the putative class claims filed against Twining North America, Inc., alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling its green tea products as a “natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 25, 2013). Stricken with leave to amend are claims based on labels or products other than green tea because the named plaintiff alleged that she purchased green tea only. The court disagreed with the defendant that the state law-based claims were preempted, finding that by stating its tea is a “natural source of antioxidants,” the defendant made a nutrient content claim regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the plaintiff was seeking to enforce state law identical to federal requirements. So ruling, the court cited an FDA warning letter sent to the company over its alleged “nutrient content…
In a 7–2 vote, lawmakers in Colorado have rejected a bill (H.B.1192) that would have defined “genetically engineered” and required a person selling, distributing or offering food for sale in Colorado to identify genetically engineered (GE) food with the following label: “This product contains genetically engineered material or was produced with genetically engineered material.” The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jeanne Labuda (D-Denver), who, according to a news source, says that consumers deserve to know more about how their food is produced and argues that food producers already have to label foods containing certain additives or allergens. Opponents of the bill, including many farmers and food retailers, reportedly claim that requiring labels for GE foods would significantly affect family farmers and increase the cost of food for all Colorado citizens. “Much of the dialogue surrounding this topic seems to be filled with fear and innuendo, as opposed to being well researched,…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has withdrawn styrene as a potential addition to the list of substances known to the state to cause cancer by means of the Labor Code mechanism. In 2009, a state judge tentatively enjoined its listing after determining that no known evidence supported a finding that styrene is a carcinogen and that its designation as such would likely have a devastating effect on the industry. Widely used in food packaging, styrene plastics are apparently crucial to the transportation and sale of strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, state industries worth more than $1 billion. The court further ruled at the end of 2012 that OEHHA’s reliance on the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s conclusion that styrene is “possibly carcinogenic to human” was insufficient to justify its listing. OEHHA has not reportedly appealed the decision. See InsideEPA.com, February 21, 2013.
