2002 In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities. 2003 FDA amended its regulations on nutrition labeling to require the inclusion of trans fats on the Nutrition Facts panel for conventional foods and dietary supplements. The change was intended to help consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices. 2004 The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 sought to help consumers with food allergies and their caregivers to more easily identify and avoid foods containing major food allergens. The Act identified eight major food allergens: milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybeans. 2007 In its Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Congress required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish within FDA a Reportable Food Registry. The purpose of the…
Category Archives Issue 785
A federal court has denied a bid by Pilgrim’s Pride to throw out claims it misrepresented chicken it packaged and sold as “boneless” that wound up in recalled Trader Joe’s Chili Lime Chicken Burgers for having excessive amounts of bone. Innovative Solutions Int'l Inc. v. Houlihan Trading Co., Inc., No. 22-296 (W.D. Wash., entered October 18, 2022). The suit stems from the plaintiff’s 2021 purchase of approximately 240,000 pounds of chicken product from the Houlihan Trading Company. Pilgrim’s Pride, also a defendant, was the original producer, processor and packager of the chicken, according to the order. The chicken was labeled and included supporting documentation that it was “boneless” by industry standards. The plaintiff used the chicken to make and sell Trader Joe’s Chili Lime Chicken Burgers and sold the burgers to Trader’s Joe’s. After the grocery chain began to receive reports of bones in the burgers in September 2021, it stopped…
A Virginia federal court has held that plaintiffs alleging Gerber Products Co. sold baby foods adulterated with heavy metals do not have standing to sue. In re Gerber Prods. Co. Heavy Metals Baby Food Litig., No. 21-0269 (E.D. Va., Alexandria Div., entered October 17, 2022). The plaintiffs did not assert standing on the basis of personal injury but rather argued that the injury they allegedly suffered was economic harm for having purchased "a product that was 'worthless or worth less' than the purchase price due to Defendant's material omissions." "Plaintiffs have not alleged the Baby Food Products failed to provide Plaintiffs' children with nourishment or to otherwise perform as intended," the court noted. "Although Plaintiffs never explicitly address whether they or their children consumed the Baby Food Products, the Court can infer the Baby Food Products performed as intended based on Plaintiffs' acknowledgement that they purchased said products repeatedly and 'frequently.'…
A federal court has dismissed a putative class action against baby and toddler-food manufacturer Sprout Foods Inc. after finding the plaintiffs failed to bring plausible claims that the company’s product labeling is misleading. Davidson v. Sprout Foods Inc., No. 22-1050 (N.D. Cal., entered October 21, 2022). The plaintiffs, a California couple, alleged the company’s product packaging contained statements about nutrition content, such as “3g of Protein, 4g of Fiber and 300mg Omega-3 from Chia ALA,” that constitute “nutrient content claims” in violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. They alleged that Sprout violated the California False Advertising Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). They also brought claims of common-law fraud and unjust enrichment. In reviewing the plaintiffs’ fraud claims, the court found that the plaintiffs claim to make two showings: that the labels communicate a message that the products provide physical…
A New York woman has brought a putative class action against Nestlé USA Inc. alleging the company makes misleading claims about the nutrition content of its Ovaltine flavored drink mix products. McMenamy v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 22-1053 (N.D.N.Y., filed October 11, 2022). The plaintiff took issue with labeling including “A Good Source of 12 Vitamins & Minerals” and “No Artificials.” She said that under state and federal regulations, the former phrase is a nutrient content claim, meaning that the product should provide between 10 to 19 percent of the recommended daily intake or recommended daily value of no less than 12 vitamins or minerals. She said the product is not a good source of 12 vitamins and minerals because the consumer is required to mix the product with a cup of low-fat Vitamin A & D milk. “That the Product is not a good source of 12 vitamins and…
A California woman has filed a proposed class action against Danone Waters of America, alleging its Evian Natural Spring Water product packaging made misleading representations about being carbon neutral. Dorris v. Danone Waters of America, No. 22-8717 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 13, 2022). The plaintiff noted in her suit that the defendant represents on all versions of its Evian packaging that the product is “carbon neutral.” As a result, she asserted that reasonable consumers would believe the manufacturing of the product is sustainable and does not leave a carbon footprint, but that impression is false. “Defendant’s manufacturing of the Product still causes carbon dioxide ('CO2') to be released into the atmosphere,” she said in the complaint. “Accordingly, the carbon neutral claim is false and misleading because the Product’s manufacturing process is not carbon neutral, and consumers would not have purchased the Product, or paid substantially less for it, had they known…
A California federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Barilla America Inc. misled consumers as to the source of its pasta products by marketing them as "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta." Sinatro v. Barilla Am. Inc., No. 22-3460 (N.D. Cal., entered October 17, 2022). The court first held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because the "allegations are sufficient to establish an economic injury for purposes of constitutional standing," but it found that the plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief. Turning to whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by Barilla's claims, the court was unpersuaded by Barilla's argument that "it is not misleading to invoke the company’s Italian roots 'through generalized representations of the brand as a whole.'” "Barilla asks the court to assume that consumers would solely perceive the Challenged Representation to mean that the products at issue are part of the Barilla brand,…
