California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods have been cooked at high temperatures, as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction have both determined that acrylamide is a developmental, male reproductive toxin. Under Prop. 65, a chemical must be listed when an authoritative body formally identifies the chemical as causing reproductive toxicity and the evidence it considered meets certain sufficiency criteria. Public comments must be submitted by April 27, 2010. Noting the significant public interest in the chemical, which has been found in baked goods and cooked starchy foods such as potato chips and French fries, OEHHA has also published a notice of proposed rulemaking that…
Tag Archives California
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a request for public comment on its determination that bisphenol A (BPA) “appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, based on findings of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR, 2008).” The notice states that BPA is a “[c]omponent in polycarbonate plastic used in water and baby bottles, present in epoxy resins used to line food cans and in dental sealants.” Comments must be submitted by April 13, 2010. If requested by March 12, a public forum will be scheduled for the public to “discuss the scientific data and other relevant information on whether the chemical meets the criteria for listing in the regulations.” If OEHHA determines, after reviewing the comments, that BPA should be listed, the agency will publish a…
Two California residents have filed a false advertising complaint on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company falsely labels Chewy Granola Bars® as “0g trans fat” when they actually contain “dangerous amounts of artificial trans fat, a toxic product that causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and is banned in an increasing number of United States and foreign jurisdictions.” Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-502 (N.D. Cal., filed February 3, 2010). Represented by the same counsel and using the same graphics and allegations about natural and trans fats as a complaint filed a few days earlier against Kellogg involving its Nutri-Grain® bars, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Lanham Act, California’s statutory and common laws of unfair competition, and the California False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They seek to enjoin the alleged false marketing and…
Two California residents have filed putative class claims against the Kellogg Co. in a California federal court, alleging that the company misleads consumers by making health claims for its Nutri-Grain® bars and promoting some of its Keebler cookie products as containing 0 grams of trans fat. Higginbotham v. Kellogg Co., No. 10-255 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2010). According to the complaint, which provides detailed information about the differences between natural saturated fats and artificial trans fat, including that the artificial fat “causes cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer,” the trans fat content of Kellogg’s products renders them “dangerous and unfit for human consumption.” The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “All persons who purchased, on or after January 1, 2000, one or more Kellogg products containing artificial trans fat for their own use rather than resale or distribution.” They allege false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging false and misleading advertising for defendant’s “Tropicana Pure 100% Juice Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices from Concentrate with other Natural Flavors.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 09-6130 (C.D. Cal., decided February 1, 2010). Plaintiffs allege that the product label, which emphasizes the pomegranate and blueberry components of the product by image and size of type constitutes false or misleading advertising in violation of several state statutes. According to the complaint, consumers are misled into believing the juice is primarily pomegranate and blueberry juice when it is, in fact, mostly pear juice. Tropicana argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, her claims were expressly preempted by federal law, and they were not pleaded with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that because the plaintiff claimed she did not get what she paid…
The San Francisco Unified School District has reportedly announced plans to stop serving non-fat chocolate milk made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and replace it with formulations using sucrose or regular white sugar. Selling nearly 12,000 cartons of nonfat chocolate milk daily, the district agreed to the change after parents complained about the HFCS content. Its supplier, Berkley Farms, plans to start shipping the reformulated chocolate milk next month, although company officials have noted that the substitution will offer the same caloric and sugar content as the old formula and will not make a difference nutritionally. See San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2010.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that pet food mislabeling claims should not be certified as a class action because the named plaintiff failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Kennedy v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., No. 08-56378 (9th Cir., decided January 6, 2010) (not for publication). The plaintiff alleged that dog and cat food products labeled with “Made in the USA” were mislabeled because they contained ingredients from China and sought to certify a class of individuals from a number of states. While the court upheld the district court’s class certification ruling because the plaintiff failed to show which consumer protection law would apply to the class claims, it reversed the court’s order dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. According to the court, the case, which had been removed from state to federal court, should have been returned…
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of California’s Environmental Protection Agency has proposed implementing Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) food warnings as a pilot program that will expire in 4-5 years. The proposal was presented during the agency’s last informal stakeholder meeting before final regulatory language is drafted. Under Prop. 65, warnings must be provided on products containing chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. OEHHA has been considering for some time how manufacturers and retailers can provide warnings to consumers about the chemicals in foods that are on the Prop. 65 list. Comments may be submitted until January 29, 2010. The pilot program will allow the agency “to make some basic assumptions about the level of participation and coverage of the program, and then test them out over the ‘pilot’ period.” Under the proposal, manufacturers would make product-specific information available to retailers through a central…
Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC has filed a complaint in a California court against a company that makes corks, screw caps, bottles, and other packaging, alleging that defects in the bottles and screw caps purchased for the winery’s Encyclopedia® collection of wines caused the degradation or destruction of 55,000 cases of wine. Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC v. Vinocor USA, Inc., No. 26-50585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Napa Cty., filed November 23, 2009). The winery alleges breach of contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the implied warranty of fitness; fraud in the inducement; negligent misrepresentation; negligence; and “for money had and received.” According to the complaint, the affected wine collection “was crafted and designed to be a collection of wines aimed at educating consumers on understanding how geography, history, food and religion, to name a few, all contribute to the making and enjoyment of wine. In…
Unilever United States, Inc. has asked a federal district court to dismiss a putative class action charging the company with falsely advertising its “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter”® product. Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 09-02563 (N.D. Cal, motion filed November 30, 2009). According to Unilever’s motion, this is a “Private Surgeon General” case that seeks refunds for products purchased over the last four years because Unilever allegedly (i) falsely claims that its products are “Made With A Blend of Nutritious Oils,” and (ii) fails to disclose that the products contain trace amounts of trans fatty acids. Unilever argues that the claims are preempted by federal law which requires a “zero” trans fat content label if the product contains less than 0.5 gram per serving. The company also seeks dismissal under the dormant Commerce Clause, contending that, “If successful, Rosen will Balkanize [trans fat] labeling rules—one set of rules for California…
