A Florida resident has filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class against Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB), claiming that since the company began producing Beck’s Beer in the United States in 2012, it has misled consumers into believing that the product is still imported from Germany where it was made with quality ingredients for more than 225 years. Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-23656 (S.D. Fla., filed October 9, 2013). According to the complaint, external packaging material does not indicate that the product is brewed in the United States with domestic ingredients, including Missouri River water. Rather, the external packaging for six- and 12-packs allegedly states that the product is “German Quality” beer “brewed under the German Purity Law of 1516” and that it “Originated in Bremen, Germany.” Individual bottles, however, state “in obscure white text on a silver background, ‘Product of USA—Brauerei Beck & Co.—St. Louis, MO.—12 FL. OZ.’”…
Category Archives Issue 500
A federal court in California has denied the request of General Mills, Inc. to stay the proceedings in three putative class actions alleging that it misleads consumers by promoting various products as “100% Natural” given ingredients that are genetically modified or highly processed, such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose corn syrup and maltodextrin. Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 9, 2013); Bohac v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5280, and Janney v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., orders entered October 10, 2013). So ruling, the court rejected the defendant’s request that it apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding that (i) the issue of whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the company’s product promotions was within the court’s purview, and (ii) it did not appear the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was inclined to decide anytime soon what the term “natural” encompasses. In Rojas,…
A federal court in California has dismissed certain claims, with leave to amend, in putative class litigation challenging various aspects of labels for Wallaby Yogurt Co. and Trader Joe’s Co. food products; it has refused to abstain from deciding the matters under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc., No. 13-296, Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 13-1333 (N.D. Cal., orders entered October 10, 2013). Both suits include claims, among others, that the companies mislead consumers by using “evaporated cane juice” instead of “sugar” on their product labels. In Wallaby, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims because they had not plausibly alleged actual injury. Wallaby apparently said, “Plaintiffs paid for food products. They consumed the products without incident or physical injury. The goods were not tainted, spoiled, adulterated, or contaminated. They do not allege that the ingredients were…
A federal court has dismissed without prejudice the first amended complaint filed in a putative class action alleging that Weight Watchers International misleads consumers by misrepresenting the number of calories in its line of diet ice cream bars. Burke v. Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc., No. 12-6742 (D.N.J., decided October 17, 2013). While the court held that it was premature to decide whether the plaintiff had standing to bring claims as to diet bars she did not purchase, persuaded by other courts that this was more properly decided at the class certification stage, it agreed with the defendants that the state law-based claims were preempted. The Food and Drug Administration has set forth the five methods that can be used to calculate the total number of calories in a food product labeled with that information. In the court’s view, “Burke’s claims are preempted because she has failed to plead two separate…
A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative class action alleging that Kroger Corp. misled consumers by failing to comply with federal and state law requirements for labeling its Challenge® spreadable butter products. Simpson v. The Kroger Corp., No. B242405 (Cal. App. Ct., decided September 25, 2013). The court found that the labeling requirements of the state Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947 were not identical to federal labeling requirements, and thus claims based on the Act were preempted. And while the court found that the plaintiff’s mislabeling claims under the state Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law were not preempted, it ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, because “as a matter of law, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the labels on the products.” Noting…
According to media sources, the campaigns for and against a proposed 1-cent per ounce excise tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) sold in Telluride, Colorado, have stepped up their efforts in advance of November voting. Primarily funded by a Houston-based hedge fund, which donated $50,000 to the cause, “Kick the Can Telluride” has reportedly taken its lead from similar campaigns in El Monte, California, and Richmond, Virginia, and urged local voters to back ballot measure 2A, claiming that the estimated annual revenues of $200,000 would support youth health initiatives now funded by three-year U.S. Department of Education Physical Education Program grants. “If passed, the measure would be the first town-level excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States,” reports The (Telluride) Watch in an October 16, 2013, article about the debate. Meanwhile, the Colorado Beverage Association has apparently joined with local business owners in countering the proposal with its…
The European Commission-Joint Research Centre and Institute of Food Safety of the University of Wageningen in The Netherlands, at the request of the European Food Safety Authority, have issued a two-part survey regarding nanomaterials in agri-food-feed applications that aims to collect information about (i) the current and potential future use of nanomaterials or nanotechnology in agri-food-feed applications, and (ii) regulation, safety assessment and reporting of nanomaterials in different countries. The first part of the survey focuses on the “Production, Use, Import, Research and Development of Nanomaterials in Agri-Food-Feed Applications” and is addressed to (i) companies that produce, import or use the materials in such applications, and (ii) research institutes, research and development departments of industry, or others active in research and development of materials or products containing nanomaterials in agri-food-feed applications. The second part of the survey focuses on the “Regulation and Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials in Agri-Food-Feed Applications” and…
12
