The Center for Food Safety has returned to a federal court in California charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with violations of the law in partially deregulating genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets. Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-0831 (N.D. Cal., filed February 23, 2011). Details about the agency’s action are included in Issue 381 of this Update. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the group and several other organizations concerned about the safety of GE crops and their alleged potential to contaminate conventional and organic crops, challenge the February 4, 2011, APHIS decision to approve an environmental assessment prepared in connection with the agency’s decision to issue an interim partial deregulation of Roundup Ready® sugar beets. According to the complaint, “The partial deregulation decision purports to allow planting and use of [GE sugar beets] pending the completion by APHIS of an…
Tag Archives California
California State Assemblymen Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) and Jared Huffman (D- San Rafael) have introduced a bill (A.B. 376) that would prohibit the possession, sale, trade, and distribution of shark fins. Apparently in demand for shark fin soup, “the ingredient is very high in mercury and the FDA warns that it could be dangerous to consumers’ health,” according to a joint press release issued by the lawmakers. Calling shark finning “a senseless act” in which fins and tails are cut from living sharks with the remainder of the fish thrown back in the ocean, Huffman noted that the practice “can seriously destabilized the food chain” because of sharks’ predatory status “in ocean ecosystems around the world.” Although shark finning is illegal under federal and California statutes, Fong called those laws “insufficient when we have species of sharks depleted up to 90 percent. The demand for shark fin is growing and the…
A diabetic man has reportedly filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking at least $4,000 in mental anguish damages from a Studio City sushi restaurant that requires those patrons paying an all-you-can-eat price to eat all of the food served and not just the fish. Martin v. A Ca-Shi Sushi, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct.). David Martin alleges that restaurant owner Jay Oh is discriminating against diabetics by requiring them to eat the rice along with the sashimi, which Martin picked out and consumed, leaving the rice behind. According to a news source, Oh offered to prepare two orders of sashimi alone for Martin at a cost of $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal, but Martin refused. Instead, he filed a lawsuit and said he would be willing to settle for $6,000. Oh is reportedly going to fight the litigation even if his legal costs exceed…
Galeos, LLC has been sued in a federal court in California for misrepresenting the nutritional content of its miso-based salad dressings, purportedly advertised on the weight-loss TV show “The Biggest Loser” and promoted as beneficial to health. Healey v. Galeos, LLC, No. 11-00240 (C.D. Cal., filed February 11, 2011). Details about a previous suit with similar allegations filed in the same court appear in Issue 376 of this Update. The plaintiff contends that independent laboratory testing has shown that the label for the company’s Miso Caesar Dressing® understates the calories by 430 percent, the fat by 550 percent and the sodium content by 350 percent. Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation. She also seeks an injunction requiring the publication of corrective nutritional values, compensatory and punitive damages, as well…
The parties litigating whether Welch Foods, Inc. falsely labeled its “100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate flavored 3 juice blend” beverage have filed a stipulation of settlement in a California federal court. Burcham v. Welch Foods, Inc., Nos. 09-05946 and 10-01427 (C.D. Cal., filed February 7, 2011). Under the agreement, a nationwide class of consumers would release their claims in return for refunds and coupons for replacement products, depending on whether they can prove that they purchased the product. The company would place coupons for free juice products in Sunday newspapers throughout the United States at a total value of $30 million. While Welch’s continues to maintain that the labeling claims are preempted by federal law and that the company has complied in all respects with federal law, it also claims that it lost money selling the white grape pomegranate juice. Acknowledging the difficulties in locating class members, Welch’s has also…
Montana and California residents have sued Safeway, Inc. in a California state court on behalf of a putative nationwide class of customers that the company allegedly failed to notify about tainted food recalls despite the ability to contact purchasers of contaminated products through its “club card” loyal customer program. Hensley-Maclean v. Safeway, Inc., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed February 2, 2011). Backed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the plaintiffs allege that they purchased Salmonella-tainted peanut butter and egg products from the grocery and learned only by chance on the news or from neighbors that the products were subject to a recall. According to the complaint, the company’s club card program gives the grocery contact information for participating customers and a history of the purchases they have made. The plaintiffs allege, “Many of Safeway’s competitors already use their own customer data to notify their…
A California resident who purportedly bought the hazelnut spread Nutella® to provide a nutritious snack or breakfast for her 4-year-old daughter has filed a putative class action against its manufacturer alleging violations of consumer protection laws. Hohenberg v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-0205 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2011). Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the product since 2000, Athena Hohenberg claims that she relied on the company’s product advertisements and representations that Nutella® is a “healthy breakfast” and “nutritious.” According to the complaint, she did not learn until December 2010 “through friends what ingredients were in the Nutella® that she was feeding her family. She was shocked to learn that Nutella® was in fact not a ‘healthy’ ‘nutritious’ food but instead was the next best thing to a candy bar,” containing “about 70% saturated fat and processed sugar by weight.” Characterizing herself as a “reasonably…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Taco Bell Corp., alleging that the company violates consumer protection laws by mislabeling some of its beef products as containing seasoned beef “when in fact a substantial amount of the filling contains substances other than beef.” Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., filed January 19, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and claiming that damages exceed $5 million, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unlawful business acts and practices, including misbranded food in violation of federal law. She also asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, attorney’s fees, and costs. According to plaintiff’s counsel, testing has shown that “the taco meat filling is about 35 percent meat.” The complaint asserts that the company’s use of the term “seasoned beef” in the labeling and advertising of its beef…
Seeking additional input before ruling on a certiorari petition, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the acting solicitor general to provide the U.S. government’s view of a challenge to a California law that prohibits slaughterhouses from receiving, processing or selling nonambulatory animals and prohibits dragging or pushing downer animals. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, No. 10-224 (U.S., request filed January 18, 2011). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the state to enforce the law, finding that it is not preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Additional details about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling appear in Issue 344 of this Update. California adopted the law after The Humane Society’s video of the mistreatment of downer cattle at a slaughterhouse became public and led to a massive beef recall in 2008.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed a no significant risk level (NSRL) of 16 micrograms per day for 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical commonly present in foods such as wine, soy sauce and Worcestershire sauce after they have been cooked. The food industry was apparently unable to prevent OEHHA from listing the ubiquitous chemical as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) and may now be considering challenging the NSRL. The proposed threshold will reportedly require Prop. 65 warnings on thousands of products. The chemical is also apparently used in the production of some pharmaceuticals. OEHHA requests comments by February 21, 2011. See Inside Cal/EPA, January 13, 2011.
