Consumer group As You Sow has notified the state of California that a number of chocolate manufacturers are allegedly selling chocolate with levels of lead and cadmium that exceed limits set by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Testing by the organization allegedly indicated that 35 of the 50 chocolate products sampled—including those from Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Godiva and Lindt, among others—contained enough lead or cadmium to trigger Prop. 65 warning requirements. As You Sow has filed 60-day notices with 18 manufacturers based on its testing; following the 60-day period, the organization may initiate litigation against the companies if public officials have not sought enforcement of the statute. “Lead and cadmium accumulate in the body, so avoiding exposure is important, especially for children,” As You Sow President Danielle Fugere said in a March 23, 2016, press release. “Our goal is to work with chocolate…
Tag Archives California
A California federal court has granted The Kroger Co.’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company’s breadcrumbs product includes partially hydrogenated oil, which contains trans fat, despite labeling the product as “0g Trans Fat.” Hawkins v. Kroger Co., No. 15-2320 (S.D. Cal., order entered March 17, 2016). The court found that the mislabeling claims failed for two reasons. First, a challenge to a “0g Trans Fat” labeling claim is preempted, the court said, because U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations require that foods with less than one-half of a gram of trans fat be labeled as “0g.” Second, the plaintiff failed to prove actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive statements, the court found, rejecting her argument that she “is a busy person and cannot reasonably inspect every ingredient of every food that she purchases” despite having bought the bread crumbs six times per year for 15 years but only noticing…
A California federal court has refused to certify a class of consumers alleging that R.C. Bigelow Inc. misled them by over-representing the amount of antioxidants contained in its green tea. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered March 29, 2016). The court previously refused to allow the plaintiff to seek financial records to calculate damages. Additional details appear in Issue 575 of this Update. In its certification analysis, the court found fault with the plaintiff’s three suggested damages models: (i) a restitution calculation, (ii) statutory damages or (iii) a nominal alternative. The plaintiff argued that the restitution calculation model should amount to payments of the full purchase price of the product because the tea is allegedly “legally worthless” for failing to meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements on antioxidant nutrient claims. The court refused to find that consumers received no benefit from drinking the tea, “in…
Food and Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and other consumer and environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arguing the agency approved the use of genetically engineered (GE) salmon AquaBounty for human consumption without properly investigating related environmental risks. Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. Burwell, No. 13-1574 (N.D. Cal., filed March 30, 2016). The complaint alleges that AquaBounty received approval for two facilities only but has told its investors that it will expand in 2016; the organizations assert that FDA should have investigated the environmental effects of AquaBounty’s “necessary outgrowth” rather than limiting its analysis to the effects of two facilities. The complaint further alleges that FDA “failed to consult with the federal fish and wildlife agencies to insure that its approval for AquaBounty’s application was not likely to jeopardize endangered and threatened species or adversely modify…
A consumer has filed a lawsuit alleging that Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. falsely advertised its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite serving meat products from animals fed GMOs and soft drinks that contain GMO corn syrup. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2016). The plaintiff alleges violations of California's consumer-protection law and seeks class certification, damages, an injunction, and attorney's fees. The complaint echoes the arguments in a similar California case dismissed without prejudice in February 2016 finding that the plaintiff's definition of GMO was inconsistent. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint arguing that consumers "reasonably understand today that such claims would mean that Chipotle's menu is 100% free of GMOs and that Chipotle does not serve food sourced from animals that have been raised on GMOs or genetically engineered food." Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952…
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed an emergency action to temporarily allow the use of standard point-ofsale warning messages for bisphenol A (BPA) exposures from canned and bottled foods and beverages. Under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulations, consumer products that contain any chemical known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity or cancer must display a “clear and reasonable” warning on “labeling, shelf tags, shelf signs, menus or any combination thereof as long as the warning is prominent and conspicuous.” Starting May 11, 2016, all foods and beverages that result in BPA exposure must display a similar warning “unless the person causing the exposure can show that the exposure is 1,000 times below the no observed effect level for the chemical.” To avoid consumer confusion and give manufacturers time to transition to BPA-free packaging, OEHHA proposes allowing the temporary use of point-of-sale…
A California federal court has dismissed a proposed class action against Nestlé USA, Inc. alleging that its Coffee-Mate creamer products are mislabeled because they include partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), which contains trans fat, despite listing “0g Trans Fat” on its labels. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 15-1963 (N.D. Cal., order entered March 8, 2016). The court first agreed with Nestlé’s argument that the plaintiff’s three use claims—those arguing that the company’s use of PHO makes it liable for damages to consumers—were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) compliance schedule for removing trans fat from food by June 18, 2018. The court then turned to the labeling claims, which Nestlé also argued were preempted by the FDCA, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which established that a company must list the trans fat content of…
A California federal court has again denied certification in a putative consumer class action challenging Yakult USA’s probiotic yogurt product for allegedly false digestive-health claims. Torrent v. Yakult USA, Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., order entered March 7, 2016). Additional information about the previous denial of certification appears in Issue 589 of this Update. In its prior denial, the court found the plaintiff was unlikely to purchase the product again, thus he lacked standing to pursue an injunction. Following this ruling, the plaintiff purchased Yakult at a store, then refiled his motion for class certification along with a sworn declaration that “I intend to buy Yakult in California in the future.” The court found the refiled motion to be “an effort to manufacture standing in direct response to this Court’s prior ruling.” Allowing the plaintiff “to seek injunctive relief based on his recently-expressed intention to purchase Yakult in the…
A California resident has filed a putative class action alleging Quaker Oats Co. mislabels its instant oatmeal as containing maple syrup despite containing no syrup or maple sugar. Eisenlord v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1442 (C.D. Cal., filed March 1, 2016). Citing a letter from the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers’ Association to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the complaint asserts that adding maple sugar to a product can allow a company to charge a premium price. The plaintiff argues that he relied on the name of the product and a prominent image of maple syrup on the packaging to believe that the oatmeal contained maple syrup, and had he known “that the product did not contain maple syrup or maple sugar as an ingredient, he would not have purchased it.” For allegations of fraudulent inducement and violations of California’s consumer-protection statute, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, an injunction…
A California federal court has rejected a May 2015 settlement agreement reached by StarKist Co. and a class of consumers who alleged the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 19, 2016). The court identified two issues with the settlement: (i) the notice sent to class members did not notify the class of the amended release of future claims, so the settlement notice was inadequate; and (ii) the scope of the original and amended releases violates the identical factual predicate rule. Specifically, the release was too broad because it released StarKist from claims relating to any purchase of StarKist products rather than limiting it to a release from claims related to the purchase of underfilled StarKist tuna products. Details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 566 of this Update. Issue 595
