The National Milk Producers Federation, International Dairy Foods Association and U.S. Dairy Export Council have authored a May 9, 2016, letter to President Barack Obama (D), asking the White House to reject proposed World Health Organization (WHO) guidance that “would discourage consumption of nutritious dairy products by young children.” Slated for presentation at the 69th World Health Assembly on May 23-28, 2016, the draft guidelines seek to end the promotion of breast-milk substitutes, including all milk and fortified soy milk, intended for consumption by children younger than age 3. Among other things, the proposal not only places restrictions on the marketing of foods for infants and young children, but also stipulates that “the messages used to promote foods for infants and young children should support optimal feeding and inappropriate messages should not be included.” The guidelines specifically preclude the indirect crosspromotion of breast-milk substitutes with other food products, as well…
Category Archives Issue
Two strawberry breeders formerly of the University of California, Davis have filed a lawsuit against the university targeting its strawberry-breeding program, which they argue is denying them the opportunity to license the breeds they helped cultivate. Cal. Berry Cultivars LLC v. Regents of U. of Cal., No. 16-2477 (N. Cal., removed to federal court May 6, 2016). The scientists left the program in 2014 to start their own cultivation company with a former California secretary of food and agriculture. Their departure triggered a lawsuit from the California Strawberry Commission, which asserted the university was neglecting the program. The scientists now reportedly argue the university refuses to license—“on a non-exclusive basis at a reasonable royalty”—the plants to California Berry Cultivars to suppress competition, amounting to allegations of conversion, breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. Details about the settlement of the previous lawsuit appear in…
A consumer has filed a proposed class action against Caribou Coffee Co. Inc. arguing the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending her “numerous unsolicited SMS text messages.” Farnham v. Caribou Coffee Co. Inc., No. 16-0295 (W.D. Wis., filed May 5, 2016). The plaintiff asserts that Caribou sent her 50 text-message advertisements from March to May 2016 without her consent. For allegations of negligent and willful violations of TCPA, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per willful violation as well as an injunction and class certification. Issue 604
Consumers have filed a putative class action against Albertson’s Inc. and Safeway Inc. alleging the companies raise prices on meat during “buy one get one free” (BOGO) deals, resulting in consumers “actually paying for the meat that is sold as ‘free’ in these special sales.” Stewart v. Albertson’s Inc., No. 16-15125 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty., filed May 4, 2016). The complaint asserts the stores rotate BOGO offers on a number of meat products, including pork chops, chicken breast and beef sirloin, but offer the products at lower prices when they are not on special. Further, the stores “sell the same meat products at regular [loyalty card] prices that are lower than the BOGO prices. When they do this, Defendants sometimes sell the same product under different names.” The plaintiffs offer an example: “Safeway sold boneless, skinless chicken breasts to [loyalty card] members for $1.99 per pound. At the same…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a dismissal of a consumer lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. alleging mislabeling claims against VitaRain Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage. Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13-36089 (9th Cir., order entered May 9, 2016). The plaintiff had alleged the product was mislabeled because the product contains added caffeine, precluding the use of “natural” on the label. The district court dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not read the label before purchasing it; on appeal, the plaintiff asserted that he could amend the complaint to add “a subclass of plaintiffs who did read the relevant parts of the label.” Because he did not rely on the label, the plaintiff’s claim failed, and “the potential existence of other classes of which Plaintiff is not a member is irrelevant,” the court found. Further, the “district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will reconsider how “healthy” may be used on food packaging following the evaluation of a citizen petition filed by Kind LLC. FDA previously challenged Kind’s use of “healthy” on its nut bars, which contain more fat than permitted due to the inclusion of nuts, and Kind changed its packaging accordingly but filed a petition for reconsideration of the issue. The existing guidelines were created during the 1990s and reflect accepted standards of that time, including a preference for foods low in fat without regard to the nature of the fat. FDA has now allowed Kind to use “healthy and tasty” on its packaging “only in text clearly presented as its corporate philosophy, where it isn’t represented as a nutrient content claim, and does not appear on the same display panel as nutrient content claims or nutrition information.” Further details about the dispute appear…
Government agency leaders, industry representatives, academics and public health advocates will gather in Washington, D.C., on June 3 for “Vote Food 2016: Better Food, Better Health.” Organized by the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, event sessions will target the next president’s food agenda, antibiotic resistance in livestock, sugar and obesity, and food insecurity, with the overarching goal of generating a “clear articulation of the range of legal and regulatory solutions [to health issues] available to whoever is elected in 2016.” The O’Neill Institute will later publish the conference proceedings and a related white paper. Issue 603
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Kimlan Foods U.S.A. alleging the company misrepresents its jarred preserved-food products as having “No Preservatives Added” despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Golden Orchid, Ltd., No. 16-2234 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The plaintiff purchased a 14-ounce jar of pickled cucumbers at a supermarket in New York, allegedly relying on the “No Preservatives” claims when choosing the product, then later discovered that citric acid is “a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient regularly used as a preservative (due to its acidic pH level which creates an environment where bacteria cannot thrive) in ready-to-drink tea products.” The complaint further argues that although “the acidic pH of citric acid would most certainly provide tartness to the Products, such explanation is pretextual because the real function of the citric acid in the Products is as a preservative.” For alleged violations of New York consumer-protection laws, negligent…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against The Quaker Oats Co. alleging the company falsely advertises its oatmeal products as “100% natural” because it contains the herbicide glyphosate. Cooper v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-2364 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed April 29, 2016). The plaintiff argues the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate—”a potent and unnatural biocide” that the company sprays on oats as a drying agent, according to the complaint—to be a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. The complaint admits the use of glyphosate is legal but asserts that its use in combination with a “100% natural” claim amounts to misrepresentation. For allegations of breach of warranty and violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, a compelled corrective advertising campaign, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees. Issue 603
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) alleging Whole Foods Market Inc. misrepresents its meat products as humanely slaughtered with its Global Animal Partnership (GAP) 5-Step® Rating System. PETA v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal., Inc., No. 15-4301 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 26, 2016). Details about the complaint appear in Issue 579 of this Update, while information about a previous dismissal without prejudice appears in Issue 593. The plaintiffs asserted that Whole Foods’ GAP rating system is a ”‛sham’ that is not actually enforced and the advertisements do not adequately disclose that ‘key animal treatment standards’ under the GAP rating ‘are no better or marginally better than is the common industry practice,’” according to the court. Whole Foods filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege misrepresentations or an actionable omission under California law, and…
