A company that manufactures mustard oil supplied to the employers of food-flavoring workers who alleged they contracted bronchiolitis obliterans from occupational exposure to diacetyl and other chemicals, is seeking court confirmation of its good faith settlement with some of the workers. Ortiz v. Flavor & Extract Mfrs. Assoc. of the U.S., No. BC364831 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty., motion filed June 2, 2009). According to Naturex, Inc.’s motion for an order confirming the settlement, its experts were prepared to testify that scientific evidence and published literature do not link mustard oil to bronchiolitis obliterans, a point two of the plaintiffs appeared to concede when they initiated settlement discussions rather than making their expert available for deposition. The settlement agreement would provide these plaintiffs with $7,500 in exchange for a release and dismissal with prejudice. The motion also indicates that another plaintiff never used mustard oil during his employment. He has…
Category Archives Issue
Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW) has reportedly filed litigation under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a number of companies that make snack foods. According to the attorneys who litigate as this advocacy organization, the companies fail to warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods such as breads, french fries and potato chips are made; it is included on the state’s list of substances known to cause cancer. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit apparently seeks punitive damages for fraudulent concealment and Prop. 65 violations. EWW has previously brought Prop. 65 claims involving acrylamide against fast food restaurants. More information about that litigation appears in issue 5 of this Update. See CourtHouse News, June 10, 2009.
A California resident has sued Unilever United States, Inc. in federal district court, seeking class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, and punitive damages for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws in the sale and marketing of a butter-substitute product known as “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®” Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 09-02563 (N.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2009). According to the complaint, Unilever labels and promotes its product as “Made with a Blend of Nutritious Oils” and “a better nutrition option than butter,” when, in fact, the product contains “a highly unhealthy, non-nutritious oil known as partially hydrogenated oil.” Claiming that he would not have purchased the product but for reliance on defendant’s purportedly deceptive statements, named plaintiff Amnon Rosen alleges only economic injury, stating that he “suffered injury in that he would not have paid money for the Product had these misrepresentations not been made.” Still, he avers…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is responsible for implementing the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), is reportedly reviewing a joint industry proposal submitted in April 2009 with detailed recommendations for a comprehensive food warning system. OEHHA has been conducting meetings with stakeholders to develop a regulation that would provide consumers with point-of-sale warnings about food chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or pose reproductive health hazards. The California Grocers Association, California Retailers Association, California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, and Grocery Manufacturers Association proposal would exempt small retail establishments from regulation and would allow warnings to be provided via (i) signage at a store’s entrance, (ii) pamphlets or brochures, or (iii) the backs of cash register receipts. Environmental groups and consumer advocates have reportedly criticized the industry approach, saying that most consumers would remain unaware…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule that amends the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of silver, excluding silver salts, in or on all foods when used in public eating places or applied on dairy- or food-processing equipment that comes into contact with surface-sanitizing solutions. The regulation requires the silver concentration in the solutions not to exceed 50 parts per million. Objections and requests for hearings about the regulation, which took effect June 10, 2009, must be received by August 10. See Federal Register, June 10, 2009.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the availability of draft industry guidance titled “Questions and Answers Regarding the Reportable Food Registry as Established by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.” The Food Administration Amendments Act of 2007 required FDA to establish within one year of enactment an electronic portal to facilitate the reporting of adulterated foods. FDA has now delayed until September 8, 2009, implementation of the registry “to consider any comments received on the draft guidance and through the agency’s planned outreach initiatives, and to allow for further testing of the electronic portal for reportable foods.” In the interim, the agency has encouraged industry to continue reporting of adulterated foods through existing channels, such as the relevant FDA district office. See Federal Register, June 11, 2009.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a June 23, 2009, public meeting to present the background, approach, scope, and data needed for a recently initiated interagency risk assessment of Listeria in some ready-to-eat foods that are sliced, prepared or packaged in retail facilities. Several agencies, including the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), are conducting the risk assessment to determine the effects that current practices and potential interventions to prevent Listeria have on public health. See Federal Register, June 9, 2009.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has apparently resurrected a program that tracks pesticide use on food crops. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts pesticide-use surveys, which reportedly provide the only free, publicly available data on the agricultural chemicals applied to crops. Government agencies, environmental groups and academic scientists use the data to evaluate the human health and environmental risks posed by pesticides, and compare the amount of pesticides applied to genetically engineered (GE) versus conventional crops. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and other groups recently spearheaded a letter-writing campaign urging USDA to restore the program. NASS plans to gather data on pesticide applications to fruit and nut crops in fall 2009. If Congress approves the full funding specified in President Barack Obama’s (D) 2010 budget, the agency will resume data collection for vegetables, major row crops and pesticides applied to crops after harvest. See Food & Environment…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has called on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reverse a policy adopted during the Bush administration that precludes states from using federal nutrition education funds to discourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. In a June 12, 2009, letter, CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson, Director of Legal Affairs Bruce Silverglade and Senior Staff Attorney Ilene Ringel Heller take issue with a 2003 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) memorandum telling state officials that they could not use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to disparage or criticize any food. It was apparently issued after Maine launched an ad campaign encouraging residents to reduce their soda consumption. According to CSPI, this policy has been continued under the new administration, appearing in recent SNAP education guidance materials that state, “SNAP-Ed funds may not be used to convey negative written, visual, or verbal expressions about specific foods,…
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) and the Center for the Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) have reportedly expressed support for a bipartisan compromise on menu-labeling legislation that would require chain establishments with 20 or more outlets nationwide to provide nutrition information on menus or menu boards. The revamped legislation apparently combines elements of the Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and the Labeling Education and Nutrition (LEAN) Act, sponsored by Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.). The new bill would also exempt small businesses, as well as waive the labeling requirements for custom orders, temporary specials and items like condiments that are not listed on menu boards. In addition, a separate provision would entail “the disclosure of calories for food items on vending machines owned by individuals operating 20 or more vending machines,” according to a June 10, 2009, press release…
