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…
Category Archives Litigation
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…
According to an advocate general opinion, which is not binding on the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, honey that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to the proximity of the hives to experimental GMO maize fields is considered a food produced from a GMO and therefore cannot be marketed unless authorized. Heinz Bablock v. Freistaat Bayern, No. C-442/09 (Advocate General’s Opinion, issued February 9, 2011). The case was referred from a German administrative court considering the claim of a beekeeper who alleged that the state of Bavaria had rendered his apicultural products unfit for marketing or consumption by growing the experimental GMO maize near his hives. The maize DNA was apparently detected in samples of his honey. While the advocate general determined that pollen from GMO maize is “no longer viable and is thus infertile” and as such “cannot be regarded as a GMO,” still its presence renders the…
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…
According to a news source, a prosecutor in Florida appears willing to accept an insanity defense in the case of a man who murdered his father while depressed, sleep-deprived and under the purported influence of an energy drink. A psychiatrist reportedly testified during a bond reduction hearing that defendant Stephen Coffeen, who allegedly smothered his father in 2009, suffered a “psychotic break” that was “accelerated by his use of Red Bull.” The defendant’s brother, Thomas Coffeen, is apparently skeptical about the defense, writing to the court, “since when is being tired, and high on an energy drink, an excuse for cold blooded murder, anyway?” The court has denied bond and set another hearing in the case for February 17, 2011. See St. Petersburg Times, February 7, 2011.
The parties litigating whether Welch Foods, Inc. falsely labeled its “100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate flavored 3 juice blend” beverage have filed a stipulation of settlement in a California federal court. Burcham v. Welch Foods, Inc., Nos. 09-05946 and 10-01427 (C.D. Cal., filed February 7, 2011). Under the agreement, a nationwide class of consumers would release their claims in return for refunds and coupons for replacement products, depending on whether they can prove that they purchased the product. The company would place coupons for free juice products in Sunday newspapers throughout the United States at a total value of $30 million. While Welch’s continues to maintain that the labeling claims are preempted by federal law and that the company has complied in all respects with federal law, it also claims that it lost money selling the white grape pomegranate juice. Acknowledging the difficulties in locating class members, Welch’s has also…
Adams Extract & Spice has sued Van de Vries Spice Corp. in a New Jersey federal court alleging damages in excess of $75,000 due to a 2009 spice recall involving ground red pepper allegedly contaminated with Salmonella. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC v. Van de Vries Spice Corp., No. 11-00720 (D.N.J., filed February 8, 2011). Apparently, Van de Vries sold 11,000 pounds of the spice to Adams Extract which then incorporated it into various products sold under its brand name. After learning about the contamination risk, Adams Extract issued a product recall that allegedly “resulted in significant damages to Adams Extract.” Alleging negligence by failure to comply with Food and Drug Administration standards, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and strict product liability, Adams Extract seeks compensatory damages, interest, costs, and delay damages.
Ruling on a request by a non-governmental organization (NGO), two supreme court justices in India have reportedly asked the government to remove food and soft drink company representatives from food-safety standards and enforcement panels. According to the justices, the industry representation clearly breaches the mandate of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Under the law, government panel members must be independent scientific experts who may consult with the food industry and consumers before adopting standards regulating the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import of food products. The NGO had reportedly sought a scientific investigation into the contents of soft drink beverages, claiming that their consumption is a major cause of adolescent obesity. An industry spokesperson apparently responded by calling obesity a rich man’s problem in a country where more than a third of the population lives below the poverty line. He cited the Indian Council for Medical Research, which…
