Missouri Appellate Court Rejects “Ingredient List Defense”

A Missouri appeals court has reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a
lawsuit alleging Stonewall Kitchen, LLC misled consumers about its
cupcake mix containing sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), which the
complaint contended precludes the company from marketing the mixes
as “all natural.” Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, No. 104072 (Mo. Ct.
App., E.D., order entered November 8, 2016).

The trial court determined that because the ingredient list included
SAPP, the plaintiff could not claim that Stonewall had failed to disclose
its contents within the meaning of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act (MMPA). Further, it found that the “all natural” description was
inherently ambiguous with no clearly settled meaning. The appeals court
disagreed, finding that the definition of “all natural” is a question of fact
requiring further investigation during discovery.

“Furthermore, we expressly reject the notion that the ‘ingredient list’
defense asserted by Stonewall Kitchen defeats [the plaintiff’s] claim as a
matter of law,” the court held. “The FDA does not require an ingredient
list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on
the ingredient list to correct those misrepresentations and provide a
shield from liability for that deception. [] A reasonable consumer would
expect that the ingredient list comports with the representations on the
packaging. Furthermore, the manufacturer, not the consumer, is in the
superior position to know and understand the ingredients in its product
and whether the ingredients comport with its packaging. While the presence
of an ingredient list may be relevant to Stonewall Kitchen’s defense
at trial, the ‘ingredient list’ defense cannot, as a matter of law, defeat an
MMPA claim.”

Issue 622