The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is representing a California woman who has sued General Mills, Inc. on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers who purchased the company’s Fruit Roll-Ups®, Fruit by the Foot® and Fruit Gushers® products, claiming that the company deceptively markets them as healthy and wholesome. Lam v. General Mills, Inc. No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., filed October 14, 2011). According to CSPI, “General Mills is basically dressing up a very cheap candy as if it were fruit and charging a premium for it.” Product labeling purportedly refers to the snacks as “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” “good source of Vitamin C,” “low fat,” and “gluten free.” The complaint alleges that these claims are misleading because the snacks actually contain trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes. The plaintiff also alleges that the products lack “significant amounts of real, natural fruit” and have no…
Tag Archives California
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the deadline for public comment on a proposal to increase the no significant risk level (NSRL) for 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) to November 7, 2011. The action was taken in response to a request from the American Beverage Association and International Technical Caramel Association. The chemical has been identified as a by-product of fermentation, heating or roasting in certain foods and beverages, such as coffee, some carbonated beverages, beer and wine, soy sauce, molasses, and crackers. The new proposed NSRL is 29 micrograms per day, an increase from the 16 micrograms per day level that OEHHA proposed in January.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated six actions questioning the “100% Natural” claims for Wesson oil products before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in California. In re: Wesson Oil Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2291 (JPML, transfer order filed October 13, 2011). The defendant requested the transfer, and while the California, Florida and New Jersey plaintiffs supported consolidation, they disagreed on the transferee district. According to the court, centralization “in the Central District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” The court found, “All actions contain similar allegations against ConAgra and share factual questions regarding the labeling and marketing of Wesson oils as ‘100% Natural’ when the oils purportedly contain genetically modified plants or organisms. Little litigation activity has occurred in the actions, which were all filed within the past…
According to a news source, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is poised to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups in response to a petition filed by the American Chemistry Council. A council spokesperson apparently stated during an October 7, 2011, press briefing that while scientific data and government assessments have declared the chemical safe and U.S. manufacturers ceased making these products with the plasticizer in response to market demand, the council took the action because of “quite a bit of legislative activity around a product that doesn’t exist” and “[c]onfusion about these products has become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators.” An environmental advocate reportedly characterized the council’s petition as a “stunning reversal,” noting that the “industry spent millions this year fighting efforts in California and other states to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.” The Environmental…
An environmental and public-health advocacy organization has filed a Proposition 65 lawsuit against numerous food and beverage producers in a California state court, alleging failure to warn the public that their baby and toddler foods and fruit juices contain lead, a chemical known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity or cancer. Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., No. 11597384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed September 28, 2011). Alleging one count of violating Proposition 65, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation of the law, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. According to the complaint, the plaintiff notified the companies about the alleged violation in 2010 and provided the required notice to the state attorney general, who is not apparently prosecuting an action involving this claim.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice indicating that it has changed the proposed regulation establishing a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for 4-MEI and augmented the record with additional references. The new proposed NSRL is 29 micrograms per day, increased from the proposed 16 micrograms per day level. The chemical, 4 Methylimidazole, has been identified as a by-product of fermentation, heating or roasting in certain foods and beverages, such as coffee, some carbonated beverages, beer and wine, soy sauce, molasses and crackers. Comments are requested by October 24, 2011.
The Carcinogen Identification Committee of California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will meet October 12-13, 2011, to consider, among other matters, whether bisphenol A (BPA) should be designated as a high priority for preparation of hazard identification materials and further considered for inclusion on the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer (Prop. 65). Among those filing comments on the proposal are the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Toy Industry Association. They contend that BPA should be designated as a low priority.
A Texas resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against the Naked Juice Co., alleging that its “100% Juice,” “100% Fruit,” “All Natural,” and “non-GMO” beverage products are falsely labeled because they contain synthetic and genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Sandys v. Naked Juice Co., No. 11-8007 (C.D. Cal., filed September 27, 2011). The complaint claims that the defendants concealed the nature, identity and source of their products’ added ingredients, such as vitamins and “natural flavors,” and that the plaintiff paid a premium price for falsely labeled products and ingested substances she did not expect and did not consent to. The plaintiff also contends that some of the product ingredients are harmful to human health and the environment as well as to the workers who produce them. Alleging numerous violations of state and federal consumer fraud and product warranty laws, negligence and negligent misrepresentation, strict liability, assault and battery, and conspiracy,…
California residents have filed a putative class action in federal court against a company that promotes its granola, cookie and trail mix products as “100% Pure and Natural,” despite making them with some purportedly synthetic ingredients. Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., No. 11-4678 (N.D. Cal., filed September 21, 2011). Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiffs allege that they would not have purchased the defendant’s products at a premium price if they had known that “synthetic ingredients were used in the product.” According to the complaint, the company’s products contain cocoa processed with alkali, glycerin and lecithin. The plaintiffs allege unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and false advertising under California law; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. They seek restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and “[a]n order requiring an accounting for, and imposition of,…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Brinker International, Inc., alleging that when she worked for one of its Chili’s Grill & Bar Restaurants she was not paid minimum wage, because the company “fraudulently and maliciously caused Plaintiff and Class members to make up the restaurants’ cash shortages.” Eldred v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., No. 56-2011-00403808 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., filed September 15, 2011). According to the complaint, if a customer leaves the restaurant without paying or does not leave enough money to pay the entire tab, “it is defendant’s corporate policy to either inform the server that he or she has to pay for the walkout or that server will be written up and if it happens again that server may be terminated. Defendant uses the threat of termination to induce class members to pay for walkouts out of their own money.” Alleging failure to pay minimum…
