According to a news source, a federal court in New Jersey has dismissed claims that the manufacturer of a beverage containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) deceived the public by promoting the product as “all natural.” The court apparently based its ruling on federal preemption, leaving it to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define the terms “natural” and “all natural.” U.S. District Judge Mary Cooper reportedly stated, “This court will not determine that which the FDA, with all of its scientific expertise, has yet to determine, namely how the terms ‘natural’ and ‘all natural’ should be defined and whether either may be used on the label of a beverage containing HFCS. Instead, this court will allow the FDA, which has already set forth specific requirements for what must be included on beverage labels, to decide whether such a determination is necessary and warranted.” The ruling specifically applies to Snapple®…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Identifying themselves as “observant Jews,” three named plaintiffs have filed a putative class action lawsuit against a hot dog producer in Cook County, Illinois, alleging that its 100 percent beef claims breach an express warranty, violate the Uniform Commercial Code’s provisions on conforming goods, and constitute consumer and common law fraud. Gershengorin v. Vienna Beef, Ltd., No. 06CH25277 (Cook County, Illinois, filed Nov. 20, 2006). According to the complaint, “Vienna Beef knowingly omits informing the consumer public that Vienna Beef is using pork intestine as casing for its Natural Casing Beef hotdogs.” The plaintiffs, who claim they have been injured emotionally by the company’s fraudulent advertising campaign, are bringing the action on behalf of all U.S. residents who consumed a “Natural Casing Beef” hot dog manufactured by Vienna Beef that actually contained pork intestine casing. The complaint asserts that questions of law and fact common to the class members include…
After a two-month trial, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Robert Dondero late last week ruled that California cannot require the manufacturers of Chicken of the Sea, StarKist and Bumble Bee tuna to warn consumers that their products contain mercury and mercury compounds. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed the lawsuit in June 2004 under the state antitoxics law Proposition 65, which requires businesses to warn the public about exposure to chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” The law does not apply to chemicals that occur naturally in food. Press reports indicate the court ruled that (i) Prop. 65 is preempted by a March 2004 Food and Drug Administration joint consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish and shellfish; (ii) low levels of mercury contained in tuna products do not merit warnings; and (iii) tuna is exempt from Prop. 65 requirements because mercury in fish is naturally occurring.…
Since May 2002 California plaintiffs have reportedly brought enforcement actions against a number of food manufacturers and fast food restaurants claiming that because carcinogens or reproductive toxicants are contained in their products, they are required to provide public warnings under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. This law, also known as Proposition 65 (Prop.65), was approved by state voters in November 1986. It requires the governor to publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harms. Companies selling products in California must provide warnings if such substances are contained in their products. Private citizens are empowered under the Act to sue alleged violators to enjoin future violations and obtain civil penalties for past violations. Plaintiffs in American Environmental Safety Institute v. Mars, Inc., No. BC273433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 8, 2002), allege that chocolate contains the…
New York attorney Samuel Hirsch has filed lawsuits against fast food companies on behalf of two classes of plaintiffs who are allegedly obese and have developed diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol intake, and other adverse health effects from consuming defendants’ products. Barber v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 23145/2002 (N.Y., Super. Ct., filed July 24, 2002); Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 24809/2002 (N.Y. Super. Ct., filed August 22, 2002). The cases involve a class of adult plaintiffs and a class of children. The complaints are being brought on theories of (i) unfair and deceptive practices, (ii) failure to warn, and (iii) negligence in selling products high in fat, salt, sugar, and cholesterol, and in marketing to children, in marketing addictive products, and in enticing plaintiffs to consume larger portions in “value meals” and “meal combos.” According to news sources, the named adult plaintiff, Caesar Barber, 56, did not realize that consumption…
