A European Court of Justice adviser has determined that Monsanto Co. cannot seek royalties from a company that imported from Argentina soy meal containing residues of Monsanto’s patented gene. Case C-428/08, Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Cefetra BV (Op. of Advocate Gen. Mengozzi, delivered March 9, 2010). Monsanto has no patent on its Roundup Ready® soybeans in Argentina. In 2005 and 2006, the company had shipments of soy meal from Argentina impounded in Amsterdam harbor, and testing showed that it contained some of the seed traits that Monsanto has patented in the European Union (EU). The company then sued the importers for infringement, and a Dutch court hearing the dispute sought guidance from the EU tribunal. Disagreeing with Monsanto, which argued that its EU patent covers the DNA sequence, the adviser opined that under Directive 98/44, “a DNA sequence must be regarded as protected, even as a self-standing product, only where it…
Over the past two years, little has taken place in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., the putative class action litigation brought in 2002 on behalf of obese and overweight teenagers who alleged that the fast food restaurant is responsible for their weight-related health conditions. On March 10, 2010, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Donald Pogue. Since Judge Robert Sweet recused himself in 2008 from the case he had heard through two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the matter has been passed to three different judges. Currently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 30, 2002).
A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice some of the claims filed by a food supplier in a dispute over insurance coverage in food-contamination litigation. Nat’l Surety Corp. v. Pacific Int’l Vegetable Mktg., Inc., No. 09-4898 (N.D. Cal., decided March 5, 2010). A fast food restaurant was sued for injuries purportedly linked to foodborne contamination, and it filed a third party complaint against the company that supplied the lettuce which allegedly caused the outbreak. The supplier turned to the lettuce grower’s insurer to defend it under a policy that was supposed to include the supplier as an additional insured pursuant to an agreement between the supplier and grower. The insurer refused to defend the claims, and the supplier sued the agent purportedly responsible for adding the supplier to the insurance policy for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that certain business expense claims and a personal property claim made by a poultry processor for damages sustained during a break in electrical service caused by an ice storm were not covered by the processor’s insurance policy. George’s Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co., No. 09-2220 (8th Cir., decided March 9, 2010). The insurer paid the processor’s claims for lost business income and extra expenses totaling more than $300,000, but refused to pay $155,000 in fixed labor and overhead costs and $30,000 for chickens that died in the processor’s holding shed. The court agreed with the insurer that the refused claims were subject to exclusions under the insurance policy, rejecting the processor’s contentions that (i) its labor and overhead costs were extra expenses because the processor experienced an increase in cost-per-pound when the business disruption caused it to process less chicken…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended until April 7, 2010, the public comment period on its proposal to add epoxiconazole, a triazole fungicide used on coffee beans and bananas grown outside the United States, to the state’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. According to OEHHA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the chemical as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. If the fungicide is added to the list, warnings will have to be provided to California consumers purchasing products containing the substance. See OEHHA News, March 8, 2010.
New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) has reportedly introduced legislation (A.B. A10129) that would bar restaurants from using salt “in any form” during food preparation. According to the bill, which cites the World Health Organization, “three quarters or more of the sodium intake in the United States comes from processed or restaurant foods.” Proposing to fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation, the law aims to “give customers the option to add salt after the meal has been prepared for them,” allowing them “more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and . . . the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles.” Meanwhile, the legislation has drawn swift criticism from consumers, nutritionists, restaurateurs, and chefs, the latter of whom have noted the important chemical role of salt in baked goods and other dishes. “Chefs would be handcuffed in their food preparation, and many are already in open rebellion…
Facing budget shortfalls in the upcoming fiscal year, several state and city legislatures are reportedly considering a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Kansas Senator John Vratil (R-Leawood) this week proposed a bill (S.B. 567) that would tax such products, including energy and sports drinks, at the rate of one penny per teaspoon of sugar. According to its proponents, the measure would add a dime to the cost of a typical 12-ounce soft drink and raise approximately $90 million per year. “The thinking is No. 1, we need money,” Vratil was quoted as saying. “But perhaps just as importantly, obesity is a real, growing problem.” See The Kansas City Star, March 9, 2010. In addition, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has introduced a FY 2010-11 budget that includes a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks. Media sources have apparently likened the measure to current excise taxes or the 10 percent “liquor-by-the-drink” tax.…
While the city of Zurich reportedly employs a lawyer to represent animals in cases alleging abuse or excessive cruelty to animals, Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have expanded the practice throughout the country. Some 70.5 percent of the electorate defeated a proposal that would have required paying 25 or more lawyers to prosecute humans on behalf of abused animals. Some have attributed the outcome to recent press reports that Zurich’s animal advocate was involved in prosecuting an angler who boasted that it took him some time to reel in a 22-pound pike. The angler was charged with and prosecuted for causing excessive suffering to the animal, but later acquitted. Although the pike story attracted numerous animal rights fans, many Swiss apparently did not believe that fish need legal representation. See The Guardian, March 5, 2010; The New York Times, March 8, 2010.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) was scheduled to begin a series of antitrust workshops March 12, 2010, in Iowa, to hear from agricultural interests about consolidation and competition in the industry. The workshops have drawn considerable commentary, with some focusing on the biotechnology giants that control most of the patented soybean and corn seeds in the country and others suggesting that small family farms are being excluded from the proceedings. The consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch launched a petition drive calling on supporters to encourage DOJ to “break the monopolies.” According to the organization’s outreach director, four companies process more than 85 percent of U.S. beef cattle, two companies sell 50 percent of U.S. corn seed, one company controls 40 percent of the U.S. milk supply, and five companies “dominate the grocery sector.” Focusing on competition in the seed, dairy, poultry, beef, and crop industries, the hearings, which…
U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has responded to a recent recall of melamine-tainted milk from China by urging her peers to pass country-of-origin labeling (COOL) legislation (S.B. 1783) for all dairy products sold in the United States. Introduced by Al Franken (D Minn.) as the Dairy COOL Act of 2009, the bill would extend current labeling requirements for nuts, fruits, vegetables, meats, and seafood to milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and butter. “We must do more to protect consumers and provide a competitive edge to New York dairy farmers,” Gillibrand said in a March 3, 2010, press release. “All consumers have the right to know whether the milk, yogurt and cheese that we buy are made in Upstate New York or China.” See Dairy Reporter.com, March 4, 2010. The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) in 2009 registered opposition to the proposal, which is still under consideration by the Senate Committee on…
