In a University of Oxford Press (UOP) blog post titled “From cigarettes to obesity, public health at risk,” University of Florida Psychiatry Professor Mark Gold advances his food addiction hypothesis and suggests, “If overeating is due to food acquiring drug-like or tobacco-like brain reinforcement properties, then the current globesity and overeating-related health crisis might have lessons to learn from tobacco.” Gold recently co-edited a book of essays, Food and Addiction, and claims that taxes on soft drinks, like taxes on cigarettes, could reduce consumption. According to Gold, animal tests show “that sucrose and fructose corn syrup are self-administered as if they were drugs and that an opiate-like abstinence syndrome could be produced by detoxification or antagonist administration.” He claims that new treatments based on the addiction hypothesis should address food preferences “and not just appetite.” He concludes, “New approaches, evidence-based approaches, like those that have been used successfully to develop…
Category Archives Issue
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) are petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an immediate reduction in the allowable levels of ractopamine—a controversial drug used to boost growth and leanness in meat production—and to study the drug’s potential effects on human health and animal welfare. The petition was reportedly filed days after Russia announced that it would require meat it imports to be tested and certified free of ractopamine—a move that jeopardizes the more than $500 million worth of U.S. beef and pork exported to that country annually. According to CFS staff attorney Elisabeth Homes, “The continued use and abuse of ractopamine in our food supply needs to be put in check. FDA must do its job of assessing risks, questioning health impacts, and providing better solutions for our food system. American families and, potentially, the nation’s economy are at…
The Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) has reportedly decided to review “no crash later” claims made by Living Essentials LLC about its caffeinated energy supplement 5-Hour Energy® after The New York Times published a January 2, 2013, article questioning the scientific evidence behind such assertions. According to media sources, NAD ruled in 2007 that Living Essentials could not support its unequivocal “no crash” claims, even though its product evidently causes less of an energy level reduction than beverages made by its competitors. As a result, Living Essentials modified its labeling to include an asterisk on its “no crash later” declaration, but NAD has apparently advised the company to drop the claim altogether or submit to a compliance review. See Law360, January 3, 2013. The claim now facing NAD scrutiny also caught the attention of Times writer Barry Meier, who noted that energy drink manufacturers demand premium prices…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
A federal court in California has determined that Asian-American interest organizations have not sustained their burden of showing that they are entitled to preliminarily enjoin the shark fin ban that took effect January 1, 2012, in the state. Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Brown, No. 12-3759 (N.D. Cal., decided January 2, 2013). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 447 of this Update. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims of discrimination against the Chinese-American community that uses shark fins in traditional dishes served at many banquets and special events. Finding that the state had a rational basis to impose limits on shark finning and that the state regulations did not overlap federal restrictions, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Ruling that the named plaintiff’s claims are not typical of those of the putative class in a false-labeling suit brought against the companies that made and marketed Skinnygirl Margaritas®, a federal court in New York has denied his motion for class certification. Rapcinsky v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, L.L.C., No. 11-6546 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 9, 2013). The named plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly purchased the product in that state as a gift for his wife who had indicated that she had been served the beverage during a party with friends and liked it. He brought the suit under New York statutes that apply to products purchased in New York and involve deceptive acts or practices involving in-state residents. He also claimed common-law breach of warranty. According to the court, the laws invoked do not protect the plaintiff’s purchases. While his alleged injury may be the same as class members, the plaintiff, “having not…
A federal court in Minnesota has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by a company whose insurance carrier claimed it was not required to cover the company’s settlement of claims arising from a recall of instant oatmeal purportedly contaminated with instant milk produced at a facility where the Food and Drug Administration “detected insanitary conditions and salmonella.” The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main St. Ingredients, LLC, No. 11-533 (D. Minn., decided January 8, 2013). The company had supplied the instant milk to Malt-o-Meal which used it to make instant oatmeal. After the instant milk and downstream products such as the oatmeal were recalled, Malt-o-Meal sued both the supplier and the company that had produced the instant milk. While none of the supplier’s instant milk was found to contain Salmonella, the case ultimately settled for $1.4 million. The insurance company sued the supplier, Main Street Ingredients, for a declaration that…
A federal court in New Mexico has approved a consent decree of permanent injunction between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Sunland, Inc., which owns a facility where peanut butter products purportedly tainted with Salmonella were produced. United States v. Sunland, Inc., No. 12-1312 (D.N.M., filed December 21, 2012). The outbreak affected “at least 35 people from 19 states,” eight of whom “were hospitalized as a result of their infection.” While the company neither admits nor denies FDA’s allegations, it agreed to take a number of actions to correct food-handling practices “that likely resulted in cross-contamination between raw peanuts and peanuts that had been roasted or brined.” The company must “develop and implement sanitation control programs; provide FDA the opportunity to inspect the facilities to assure Sunland’s compliance with the consent decree, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and applicable regulations; and receive written authorization from FDA to resume…
A federal court in Alabama has dismissed breach of contract and warranty claims filed against a company that makes Florida Natural® orange juice and markets it as “fresh,” “100%” or “pure,” finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers. Veal v. Citrus World, Inc., No. 12-801 (N.D. Ala., decided January 8, 2013). The court refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint for a fourth time on the grounds that no amendment can cure its deficiencies and bad faith. According to the court, “This is plaintiff’s counsel’s fourth attempt (not counting the arguments before the MDL [multidistrict litigation] panel) to pursue a class action against defendant based on the same inherently flawed theory of liability. Upon not being included as class counsel in the MDL, plaintiff’s counsel returned here and went shopping for plaintiffs in an attempt to manufacture a…
After deciding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a consumer-fraud class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal court in New Jersey has granted his motion to dismiss without prejudice, while denying the defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 11-2183 (D.N.J., decided December 13, 2012). The plaintiff had sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of Arizona beverages that contain high-fructose corn syrup and were labeled as “all natural.” He sought to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2). According to the court, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no intention of purchasing these products in the future and therefore could not show a reasonable likelihood of future injury from the defendants’ conduct. Thus, the court denied his motion to certify the class for lack of standing to seek injunctive…
