U.S. attorneys in New York have filed a complaint against three veal producers for allegedly exporting meat containing vertebral column to Japan, which had just reopened its borders to U.S. imports after a two-year ban over a bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow”) scare. United States v. Atl. Veal & Lamb LLC, No. 11-1034 (E.D.N.Y., filed March 3, 2011). Under U.S.-Japan trade agreements, beef and beef products cannot contain vertebral column, and when Japanese inspectors discovered the breach, it immediately again closed its borders to U.S. beef imports, allegedly costing the U.S. livestock, beef and meat industry “at least $500 million in losses.” The prosecutors seek to enjoin the defendants from violating U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations and allege that unless enjoined, the companies “will continue to sell and offer for transportation in commerce misbranded meat and meat food products for human consumption abroad that fail to comply with [export verification]…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A federal court in California has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the company that makes YoPlus® probiotic yogurt and certified a class of consumers alleging that it misled them in its product marketing. Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-00061 (C.D. Cal., summary judgment denied March 3, 2011; class certification granted March 7). The court disagreed with the company’s attempt to characterize its product statements as “either true or . . . untestable and subjective statements of opinion” or “mere puffing.” According to the court, General Mills sought to “isolate each particular statement or image and divorce it from its full context.” Rather, the court determined that “properly considered in context, General Mills successfully communicated a ‘common message that eating Yo-Plus aids in the promotion of digestive health in ways that eating normal yogurt does not.’” The court reportedly granted class certification from the bench. See Law360, March…
A federal court in California has reportedly fined King Tuna $1.8 million for marking its products with a patent number despite not following the patented process in preparing its fish. King Tuna v. Anova Food, Inc., No. 07-07451 (C.D. Cal., decided February 24, 2011). The patent apparently related to pre-cooling filtered wood smoke before applying it to tuna. King Tuna sued a competitor alleging that the patent had been infringed; the competitor countersued claiming, among other matters, that King Tuna had falsely advertised and falsely marked its products. While most recent litigation involving the false-marking statute involves expired patents, this case apparently involved a valid patent. According to the court, King Tuna’s false advertising and marking “could not have been a mere innocent oversight,” because the company, while claiming that its preservation process involved filtered wood smoke, never pre-cooled the wood smoke “as required by the “619 patent.” To determine…
Finding no clear state precedent, a federal court in Ohio has certified to the state supreme court a question arising in a case involving insurance coverage for Listeria-contaminated meats that led to the destruction of 1 million pounds of meat products in 2006. HoneyBaked Foods, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 08-1686 (N.D. Ohio, order entered March 3, 2011). The question certified is as follows: In light of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s opinion in Anderson v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St. 3d 547 (2001), does the reasonable-expectations doctrine apply to a commercial general liability “all-risk” insurance policy, so that coverage, which otherwise would be excluded under the terms and conditions of the policy, is afforded, provided the trier of fact determines that the insured reasonably expected, when purchasing the policy, that the policy would cover the loss at issue. HoneyBaked Foods claimed a loss of approximately $8 million under…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that would have required those who had planted genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings to destroy the crop. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, Nos. 10-17719, -17722 (9th Cir., decided February 25, 2011). The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had issued permits allowing the GE sugar beet seedlings to be planted in select, remote areas and imposing conditions prohibiting flowering or pollination before the permits expired on February 28, 2011. The plaintiffs challenged those permits because they were issued before APHIS had completed an environmental impact statement, which was required by a previous court order, and the district court concluded that they were likely to prevail on the merits. Additional details about the case appear in Issues 366 and 374 of this Update. While the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two decisions allowing the sale of ethanol blends above 10 percent, referred to as E15, for use in model year 2001 and newer vehicles. Both decisions have been challenged in court, and the agency has filed a response to a motion filed by food industry interests asking the court to accelerate the briefing schedule. GMA v. EPA, No. 10-1380 (D.D.C., opposition filed February 17, 2011). EPA asked the court considering the actions to instead adopt a consolidated briefing schedule that allows both decisions to be addressed, in the interest of preserving judicial resources. In a footnote, EPA suggests that the food industry parties may lack standing to challenge the agency’s E15 waiver. Apparently, EPA regulations give “only fuel and fuel additive manufacturers” the ability to register E15, and they are already represented in a challenge to EPA’s action. EPA also notes, “given that several steps…
The Center for Food Safety has returned to a federal court in California charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with violations of the law in partially deregulating genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets. Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-0831 (N.D. Cal., filed February 23, 2011). Details about the agency’s action are included in Issue 381 of this Update. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the group and several other organizations concerned about the safety of GE crops and their alleged potential to contaminate conventional and organic crops, challenge the February 4, 2011, APHIS decision to approve an environmental assessment prepared in connection with the agency’s decision to issue an interim partial deregulation of Roundup Ready® sugar beets. According to the complaint, “The partial deregulation decision purports to allow planting and use of [GE sugar beets] pending the completion by APHIS of an…
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization devoted to preventive medicine, a vegan diet and animal rights, has sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming the agencies used deliberately obscure language in their 2010 Dietary Guidelines regarding the foods consumers should avoid. While the guidelines specifically call for increased consumption of vegetables, fruits and whole grains, PCRM contends that the agencies “hide the food Americans should eat less of. The Guidelines use biochemical terms, such as ‘saturated fat’ and ‘cholesterol’ instead of specific food terms ‘meat’ and ‘cheese.’” According to PCRM, the guidelines are written this way due to “the USDA’s close ties to the meat and dairy industries, including fast-food companies such as McDonald’s.” The organization also apparently blames USDA’s dual mission of giving nutritional advice to Americans and promoting American agricultural products for the use of language…
A diabetic man has reportedly filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking at least $4,000 in mental anguish damages from a Studio City sushi restaurant that requires those patrons paying an all-you-can-eat price to eat all of the food served and not just the fish. Martin v. A Ca-Shi Sushi, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct.). David Martin alleges that restaurant owner Jay Oh is discriminating against diabetics by requiring them to eat the rice along with the sashimi, which Martin picked out and consumed, leaving the rice behind. According to a news source, Oh offered to prepare two orders of sashimi alone for Martin at a cost of $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal, but Martin refused. Instead, he filed a lawsuit and said he would be willing to settle for $6,000. Oh is reportedly going to fight the litigation even if his legal costs exceed…
Galeos, LLC has been sued in a federal court in California for misrepresenting the nutritional content of its miso-based salad dressings, purportedly advertised on the weight-loss TV show “The Biggest Loser” and promoted as beneficial to health. Healey v. Galeos, LLC, No. 11-00240 (C.D. Cal., filed February 11, 2011). Details about a previous suit with similar allegations filed in the same court appear in Issue 376 of this Update. The plaintiff contends that independent laboratory testing has shown that the label for the company’s Miso Caesar Dressing® understates the calories by 430 percent, the fat by 550 percent and the sodium content by 350 percent. Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation. She also seeks an injunction requiring the publication of corrective nutritional values, compensatory and punitive damages, as well…
