Two new reports from nonprofit advocacy organizations highlight global water risks and urge food and beverage companies to adopt more robust water stewardship practices at every point in the supply chain. Published by Ceres, Feeding Ourselves Thirsty: How the Food Sector Is Managing Global Water Risks “ranks the nation’s 37 largest food companies on how effectively they are managing precious freshwater supplies.” Finding that packaged food and beverage companies outperformed the agricultural sector in their responses to water risks, the report estimates that “only 30 percent of the companies considered water risks as part of major business planning and investment decision-making,” while only 16 percent “have sustainable agriculture policies that address water.” To help companies improve water efficiency, Ceres recommends, among other things, that global companies (i) analyze water risks for the entire supply chain, (ii) invest in projects that improve watershed health and (iii) disclose water risks and management plans…
Category Archives Issue 566
The Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch and Friends of the Earth (FOE) have authored a May 28, 2015, letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), claiming that a draft risk assessment conducted by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) questions the health and welfare of AquaBounty Technologies Inc.’s genetically modified (GM) salmon. According to FOE, the “never-before-seen” environmental review concludes that AquaBounty’s GM salmon are not only “more susceptible to Aeromonas salmonicida, a type of disease-causing bacteria,” but exhibit “diminished growth rates” and “widely varied performance.” The assessment also reportedly registers “uncertainty” about the function of the gene construct, in addition to faulting the management and operation of AquaBounty facilities for allegedly failing to supply “internal compliance documentation, such as a daily check-list to ensure that all relevant mechanical barriers are in place and functioning properly.” As a result of these findings, the…
The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has alleged that companies used “numerous tactics from the corporate lobbyist playbook” to persuade several European Commission departments to obstruct the Directorate-General of the Environment (DG Environment) in its attempts to regulate endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In particular, the CEO report claims that groups representing the chemical and plastics sectors not only promoted their own studies “as the only ‘sound science,’” but used the threat of economic damage as well as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations “as a leverage to prevent any new ‘trade barrier.’” “By early Spring 2013, since DG Environment did not bend under the pressure, the corporate lobby focused on demanding an impact assessment as a delaying tactic,” opines the report. “In a culmination of fierce lobbying pressure, DG Environment’s proposal for scientific criteria to identify EDCs was finally rejected by the other DGs in the Commission. Moreover, in…
In a recent journal article, a Babson College marketing law professor discusses legal disputes over the labeling of food as “natural,” noting drawbacks of using courts as public policy developers on the issue. Ross D. Petty, “‘Natural’ Claims in Food Advertising: Policy Implications of Filling the Regulatory Void with Consumer Class Action Lawsuits,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Spring 2015. Petty provides a history of the debate and litigation over use of the terms “natural” and “unprocessed” on food labels, beginning with U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) actions against Sugar in The Raw® and Hawaiian Punch® in the 1970s. The article also details efforts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) to define “natural,” “synthetic,” “healthy” and “good source.” Petty highlights industry self-regulation, such as the processes established by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, as a venue for…
Franciscan Vineyards has filed an opposition against Home Box Office, Inc.’s (HBO’s) 2014 trademark application for “Three-Eyed Raven,” a beer collaboration between HBO and Ommegang Brewery based on the network’s “Game of Thrones” series. U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86309080 (notice of opposition filed May 11, 2015). Franciscan owns trademarks used by Ravenswood Winery, including “Ravens,” “Ravenswood” and a drawing of three black ravens forming a circle. The winery asserts that consumers are likely to be confused and challenged HBO’s intention to use the “Three-Eyed Raven,” alleging that the company had no intention to use the mark and, further, had committed fraud when it told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it did. Ommegang began selling Three-Eyed Raven, its fifth collaboration with HBO, in April 2015. Issue 566
H.J. Heinz Co. has filed a lawsuit against Boulder Brands USA seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision finding that the marks representing Heinz’s Weight Watchers Smart Ones® and Boulder’s Smart Balance® are sufficiently distinct, allowing both to exist. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc., No. 15-0681 (W.D. Penn., filed May 26, 2015). In its opposition to the Smart Balance® mark, Heinz asserted that the Smart Ones® mark was famous and would be diluted by Smart Balance®, but based on insufficient evidence TTAB disagreed in its March 2015 decision. In addition to the reversal, Heinz seeks a declaration of likelihood of confusion and a declaration of dilution under the Lanham Act and asks the court to direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate the Smart Balance® mark. Issue 566
A group of consumers has filed a putative class action against Abbott Laboratories, Inc. alleging the company misrepresents its Similac Advance® Organic Infant Formulas because several of the ingredients are banned by federal law from use in food labeled “organic.” Marentette v. Abbott Labs., Inc., No. 15-2837 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 15, 2015). The plaintiffs challenge the products’ inclusion of beta carotene, biotin, taurine and lutein, among several other ingredients, and additionally assert that “at least one ingredient in these infant formulas is produced using genetically engineered materials—a practice forbidden in organic foods.” The complaint contends that Abbott knew that consumers would pay more for organic products and willfully misled them. The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages and an injunction for alleged violations of New York and California consumer-protection statutes, unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. Since the complaint was filed, Abbott has begun offering a version of Similac Advance® manufactured…
Amid ongoing recalls of Blue Bell Creameries’ ice cream products, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging that the company is liable for his severe listeriosis infection he says stems from the consumption of several varieties of contaminated products. Shockley v. Blue Bell Creameries Inc., No. 15-425 (W.D. Tex., filed May 19, 2015). The plaintiff alleges that Listeria monocytogenes infected his blood, then brain, resulting in permanent brain damage and leaving him near death. The complaint documents the recent Listeria outbreak subsequently linked to Blue Bell’s products by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Blue Bell utterly failed to design and implement sanitation and safety programs that would have prevented the sort of infestation and contamination that occurred at its facilities over a period of years,” the plaintiff asserts. He seeks compensatory, economic and punitive damages for strict product liability, negligence, misrepresentation and breach of warranties. Issue 566
StarKist Co. and a class of consumers have filed a proposed settlement agreement for $12 million in a case alleging that the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., motion filed May 14, 2015). Under the agreement, StarKist will pay $8 million in $25 cash increments and provide $4 million in $50 vouchers for StarKist-branded products. The agreement indicates that “tens of millions of purchasers” are members of the class but predicts that “a claim rate of more than 5% will be difficult to achieve.” Thus, the amounts of the settlement allow for 80,000 voucher claims and 120,000 cash claims. “This is an excellent result for class members compared to their likely recovery should they prevail at trial,” the agreement stipulates. Issue 566
The Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision invalidating Snyder’s-Lance Inc.’s “Pretzel Crisp” trademark after Frito-Lay Inc. challenged the mark as generic. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 14-1517 (Fed. Cir., order entered May 15, 2015). TTAB’s decision found that “Pretzel Crisp” is a compound term and not a phrase, so it analyzed “pretzel” and “crisp” separately and found both words to be generic descriptors of Snyder-Lance’s pretzel-cracker product. The Federal Circuit disagreed with this method, holding that TTAB had conducted a “short-cut analysis” by not considering “Pretzel Crisp” as a whole phrase, because “the test for genericness is the same, regardless of whether the mark is a compound term or a phrase.” At the end of its decision, TTAB noted that “were we to analyze [‘Pretzel Crisp’] as a phrase, on this record, our conclusion would be the same, as…
12
