A recent study has allegedly linked a second artificial butter flavoring— 2,3-pentanedione (PD)—to respiratory toxicity in animals, raising concerns about the diacetyl replacement’s potential effects on factory workers. Ann Hubbs, et al., “Respiratory and Olfactory Cytotoxicity of Inhaled 2,3-Pentanedione in Sprague-Dawley Rats,” The American Journal of Pathology, September 2012. After exposing rats to either PD, diacetyl or air for six hours, researchers reported that those inhaling PD “developed necrotizing rhinitis, tracheitis, and bronchitis comparable to diacetyl-induced injury.” The study’s authors then investigated PD’s delayed toxicity on the animals, concluding that the substance caused “respiratory epithelial injury in the upper nose . . . which progressed through 12 to 14 hours after exposure,” as well as the loss of olfactory neurons and altered gene expression in the brain. “Our study demonstrates that PD, like diacetyl, damages airway epithelium in laboratory studies. This finding is important because the damage is believed to be…
Tag Archives butter
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Smart Balance, Inc., alleging that the 100 mg of plant sterols in a single serving of the company’s spreadable butter products do not, as advertised, block the absorption of dietary cholesterol. Aguilar v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., filed July 27, 2012). The named plaintiff seeks to represent either a multistate class of consumers or a California class. According to the complaint, studies show that, to reduce cholesterol, “a minimum of 0.8 grams, and preferably 2 grams, of plant sterols must be consumed daily.” Given the purportedly modest amount of sterols in the defendants’ products, the plaintiff claims that half a container would need to be consumed in one day “to realize even the minimum amount of cholesterol reduction benefit.” The plaintiff claims that she purchased the product relying on the cholesterol benefit representations and did not get…
Putative class actions have been filed in New Jersey and California federal courts against Tropicana Products, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its orange juice as “100% pure and natural,” when it actually “undergoes extensive processing which includes the addition of aromas and flavors.” Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 11-07382 (D.N.J., filed December 19, 2011); Lewis v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 12-00049 (E.D. Cal., filed January 6, 2012). Both plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes. The New Jersey plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive and declaratory relief. He requests compensatory, treble and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution; injunctive relief; attorney’s fees; and expenses and costs of suit. The California plaintiff, who also seeks to certify a subclass of California consumers, alleges unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty; violation of the state Consumers…
Based on a small sample of butter purchased in Texas grocery stores, researchers have concluded that high levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in one sample “were likely transferred from contaminated wrapping paper to butter.” Arnold Schecter, et al., “Contamination of U.S. Butter with Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers from Wrapping Paper,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011. While they were unable to pinpoint the contamination’s source, the study’s authors suggest that their research can “serve to alert the public, scientists, food processors, and regulatory agencies that relatively high levels of food contamination with emerging POPs [persistent organic pollutants] sometimes occurs.” They call for additional research and spot checks by regulatory agencies “to determine when and where screening for POPs contamination of food is most appropriate and would also help reduce incidence of contaminated food sold to the public.” Meanwhile, in commentary on recent scientific literature involving food contact materials, an assistant University…
A California resident has sued Unilever United States, Inc. in federal district court, seeking class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, and punitive damages for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws in the sale and marketing of a butter-substitute product known as “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®” Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 09-02563 (N.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2009). According to the complaint, Unilever labels and promotes its product as “Made with a Blend of Nutritious Oils” and “a better nutrition option than butter,” when, in fact, the product contains “a highly unhealthy, non-nutritious oil known as partially hydrogenated oil.” Claiming that he would not have purchased the product but for reliance on defendant’s purportedly deceptive statements, named plaintiff Amnon Rosen alleges only economic injury, stating that he “suffered injury in that he would not have paid money for the Product had these misrepresentations not been made.” Still, he avers…
