A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Mott's apple juices and applesauce are not "natural" as marketed because they contain trace amounts of pesticides. Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp. Inc., No. 18-6664 (N.D. Cal, entered October 6, 2020). The complaint was previously dismissed without prejudice, and the amended version contained the "same five causes of action" but "added two generic surveys to the allegations." The court examined the additional surveys but was unconvinced that they provided enough support to allow the case to move forward. "The 2015 Consumer Reports Survey arguably undermines, rather than supports, Plaintiff’s argument about the reasonable consumer’s interpretation of the word 'natural,'" the court held. "It states, 'Consumers were asked about their perception of the natural and organic labels. The organic food label is meaningful, is backed by federal regulations, and verified by third-party inspections; the natural label, however, is…
Tag Archives California
Grand Brands Inc. allegedly markets its True Lemon powdered drink mixes as "naturally flavored" despite containing malic acid, a plaintiff alleges. Tedesco v. Grand Brands Inc., No. 20-1928 (S.D. Cal., filed September 28, 2020). The complaint asserts that Grand Brands fails to identify the type of malic acid included in its products and alleges that "[e]ven if reasonable consumers were to investigate the Defendant’s claims on the Products’ front labels by scrutinizing the ingredient statements on the back, consumers would still be unable to verify whether the Products contained artificial flavoring." The plaintiff further asserts that "analytical testing" of the products "confirmed that Defendant adds the artificial flavoring dl-malic acid to each of the Products." The eight claimed causes of action include alleged violations of California consumer-protection statutes as well as intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
The Center for Food Safety and several food retailers have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging that the agency "fell far short of fulfilling the promise of meaningful labeling" of bioengineered (BE) foods with its 2019 labeling rules. Natural Grocers v. Perdue, No. 20-5151 (N.D. Cal., filed July 27, 2020). The complaint takes issue with four aspects of USDA's BE labeling rule. First, the plaintiffs allege that allowing companies to use QR codes to disclose BE ingredients will "discriminate against major portions of the population—the poor, elderly, rural, and minorities—with lower percentages of smartphone ownership, digital expertise, or ability to afford data, or who live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth." The plaintiffs also object to the terminology USDA chose. The rule uses "bioengineered" rather than "genetically engineered" (GE) or "genetically modified" (GM) and prohibits the use of the latter…
A plaintiff has filed a putative class action asserting that The Kroger Co.'s ground coffee packaging and labeling mislead consumers as to the amount of cups of coffee they can produce. Lorentzen v. Kroger Co., No. 20-6754 (C.D. Cal., filed July 28, 2020). "The scheme is straightforward," the complaint alleges. "Defendant sells the Products with the representation they contain enough ground coffee to yield a specific number of servings (e.g., 225 cups). This representation is prominently displayed on the front panel of the coffee canister. However, if the back-panel brewing instructions are followed, the canister produces significantly less than what is advertised on the front panel." For example, the plaintiff asserts, one product's labeling indicated it could be used to make "about 225 cups," but the contents would make about 110 cups if the direction of one tablespoon of coffee per six ounces of water is followed. The plaintiff seeks…
A California court has reportedly ruled that Californians can buy foie gras from out-of-state sellers and have it delivered within the state to avoid the state's ban on sales or gifts of foie gras. The ruling applies only to individual purchasers, as restaurants and retailers are still prohibited from selling foie gras, according to the Associated Press. “There is no principled way to distinguish between foie gras purchased out of state and transported into California by the purchaser and that which is delivered by a third party,” the court reportedly held.
A consumer has filed putative class action alleging that Vilore Foods Co. Inc. misleadingly marketed Kern’s Nectar canned beverages as natural because they contain malic acid, “a synthetic chemical that is used to make manufactured food products taste like real fruit.” Gross v. Vilore Foods Co. Inc., No. 20-0894 (S.D. Cal., filed May 13, 2020). The complaint asserts that the products violate the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because they “contain additional flavoring ingredients that simulate and reinforce the characterizing flavor,” thus requiring Vilore “to disclose those additional flavors rather than misleadingly suggest that the Product is flavored only by the labeled natural juices.” A footnote indicates that the can packaging contained the statement as of 2017 but the “manufacturer apparently has since deleted ‘100% Natural’ on the retail can labels.” The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctions prohibiting deceptive advertising and requiring corrective advertising for alleged violations of California’s…
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a lawsuit arguing that a 2015 assessment issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “ignores the most logical alternative” in determining the national approach to combating avian influenza in poultry-production facilities. Humane Society of U.S. v. USDA, No. 20-3258 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., filed April 8, 2020). HSUS argues that USDA failed to adequately detail alternatives to its approach to a bird flu pandemic and instead chose as the “preferred alternative” a practice that includes shutting down a facility’s ventilation system, allegedly resulting in the birds inside suffocating and “essentially cook[ing] the conscious birds to a protracted, and unnecessarily torturous death.” HSUS seeks a declaration that USDA’s action was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced that the state will provide workers in the food sector—including farmworkers and employees at grocery stores and fast food restaurants—with two weeks of paid sick leave. The order aims to “fill[] a gap left by federal relief that had provided similar paid leave benefits for employers with fewer than 500 workers,” according to the announcement. The Executive Order also “provides health and safety standards to increase worker and customer protection by permitting workers at food facilities to wash their hands every 30 minutes, or as needed, to increase proper sanitation measures.”
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several agricultural firms have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the agency's denial of the group's petition seeking to ban organic certification of hydroponic food growers. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 20-1537 (N.D. Cal., filed March 2, 2020). USDA denied CFS's January 2019 petition, and CFS argues that the denial was arbitrary and capricious and violates the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The complaint asserts that USDA ignored the National Organic Standards Board's 2010 recommendation against certifying hydroponic operations as organic and "issued a blanket statement" allowing certification that contradicted the recommendation of the board and a hydroponics task force. "USDA offered no supporting rationale for its statement. USDA made the statement in a website announcement, without any opportunity for public input and without taking any rulemaking action," the plaintiffs argue. Further, "USDA failed to explain…
A California federal court has granted certification to a class of consumers who purchased honey from one of the brands produced by the Sioux Honey Association who believed the honey to be "pure" or "100% pure. Tran v. Sioux Honey Ass'n, No. 17-0110 (C.D. Cal., entered February 24, 2020). The plaintiff asserts that the honey is not "pure" because it contains traces of glyphosate. The court assessed the plaintiff's claims and found that they met the certification requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality; further, she was found to be an adequate representative of the proposed class. Accordingly, the court certified a class of California residents who have purchased a Sue Bee honey product since January 2014.
