A federal court in Florida has determined that a putative statewide class is not preempted under federal law from claiming that the presence of genetically modified (GM) corn in Campbell Soup Co. vegetable soups renders its “100% Natural” labeling representations false. Krzykwa v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-62058 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 24, 2013). The court also refused to dismiss the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased two soup products with GM corn. Their labels had been pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because they also contained chicken and the agency has pre-approval authority as to these products. Campbell argued that USDA’s seal of approval preempted state law-based labeling-related claims. Later complaint amendments changed the products at issue to vegetarian soups whose labels are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory purview and do not require pre-approval.…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling affirming the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is not a “plant pest” and thus that it lacked authority to stop its deregulation or to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential environmental impacts. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 12-15052 (9th Cir., decided May 17, 2013). The Center for Food Safety, an organization dedicated to environmental advocacy, has announced its determination to appeal the ruling and to pursue other legal options to stop the planting and cultivation of GM alfalfa. The gist of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that while the plaintiffs’ environmental and economic concerns may be valid, they have no bearing, under the current statutory scheme, on APHIS’s authority vis-à-vis GM crops. The court’s opinion methodically explains how GM alfalfa is created…
The plaintiffs in putative class litigation alleging inaccurate wage statements and denial of required meal breaks have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement brought against Starbucks in 2008. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., motion filed May 10, 2013). Without admitting liability, the company has apparently agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the claims of California Starbucks employees who fall into one or two subclasses: (i) the “Meal Break Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks within the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, or shift supervisor during the period from December 2, 2004, to January 31, 2013”; and (ii) the “Wage Statement Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks in the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, shift supervisor, assistant store manager, or store manager during the period…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by General Mills in litigation alleging that certain of its Nature Valley® products are deceptively labeled and advertised as “natural” because they contain sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup or maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin, which are purportedly “highly processed” and therefore not “natural.” Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2013). The plaintiffs are represented by Center for Science in the Public Interest attorney Stephen Gardner. The court disagreed with General Mills that the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred the claims, finding that the Food and Drug Administration “has signaled a relative lack of interest in devoting its limited resources to what it evidently considers a minor issue, or in establishing some ‘uniformity in administration’ with regard to the use of ‘natural’ in food…
A federal court in New York has dismissed putative class claims filed against Dannon Co., alleging that its Activia® yogurt products are not actually yogurt because they contain filler products including milk protein concentrate (MPC), an ingredient that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) purportedly prohibits from use in yogurt. Conroy v. The Dannon Co., Inc., 12-6901 (S.D.N.Y., decided May 9, 2013). The defendant challenged the claims on the ground that the “plaintiff’s allegations are premised on a misunderstanding of the FDA’s standard of identity for yogurt.” The court agreed with Dannon that while MPC is not included in the list of permissible ingredients for yogurt, it is a permitted “other optional ingredient” despite FDA’s failure to include MPC in its 1981 definition of the phrase. According to the court, the issue in the case was the proper interpretation of a stay FDA imposed in 1982 on certain provisions of…
A federal court in New York has amended the preliminary injunction entered against Kangadis Food Inc., doing business as The Gourmet Factory, originally requiring that the company send stickers to affix to all products sold as “100% Pure Olive Oil” and provided to wholesalers and retailers before March 1, 2013, because those products were actually made from Pomace, a processed oil made from olive pits, skins and pulp. N. Am. Olive Oil Ass’n v. Kangadis Food Inc., No. 13-868 (S.D.N.Y., order entered May 7, 2013). Additional information about the earlier injunction appears in Issue 482 of this Update. The stickers were intended to inform consumers that the products were not “100% Pure Olive Oil.” The parties sought reconsideration after Kangadis indicated that it would prefer to recall its products from wholesalers and replace them with tins and bottles that do not contain Pomace. The plaintiff trade association agreed to allow…
A federal court in California has rendered its reluctant approval of a preliminary settlement in class litigation against Kellogg Co., alleging that the company falsely advertised its cereal product as a food that could help improve children’s attentiveness by 20 percent. Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-1786 (S.D. Cal., order entered May 3, 2013). The matter had been remanded from the Ninth Circuit, which reversed an earlier settlement approval, finding that the cy pres distribution to organizations helping the indigent of funds remaining after the class claims were paid had not been properly assigned. Additional information about the Ninth Circuit’s decision appears in Issues 447 and 453 of this Update. The district court observes that the new designated cy pres recipients, the Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog and Center for Science in the Public Interest, are appropriate as consumer-protection organizations, but expresses its dismay over the decrease in cash value to…
California’s attorney general (AG) has filed a suit against a number of candy manufacturers and grocery retailers, alleging that they have violated Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to label “ginger candies and other food products containing ginger” and/or “plum candies and other products containing plums,” which the AG claims contain lead, a substance known to the state “to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.” People v. Dakota Bros., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed April 30, 2013). Under Prop. 65, “businesses must provide a ‘clear and reasonable warning’ before exposing individuals to lead,” according to the complaint, and the defendants have allegedly not provided such warnings. The AG seeks civil penalties, not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
A federal court in Georgia considering the criminal charges filed against former Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell has denied his request for the return of his passport “for purposes of employment-related international travel.” United States v. Parnell, No. 13-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered April 26, 2013). Parnell apparently surrendered his passport as a condition of his pretrial release. Parnell and company managers were charged in a 76-count indictment over a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009. Additional information about the charges appears in Issue 472 of this Update. According to the court, Parnell was allowed to be released “on an unsecured $100,000 bond with no pretrial supervision by the U.S. Probation Office,” and, because he did not show that he cannot find employment within the United States and no other changes have taken place since the conditions were set, the court had no basis for returning the passport.
Monster Beverage Corp. has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against San Francisco’s city attorney, who launched an investigation into the company’s alleged marketing of energy drinks to children in October 2012. Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. 13-786 (C.D. Cal., E. Div., filed April 29, 2013). According to the complaint, City Attorney Dennis Herrera has threatened to sue the company under the Sherman Law and California’s consumer protection laws if Monster does not agree to reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content, provide adequate warning labels, cease promoting over-consumption in marketing, cease using alcohol and drug references in marketing, and cease marketing to minors. The energy beverage maker contends that Herrera’s investigation and demands are preempted by federal law and represent an attempt to “usurp FDA’s [the Food and Drug Administration’s] regulatory authority” contrary to the primary-jurisdiction principle. Monster also claims that Herrera’s conduct violates the…
