The Committee on Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols of the Institute of Medicine held a meeting on February 2, 2010. The committee was established at the request of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to undertake a review of front-of-package (FoP) nutrition rating systems and symbols. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information that might help the committee conduct its study. Among those appearing during the meeting were representatives of the FDA, CDC and U.S. Department of Agriculture. FDA staff indicated that in March 2010 the agency plans to issue a proposed rule that will define the scope of what constitutes a “dietary guidance statement” and provide criteria for the use of these statements. A 90-day comment period will follow its publication in the Federal Register. FDA will also be issuing two guidance documents, one of which will…
Category Archives Issue
According to a news source, some 120 of those purportedly sickened by Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter and their attorneys should soon begin receiving a share of a $12 million Hartford Insurance Co. policy held by the Peanut Corp. of America. Those sharing the settlement filed claims by October 31, 2009, as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceeding. The outbreak reportedly took the lives of nine people and sickened 700 who apparently ate peanuts and peanut paste traced to a company plant in Blakely, Georgia. See The Columbus Dispatch, February 2, 2010.
A number of microwave popcorn workers and their spouses have reportedly filed a complaint against a flavoring company in a federal court in Illinois, alleging personal injuries, loss of consortium and wrongful death from exposure to the butter flavoring diacetyl. Barker v. Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., No. 10-48 (S.D. Ill., filed January 21, 2010). The workers were apparently employed by AgriLink, a microwave popcorn manufacturer; they claim that diacetyl exposure can cause the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. According to the complaint, the defendant misrepresented the chemical’s safety and hid research on its risks from users. The plaintiffs apparently allege negligence and products liability and are seeking compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010.
A New Jersey resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that the company’s claims about the beneficial digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® yogurt products are false and misleading. Amin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-305 (D.N.J., filed January 19, 2010). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company’s own studies refute many of its health claims; he also cites insufficient-evidence findings by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of New Jersey residents who purchased the product since they were first sold in the state and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express warranty. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010. In issue 333 of this Update, we discussed the decision of a federal court in Florida to certify a class action raising the…
Two California residents have filed a false advertising complaint on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company falsely labels Chewy Granola Bars® as “0g trans fat” when they actually contain “dangerous amounts of artificial trans fat, a toxic product that causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and is banned in an increasing number of United States and foreign jurisdictions.” Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-502 (N.D. Cal., filed February 3, 2010). Represented by the same counsel and using the same graphics and allegations about natural and trans fats as a complaint filed a few days earlier against Kellogg involving its Nutri-Grain® bars, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Lanham Act, California’s statutory and common laws of unfair competition, and the California False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They seek to enjoin the alleged false marketing and…
Two California residents have filed putative class claims against the Kellogg Co. in a California federal court, alleging that the company misleads consumers by making health claims for its Nutri-Grain® bars and promoting some of its Keebler cookie products as containing 0 grams of trans fat. Higginbotham v. Kellogg Co., No. 10-255 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2010). According to the complaint, which provides detailed information about the differences between natural saturated fats and artificial trans fat, including that the artificial fat “causes cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer,” the trans fat content of Kellogg’s products renders them “dangerous and unfit for human consumption.” The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “All persons who purchased, on or after January 1, 2000, one or more Kellogg products containing artificial trans fat for their own use rather than resale or distribution.” They allege false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging false and misleading advertising for defendant’s “Tropicana Pure 100% Juice Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices from Concentrate with other Natural Flavors.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 09-6130 (C.D. Cal., decided February 1, 2010). Plaintiffs allege that the product label, which emphasizes the pomegranate and blueberry components of the product by image and size of type constitutes false or misleading advertising in violation of several state statutes. According to the complaint, consumers are misled into believing the juice is primarily pomegranate and blueberry juice when it is, in fact, mostly pear juice. Tropicana argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, her claims were expressly preempted by federal law, and they were not pleaded with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that because the plaintiff claimed she did not get what she paid…
The state government of Western Australia (WA) recently announced its decisionto allow the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) canola within the region as of this year. State Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman reportedly signed the exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act of 2003, thus permitting WA farmers to grow GM canola varieties approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Redman noted that, according to a government report, commercial trials have proven the feasibility of segregating GM canola “from paddock to port,” a requirement of the Act meant to preserve the state’s “markets and reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops before adequate segregation and identity preservation systems are in place.” As WA Premier Colin Barnett stated, “This decision brings WA in line with other major grain growing states in New South Wales and Victoria, where growers have been able to grow GM canola…
The Massachusetts House of Representatives has reportedly approved a bill (H.B. 4459) that would allow the state to prohibit high-calorie sodas and fatty, salty and sugary snacks in elementary, middle and high schools. The legislation, which supporters believe will help fight childhood obesity, also encourages schools to serve low-fat dairy products and whole grain breads and pastas, non-fried fruit and vegetables, non-carbonated water, and juice with no additives. The bill applies only to “competitive” foods or beverages—those sold à la carte, in vending machines or as side dishes—which are not part of the larger federal lunch program. “What this bill would do is get junk food out of the schools, but more importantly get healthy food into the schools,” sponsor Representative Peter Koutoujian (D-Waltham) was quoted as saying. Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, praised the legislation, saying, “This offers parents a greater…
The Humane Society of the United States is apparently continuing to push for ballot initiatives and legislation that would impose new requirements on the livestock industry. In Vermont, legislators are considering a bill (S. 230) that would require that “a representative of the Vermont humane society be present when livestock are bled or slaughtered, and to report and increase penalties for violations of the humane slaughter rules.” Proposed penalties for violation of the law could include fines no less than $5,000 and 90 days in prison. Meanwhile, a petition has reportedly been filed with Ohio’s attorney general seeking the certification of an initiative to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in fall 2010 to require that the state’s newly formed livestock board adopt humane slaughtering measures. The proposed amendment would also prohibit killing animals by strangulation and prevent the sale, transport or receipt “for use in the human…
