A Nebraska resident alleging that his consumption of Listeria-contaminated cantaloupe grown by Jensen Farms in Colorado caused his infection and subsequent hospitalization, has filed a personal injury action against the grower, distributor, retailer, and the company hired by the grower to conduct a food safety audit before the outbreak. Braddock v. Jensen Farms, No. 11-402 (D. Neb., filed November 30, 2011). According to the complaint, Primus Group, Inc. was negligent in performing the audit and failing to detect Listeria or conditions leading to Listeria contamination at the grower’s facilities and, in breaching its contract with the grower, harmed the plaintiff, a third-party beneficiary. The plaintiff also alleges strict product liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se against the other defendants and seeks general, special and incidental damages.
A federal court in Florida has redefined a plaintiffs’ class in deceptive advertising litigation against the company that claims its Yo-Plus® yogurt provides digestive health benefits. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-60412 (S.D. Fla., order entered December 2, 2011). While the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the class certification decision, it remanded the case for the lower court to redefine the class to omit any reference to plaintiffs’ reliance on company claims, which reliance need not be proved under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Additional information about the Eleventh Circuit ruling appears in Issue 388 of this Update. The class will now be defined as “all persons who purchased Yo-Plus in the State of Florida until the date notice is first provided to the class.”
According to a news source, the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®, which is advertised as part of a healthy breakfast for children, has reached a settlement in the class action certified by a federal court in California last month. In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-205 (S.D. Cal., minute entry November 28, 2011). A docket notation reportedly indicates that the parties settled the claims during a November 28, 2011, mandatory settlement conference and will “submit a joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement no later than December 19, 2011.” Additional details about the court’s class certification order appear in Issue 418 of this Update. The plaintiffs had alleged that the product contains “dangerous levels of fat and sugar.” See BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, December 5, 2011.
According to a news source, Pom Wonderful LLC, which was seeking $18.1 million in lost sales from Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. for falsely selling a pomegranate juice product with just trace amounts of pomegranate juice, lost its case following less than two hours’ deliberation by a federal jury. Pom Wonderful LLC V. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., No. 09-00565 (C.D. Cal., verdict reached December 6, 2011). The trial apparently became a battle of experts who cited conflicting statistics on whether Ocean Spray misled consumers about the quantity of pomegranate juice in its Cranberry & Pomegranate® juice blend, which evidently contains mostly grape and apple juice. Pom Wonderful sought to show that Ocean Spray took advantage of Pom’s extensive medical research into the purported health benefits of pomegranate juice. The company has reportedly lost two other consumer deception cases filed against Welch Foods Inc. and Tropicana Products Inc. See The National Law…
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that, while Dominican Republic plantation owner executives are limited-purpose public figures for purposes of a defamation lawsuit involving a documentary film critical of their operations, the district court erred in denying a motion to compel the disclosure of documents that could pertain to actual malice. Lluberes v. Uncommon Productions, LLC, No. 10-2082 (1st Cir., decided November 23, 2011). So ruling, the court affirmed in part but vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for a review of the purported privileged documents in camera, if necessary, and a determination as to whether sufficient evidence of actual malice has been shown. The film apparently focused on living conditions in the company towns in which the plantation workers live and identified the plaintiffs “as bearing some measure of responsibility for their disrepair.” The plaintiffs argued on appeal that they were not…
During a recent discussion about family and childhood nutrition sponsored by the Brussels-based think-tank Friends of Europe, the World Health Organization’s representative to the European Union reportedly called for imposing steep taxes on salty and sugary foods to address excessive eating. Roberto Bertollini apparently claimed that the campaign against tobacco, including high taxes and government regulation of tobacco use and advertising, provides a model to address increasing rates of obesity. He also called for restrictions on junk-food advertising and government efforts to promote healthy eating habits and exercise. Others participating in the forum reportedly suggested that parents and schools play a role in getting children to adopt healthier lifestyles. See EurActiv, December 6, 2011.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the disclosure of food color additives on front-of-package labeling. Citing “the ubiquity of food colorings” in the American diet, the petition claims that consumers are misled when colorings are used to either mask less-nutritious ingredients or make a product “appear to be of higher quality or nutritional value than it actually is.” The group also points to studies suggesting a link between certain food additives and behavioral effects in children. CSPI urges FDA to “amend the labeling requirements set forth at 21 C.F.R. § 101.22” to require foods containing such additives to state “Artificially Colored” “on the product display package next to the product name in bold letters not less than half the height and weight of the name of the food.” According to CSPI, FDA already possesses the statutory authority and…
A federal court has approved an agreement between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) resolving NRDC’s complaint that the agency unreasonably delayed issuing a final decision on its petition seeking a regulation that would prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging. NRDC v. HHS, No. 11-5801 (S.D.N.Y., consent judgment filed December 7, 2011). Under the agreement, FDA will issue its final decision on or before March 31, 2012. Noting that its petition was filed three years ago, an NRDC spokesperson said, “While we are glad FDA is finally going to make a decision [on] BPA in food packaging and this is a major step forward in the legal process, it is discouraging that FDA has not responded and that we had to ask the court to intervene just to get FDA to do its job. The agency has been dragging…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued a proposed rule to “expand the circumstances under which FSIS will generically approve the labels of meat and poultry products.” Under the proposal, which would also combine regulations into a new CFR part, FSIS would reportedly allow establishments “to label a broader range of products without first submitting the label to FSIS for approval.” As the agency explained in a December 5, 2011, press release, “all mandatory label features would still need to comply with FSIS regulations.” In particular, FSIS noted that the current generic label regulations are too restrictive in practice, compelling the agency to pre-approve “a significant amount of labeling” instead of dedicating resources to other consumer protection and food safety activities. “For example, the label for a nonstandardized product, such as pepperoni pizza (bearing no special statements or claims) that was sketch approved…
A recent Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) study has allegedly linked canned soup consumption to increased urinary bisphenol A (BPA) levels in humans. Jenny Carwile, et al., “Canned Soup Consumption and Urinary Bisphenol A: A Randomized Crossover Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association, November 2011. According to a November 22, 2011, HSPH press release, researchers analyzed urinary BPA levels in 75 volunteers who first consumed one 12-ounce serving of canned vegetable soup for five days and then one 12-ounce serving of fresh vegetable soup for five days, or vice versa. The results evidently indicated that one serving of canned soup daily “was associated with a 1,221 percent increase in BPA compared to levels in urine collected after consumption of fresh soup.” Although the study authors acknowledged that further research is necessary to determine the duration of the BPA spike, they nevertheless found that “the magnitude of the rise…
