“Climate Change: Health and Disease Threats” is the focus of an upcoming live webcast from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health slated for December 16, 2015. According to promotional materials for the program, health impacts have not featured prominently in international climate change discussions. “Yet, droughts, floods, heat waves, and air pollution related to climate change produce rippling effects that impact food production, infectious disease spread, chronic illnesses, and more.” The event was planned in conjunction with The GroundTruth Project. Issue 587
Category Archives Issue 587
The Center for Food Safety and the Seikatsu Club Consumers Cooperative have joined to jointly decry the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent determination that genetically engineered (GE) salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. is as safe to eat as conventional salmon and will have little effect on the environment. At the time of FDA’s announcement, the Center for Food Safety vowed to file a lawsuit against the agency. “FDA’s decision to approve this GE salmon was irresponsible and unlawful and it will have global repercussions,” said George Kimbrell, a Center for Food Safety attorney. “We are honored to join with our colleagues in Japan in opposing GE fish and the Aquabounty salmon. Together, we will work to stop its expansion in order to preserve our native fisheries and protect the markets so many depend on around the world.” According to the consumer groups, Japan imported $2 billion worth…
The University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity has conducted a study assessing public support for policies and laws that would prohibit discrimination based on weight. Rebecca M. Puhl, et al., “Potential Policies and Laws to Prohibit Weight Discrimination: Public Views from 4 Countries,” The Milbank Quarterly, December 2015. In an online survey, the researchers questioned 2,866 adults in the United States, Canada, Australia and Iceland about their opinions on several policy measures related to weight discrimination, including (i) “adding body weight to existing civil rights statutes,” (ii) “extending disability protections to persons with obesity,” and (iii) “instituting legal measures to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of body weight.” The propositions with the most support referred to protection of employees from discriminatory practices in hiring and wage determinations. A majority of respondents in the United States and Canada supported the inclusion of weight discrimination in…
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for an en banc rehearing in a lawsuit alleging that the distilleries of two Diageo Americas Supply Inc. brands, J&B® and Johnnie Walker®, caused the growth of a black fungus on outdoor surfaces near the plants. Merrick v. Diageo Ams. Supply Inc., No. 14-6198 (6th Cir., order entered December 7, 2015). Diageo had sought to dismiss the suit by arguing the claims conflicted with emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act, but a lower court and the Sixth Circuit disagreed upon hearing the arguments. Diageo then requested en banc reconsideration, but the one-page denial noted that “the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case.” Details about the case appear in Issues 519 and 546 of this Update. Issue 587
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Trader Joe’s Co. alleging the retailer’s soy milk is mislabeled because it does not contain cow’s milk, which the plaintiffs argued amounts to a violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and California’s consumer protection statute. Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 13-1333 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 1, 2015). “Often in food labeling cases,” the court noted, “courts jump straight to the question of whether a plaintiff may state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. But there is a threshold question.” The court explained that questions related to food labeling must be considered in the context of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because “if the alleged conduct would not violate the federal statute, it doesn’t matter whether the plaintiff could pursue a state law claim based on that conduct. If a food label does not…
Safeway Inc. will pay $41.9 million to customers who ordered groceries online and were charged a 10 percent markup on the items they ordered compared to the prices charged in-store, a court has confirmed. Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11-3003 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 30, 2015). A California federal court approved the settlement amount of $31 million in damages and $10.9 million in prejudgment interest. Additional details about the case appear in Issues 549 and 577 of this Update. Issue 587
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated three putative consumer class actions and a competitor lawsuit challenging McCormick’s alleged under-filling of its non-transparent black pepper containers. In re McCormick & Co. Inc. Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2665 (D.D.C., transfer order filed December 8, 2015). The court found that the actions involved common factual questions “about the propriety of McCormick’s pricing and packaging of its pepper products under various federal and state laws.” The transfer order notes that the plaintiffs of one consumer suit argued the competitor action be excluded, but the court found the action had a “clear factual overlap with the other cases.” The cases will continue in the District of District of Columbia and may involve additional tag-along actions as well. Additional information about the competitor action, brought by Minnesota-based Watkins Inc., appears in Issue 568 of this Update; details about a putative…
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging Nestlé USA Inc. violates state laws about notifying consumers of products sourced from forced labor because of Nestlé’s partnership with a company accused of using slave labor to catch and supply its fish. Barber v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 15-1364 (C.D. Cal., order entered December 9, 2015). The plaintiffs asserted that some of Nestlé’s Fancy Feast® cat food products include fish supplied by Thai Union Frozen Products, which acknowledges that some of its smaller fishing boats use forced labor, but “it is virtually impossible to say how pervasive the problem is,” according to the court. Nestlé argued the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the safe harbor doctrine created by the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, which “requires any retailer who does business in California and has annual worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million to make specific disclosures…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) can sue the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its Food Safety and Inspection Service’s denial of a petition for rulemaking on prohibiting force-fed foie gras. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 13-55868 (9th Cir., order entered December 7, 2015). The district court had dismissed the action sua sponte after determining the denial was equivalent to a non-enforcement decision and thus not reviewable by the court. The appeals court described two exceptions that limit when an individual can challenge a final agency decision in court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), finding the district court had erred in determining the foie gras denial fell into one of the exceptions. The court distinguished “agency decisions not to take enforcement actions,” which cannot be subjected to judicial review and involve past breaches of existing…
A new report issued by the European Commission advocates that the European Parliament take action on trans fat levels in foods by introducing (i) a mandatory label for foods with trans fat, (ii) legislation setting a limit on allowable trans fat content, (iii) voluntary agreements to reduce trans fat content, or (iv) guidance for national legal limits on trans fats in food. The report analyzes each option, noting possible benefits and drawbacks. “Mandatory [trans fat] labeling would serve two purposes: (i) to provide incentives to the industry towards reducing [trans fat] from food products and (ii) to enable consumers to make informed food choices,” the report explains, noting the labels would have a limited impact if consumer awareness of the negative effects associated with trans fat is low. The report further finds that a legal limit on allowable trans fat content would provide the highest public health benefits, but an…
12
