A recent survey conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (AP-NORC) indicates that even though Americans apparently understand many of the reasons behind increasing rates of obesity and the alleged link between obesity and chronic health conditions, people are split on their support for government policies that would affect consumers’ food and beverage choices. “The American public has clearly gotten the message about obesity as a major public health issue, including its connection to other major health problems,” said Trevor Tompson, director of the AP-NORC Center. “What is less clear is consensus about how to address the issue and a surprising number of overweight people who are not told by their physicians that it is an issue that needs attention.” For example, one-third of those surveyed said the government should be deeply involved in finding ways to curb obesity, while a similar proportion wanted little or no…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has released its 2013 “Xtreme Eating” report, which singled out restaurant foods that are allegedly laden with excessive calories, fat and sodium. Claiming that some restaurants seem to “scientifically engineer[] these extreme meals with the express purpose of promoting obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” the report condemns menu items from The Cheesecake Factory, Maggiano’s Little Italy and other retailers that in some cases purportedly contain as much as “four-and-a-half days’ worth” of recommended fat and more than a day’s worth of recommended calories. “I hope the Obama Administration promptly finalizes overdue calorie labeling rules for chain restaurants,” said CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson. “Not only do Americans deserve to know what they’re eating, but, as our Xtreme Eating ‘winners’ clearly indicate, lives are at stake. And perhaps when calories become mandatory on menus, chains will begin innovating in a healthier direction,…
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has published the results of a recent poll asking readers whether governments should regulate sugar-sweetened beverages. After presenting two arguments for and against government regulation, the poll received 1,290 votes from readers in 75 countries, with 68 percent of voters favoring “regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages to help reduce the burden of obesity.” In particular, the NEJM pollsters noted that the one outlier was the United States, where only 58 percent of voters favored regulation compared to the 84 percent from other countries. “Readers opposed to government regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages pointed out that the problem of obesity involves much more than the excess consumption of sugary drinks and that limitations on portion size or taxes on soft drinks will not alter the fundamental issue—that people need to change the way they live their lives,” concluded the “Clinical Decisions” article, which also included reader…
Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC has filed a complaint in an Illinois federal court against Kellogg and Keebler, claiming that the companies’ cookie packaging infringes resealable food container patents that Kraft owns. Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., No. 13 321 (N.D. Ill., filed January 16, 2013). According to the complaint, the infringing products involve the defendants’ Keebler Sandies® line of products, including shortbread, pecan shortbread and dark chocolate almond cookies. Kraft alleges that it informed the defendants of the infringement during an August 2012 meeting, but despite that knowledge, “Defendants continue to commit acts of infringement.” Kraft seeks injunctive relief, destruction of infringing products, an accounting, damages, a determination that the case is “exceptional,” attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
A New York resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against the company that makes Red Bull energy drinks, alleging that the product does not, as advertised, “give you wings,” that is, provide more benefit than a cup of coffee. Careathers v. Red Bull GMBH, No. 12-369 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 16, 2013). According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly base their claims that the product will “significantly improve a consumer’s physiological and mental performance beyond what a simple cup of coffee or caffeine pill would do” on scientific studies. The plaintiff claims, “there is no genuine scientific research and there are no scientifically reliable studies in existence that support the extraordinary claims of Defendants.” The complaint outlines the beverage’s history and development, beginning as tonic created in Thailand in the 1980s, and cites research that analyzed energy drink ingredients and concluded, “With the exception of some weak evidence for…
A woman who formerly worked as a LongHorn Steakhouse server has asked a federal court for permission to modify her motion for a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act following the court’s denial of her motion in December 2012 on the ground that she lacked personal knowledge as to practices at the company’s steakhouses across the country. Velez v. GMRI, Inc., No. 12-4857 (N.D. Ill., filed January 14, 2013). The suit involves claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wages. As part of her motion, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint “both to correct the LongHorn corporate entities brought in as defendants, and to clarify the claims brought under the collective procedure.” According to the motion, “the only claim on which Plaintiff seeks collective treatment is the claim that Defendants required tipped employees to perform non-tipped duties while paid the tip-credit wage rate, in violation of…
A federal court in California has dismissed statutory and common law claims filed in a putative class action against Sioux Honey Association Cooperative, alleging that the company falsely labels its Sue Bee Clover Honey® product as “honey,” despite removing the pollen from the product. Ross v. Sioux Honey Ass’n Coop., No. 12-1645 (N.D. Cal., decided January 14, 2013). The court found the claims preempted or insufficiently pleaded in the plaintiff’s third amended complaint and, concluding that any further amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. So ruling, the court declined to rule that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit, finding that her pleadings satisfied the requirements of Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), in which the California Supreme Court recognized that allegations of economic injury arising from reliance on a product manufacturer’s alleged misrepresentations satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing under…
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a consent decree with a federal court in Texas to resolve claims that a Burger King franchise operator discriminated against a former cashier on the basis of religion. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12 3169 (N.D. Tex., filed January 16, 2013). Without admitting liability, the operator has agreed to settle the claims by paying $25,000 to the former employee, who was allegedly fired for wearing a skirt on the job as required by her Pentecostal Christian religion, in two checks: one for $5,000 attributable to wages, and one for $20,000 attributable to claims of mental anguish and suffering. The Burger King franchisee will also post on employee bulletin boards “its policy against religious discrimination and duty to accommodate” and “conduct an annual training session [in 2013 and 2014] for all district managers and general managers for Defendant’s Texas Burger King Restaurants,…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a final decision in a complaint alleging that POM Wonderful made false and misleading claims by advertising its pomegranate juice products with health-benefit assertions that the company contended were backed by medical research. In re POM Wonderful LLC, No. 9344 (FTC, decided January 10, 2013). Additional information about the matter appears in Issue 441 of this Update. Henceforth, two randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) will be required before POM can make a claim that any of its products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction (ED). Any efficacy or health benefit claims falling short of disease claims will require substantiation consisting of “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . that must be sufficient in quality and quantity when considered in the light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to substantiate that the…
At the request of a polystyrene custom mold manufacturer, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will conduct a February 14, 2013, public workshop “concerning OEHHA’s intent to list styrene as a chemical known to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as Proposition 65 [Prop. 65]).” According to the agency’s notice, discussions “should be limited to whether the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report on Carcinogens has identified styrene as a human carcinogen or potential human carcinogen. OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by NTP.” The hearing will be webcast. OEHHA has also extended the public comment period until February 28. See OEHHA News Release, January 17, 2013.
