In a forthcoming Brooklyn Law Review article, professors from George Washington University Law School and Lund University argue that one solution to the definition dispute between cow's milk and plant-based milk producers may be to label plant-based milks as "mylk." Gambert et al., "Got Mylk? The Disruptive Possibilities of Plant Milk," Brooklyn L. Rev., forthcoming 2019. The professors assert that plant-based milk producers should embrace a new word, such as the "whimsical" and "creative" "mylk," to avoid negative associations with "milk with an 'i,'" including "exploitation and oppression – of women, people of color, and nonhuman animals." "At the end of the day, the 'milk wars' on both sides of the Atlantic serve as a barometer of plant milk’s role as a disruptive force in the millennia-long relationship between humans and milk. By replacing the 'i' with a 'y,' plant milk – or mylk – advocates can signal to the…
Category Archives Issue
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the intention to establish a 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and has solicited nominations for membership. The committee will consist of 13 to 20 members and will begin meeting in late 2018 or early 2019. The U.S. Codex Office will hold a public meeting on September 26, 2018, to receive public comments on U.S. positions for the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.
Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) have introduced legislation that would providing funding for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct environmental sampling for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can be used in food packaging. According to the senators' press release, "There are more than 3,000 chemicals containing PFAS but less than 30 of these substances can be detected using current technology. The data collected by the USGS could be used to better assess the likely health and environmental impacts of exposure to PFAS chemicals and determine how to address contamination moving forward."
The Good Food Institute (GFI) and Tofurky Co. have filed a civil-rights action alleging that Missouri "criminalizes truthful speech by prohibiting 'misrepresenting' a product as 'meat' if that product is 'not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'" Turtle Island Foods v. Richardson, No. 18-4173 (W.D. Mo., filed August 27, 2018). The lawsuit responds to Missouri's agriculture bill, which was amended to include the contested language in June 2018 and took effect August 28. The complaint alleges that the statute seeks "to prevent plant-based and clean meat producers, including Tofurky, from accurately informing consumers what their products are: foods designed to fulfill the roles conventional meat has traditionally played in a meal." The plaintiffs argue that consumers are unlikely to be confused because "historically, the term 'meat' has had multiple meanings, including to describe the edible part of any food, such as a fruit or nut"; further, "clean meat" products…
A California federal court has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Diet Dr Pepper is falsely advertised as a weight-loss product. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., No. 17-5921 (N.D. Cal., entered August 21, 2018). The plaintiff alleged that the term “diet” leads consumers to believe the beverage is a weight-loss or weight-management product despite that aspartame could allegedly cause weight gain. The court, which previously dismissed the complaint three times, found implausible "that reasonable consumers would believe consuming Diet Dr Pepper leads to weight loss or healthy weight management absent a change in lifestyle.” The court held that the plaintiff again failed to plead facts that could pass a “reasonable consumer” test and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a causal link between aspartame and weight gain.
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has declined to uphold a complaint arguing that Walkers Snacks targeted children under 16 with a product high in fat, salt or sugar by showing an advertisement for Doritos before YouTube videos. The complaint asserted that the “media or context” of the ad targeted children under 16, but ASA found that Walkers had taken “a range of steps to ensure that the ad was not targeted to children under the age of 16, using both age restrictions and interest based factors.” Walkers applied YouTube age-targeting restrictions by not approving the ad for families and instructing YouTube to show the ad to users logged into accounts with a self-reported age of 18 or older. “We understood from the complainant that the ad had been seen by an 8-year-old child who was not signed into YouTube, using a device used by both adults and children,” ASA…
Jamba Inc. and Jamba Juice Co. face a putative class action alleging the company's advertising deceives and misleads consumers about the nutritional value and ingredients of its smoothie beverages. Turner v. Jamba, Inc., No. 18-5168 (N.D. Cal., filed August 23, 2018). The plaintiffs allege that Jamba's smoothies contain more sugars than typical sodas or soft drinks rather than being “simple and nutritionally on par with eating whole fruits and vegetables." In addition, the complaint asserts that the smoothies contain concentrated fruit juice blends—predominantly apple, pear and grape—rather than “whole fruits and veggies.” The plaintiffs also allege that the sherbets and frozen yogurts used in the smoothie blends contain "numerous additives," including sugar, corn syrup, caramel coloring, carrageenan, citric acid, guar gum, lactic acid, locust bean gum and pectin. Claiming violations of California’s and New York’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
A plaintiff has filed two putative class actions alleging the manufacturers of “organic salt" violate consumer-protection laws against deceptive advertising because salt is an inorganic mineral that “cannot be identified as organic” pursuant to the National Organic Program. Garcia v. HimalaSalt-Sustainable Sourcing, LLC, No. 18-7410 (C.D. Cal., filed August 23, 2018); Garcia v. Frontier Natural Prods. Coop., No. 18-7457 (C.D. Cal., filed August 24, 2018). In both complaints, the plaintiff alleges that she paid a premium for the products—HimalaSalt's Himalayan salt and Simply Organic's flavored salts—because she believed them to be "more healthful than regular salt." Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees in both cases.
A U.K. television show has aired a report on the ingredients in locally available vanilla ice creams, finding that many products do not contain cream, fresh milk or vanilla. “One in five of the ice-creams examined by Which? contained none of the three ingredients shoppers might reasonably expect to find in vanilla ice-cream,” The Guardian reports. The program reportedly found that ice cream products replaced cream and milk with “partially reconstituted dried skim milk, and in some cases, whey protein” while vanilla “was often replaced with a general ‘flavouring.’” The Guardian notes that the United Kingdom has “no requirements for manufacturers to meet before a product can be called ice-cream.” VICE compared U.K. regulations to those promulgated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, finding that the United States has stricter standards that dictate a product’s minimum levels of dairy fat to earn “ice cream” on its label.
A California federal court has granted certification to buyers of Kellogg Co.’s Raisin Bran, Frosted Mini-Wheats and Smart Start who allege they were misled about the health benefits of the products because they contain added sugar. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., entered August 17, 2018). The complaint also contained an allegation about Nutri-Grain bars, but the court declined to certify that class. Kellogg argued that the plaintiffs did not meet the predominance standards for certification, asserting that most consumers did not see the challenged phrases “lightly sweetened” and “wholesome goodness” on the product packaging and further that “the health impact of consuming added sugar—and thus the alleged falsity of the challenged statements—differs for each consumer.” The court agreed as to the “wholesome goodness” phrase on Nutri-Grain bars packaging but disagreed that most consumers would not have seen “lightly sweetened” phrasing based on its…
