A recent literature review has examined research that links children’s artificial sweetener consumption to weight gain, purportedly finding “no strong clinical evidence for causality.” Rebecca J. Brown, et al., “Artificial Sweeteners: A systematic review of metabolic effects in youth, “International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, January 2010. Sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease, the meta-analysis looked at 18 studies that included both randomized controlled trials, which did not demonstrate any adverse or beneficial metabolic effects for artificial sweeteners, and “data from large, epidemiologic studies,” which tended to “support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children.” The review also pointed to questions raised by recent animal studies while admitting the difficulty of establishing “causality between artificial sweetener consumption, weight gain, and metabolic abnormalities, as artificial sweetener is like to be an indicator for other variables.” According to the authors, “At…
This article chronicles a growing movement among “normal weight folks” who have become “vocal, sometimes vehemently so, in their support for ‘sin taxes’ on junk foods and soda,” and who have “increasingly attacked, with words or actions, the overweight or obese.” Jameson quotes Douglas Metz, chief of health services for a San Diego-based company that offers wellness programs to employers, as saying: “Americans as a society are getting fed up with the matter of obesity. No doubt about it. Some pockets of society are taking positive action, and unfortunately others are taking negative action. That’s what happens when a society hasn’t figured out what the fix is.” Jameson cites several examples, including the recent unsuccessful plan of Lincoln University in Pennsylvania that sought the body mass index of every enrolling student and required the obese to lose weight or take a fitness class before they could graduate and the attempt…
The Committee on Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols of the Institute of Medicine held a meeting on February 2, 2010. The committee was established at the request of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to undertake a review of front-of-package (FoP) nutrition rating systems and symbols. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information that might help the committee conduct its study. Among those appearing during the meeting were representatives of the FDA, CDC and U.S. Department of Agriculture. FDA staff indicated that in March 2010 the agency plans to issue a proposed rule that will define the scope of what constitutes a “dietary guidance statement” and provide criteria for the use of these statements. A 90-day comment period will follow its publication in the Federal Register. FDA will also be issuing two guidance documents, one of which will…
According to a news source, some 120 of those purportedly sickened by Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter and their attorneys should soon begin receiving a share of a $12 million Hartford Insurance Co. policy held by the Peanut Corp. of America. Those sharing the settlement filed claims by October 31, 2009, as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceeding. The outbreak reportedly took the lives of nine people and sickened 700 who apparently ate peanuts and peanut paste traced to a company plant in Blakely, Georgia. See The Columbus Dispatch, February 2, 2010.
A number of microwave popcorn workers and their spouses have reportedly filed a complaint against a flavoring company in a federal court in Illinois, alleging personal injuries, loss of consortium and wrongful death from exposure to the butter flavoring diacetyl. Barker v. Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., No. 10-48 (S.D. Ill., filed January 21, 2010). The workers were apparently employed by AgriLink, a microwave popcorn manufacturer; they claim that diacetyl exposure can cause the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. According to the complaint, the defendant misrepresented the chemical’s safety and hid research on its risks from users. The plaintiffs apparently allege negligence and products liability and are seeking compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010.
A New Jersey resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that the company’s claims about the beneficial digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® yogurt products are false and misleading. Amin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-305 (D.N.J., filed January 19, 2010). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company’s own studies refute many of its health claims; he also cites insufficient-evidence findings by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of New Jersey residents who purchased the product since they were first sold in the state and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express warranty. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010. In issue 333 of this Update, we discussed the decision of a federal court in Florida to certify a class action raising the…
Two California residents have filed a false advertising complaint on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company falsely labels Chewy Granola Bars® as “0g trans fat” when they actually contain “dangerous amounts of artificial trans fat, a toxic product that causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and is banned in an increasing number of United States and foreign jurisdictions.” Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-502 (N.D. Cal., filed February 3, 2010). Represented by the same counsel and using the same graphics and allegations about natural and trans fats as a complaint filed a few days earlier against Kellogg involving its Nutri-Grain® bars, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Lanham Act, California’s statutory and common laws of unfair competition, and the California False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They seek to enjoin the alleged false marketing and…
Two California residents have filed putative class claims against the Kellogg Co. in a California federal court, alleging that the company misleads consumers by making health claims for its Nutri-Grain® bars and promoting some of its Keebler cookie products as containing 0 grams of trans fat. Higginbotham v. Kellogg Co., No. 10-255 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2010). According to the complaint, which provides detailed information about the differences between natural saturated fats and artificial trans fat, including that the artificial fat “causes cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer,” the trans fat content of Kellogg’s products renders them “dangerous and unfit for human consumption.” The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “All persons who purchased, on or after January 1, 2000, one or more Kellogg products containing artificial trans fat for their own use rather than resale or distribution.” They allege false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging false and misleading advertising for defendant’s “Tropicana Pure 100% Juice Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices from Concentrate with other Natural Flavors.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 09-6130 (C.D. Cal., decided February 1, 2010). Plaintiffs allege that the product label, which emphasizes the pomegranate and blueberry components of the product by image and size of type constitutes false or misleading advertising in violation of several state statutes. According to the complaint, consumers are misled into believing the juice is primarily pomegranate and blueberry juice when it is, in fact, mostly pear juice. Tropicana argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, her claims were expressly preempted by federal law, and they were not pleaded with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that because the plaintiff claimed she did not get what she paid…
The state government of Western Australia (WA) recently announced its decisionto allow the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) canola within the region as of this year. State Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman reportedly signed the exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act of 2003, thus permitting WA farmers to grow GM canola varieties approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Redman noted that, according to a government report, commercial trials have proven the feasibility of segregating GM canola “from paddock to port,” a requirement of the Act meant to preserve the state’s “markets and reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops before adequate segregation and identity preservation systems are in place.” As WA Premier Colin Barnett stated, “This decision brings WA in line with other major grain growing states in New South Wales and Victoria, where growers have been able to grow GM canola…
