A consumer has filed a projected class action against Tradewinds Beverage Co. alleging the company’s iced tea products are misleadingly labeled as natural despite containing caramel color. Martin v. Tradewinds Beverage Co., No. 16-9249 (C.D. Cal., filed December 14, 2016). The plaintiff argues that she regularly paid a premium for Tradewinds Iced Tea products believing them to be made of all-natural ingredients. For alleged violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, she seeks a corrective advertising campaign, destruction of all misleading advertising materials, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 626
Tag Archives caramel color/4-MEI
A California federal court has granted preliminary approval for a settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging PepsiCo products contain levels of 4-Methylimidazole (4-MEI) exceeding the legally permissible amount under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Sciortino v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 14-0478 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 28, 2016). Under the settlement, PepsiCo has agreed “to require its caramel coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MeI levels in products shipped for sale in the United States, ensuring the 4-MeI concentration levels will not exceed the level of 100 parts per billion, and to test the covered products pursuant to an agreed protocol.” The court noted that the injunctive relief is the same as the agreement in an action brought by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) alleging similar facts. “However, the Settlement Agreement will ‘enhance the CEH settlement by: (1) expanding the geographic scope of…
A Massachusetts federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging ACH Food Companies Inc. mislabeled its Weber® barbecue sauce as “All Natural” despite containing caramel coloring, finding that a $75 rebate rendered the case moot. Demmler v. ACH Food Cos. Inc., No. 15-13556 (D. Mass., order entered June 9, 2016). Details about the complaint appear in Issue 582 of this Update. The court found ACH had tendered full relief to the plaintiff by sending him treble statutory damages. Further, “the $75 check did not represent a settlement offer—ACH sent the check unprompted, and did not impose any preconditions on [the plaintiff] for doing so. This distinction makes all the difference,” the court held. The plaintiff could not pursue damages when he had already been made whole, the court noted, and his “refusal to accept the $75 is immaterial. The question under Article III is whether a live case or controversy exists,…
A Massachusetts consumer has filed a putative class action against ACH Food Companies, Inc., manufacturer of Weber® BBQ Sauces, alleging the company misleadingly markets its products as "All Natural" despite containing caramel coloring. Demmler v. ACH Food Cos., Inc., No. 15-13556 (D. Mass., filed October 13, 2015). The complaint asserts that under Massachusetts and federal regulations, the term "natural" cannot be used on products containing artificial ingredients such as added flavoring or coloring, so ACH's use of caramel coloring precludes it from labeling and marketing its products as natural. The plaintiff alleges he paid a premium for the sauce because he believed it to be natural, and he seeks to represent a class of consumers alleging unjust enrichment and a violation of state law. Issue 582
A California state court has approved the settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) alleging that PepsiCo Inc. products contain levels of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) that exceed the limits imposed by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Pepsi Beverages Co., No. 14711020 (Cal. Super. Ct., order entered September 17, 2015). Under the settlement agreement, PepsiCo will pay $385,000 and must ensure by January 1, 2016, that its soft drinks sold in California contain levels of 4-MEI within the safe harbor limits set by Prop. 65. CEH initially filed a notice of violation with the California Office of the Attorney General in January 2012; details appear in Issue 427 of this Update. Meanwhile, the parties to a proposed class action alleging similar facts have agreed to stay the case until December 14, 2015, pending…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a class action consolidated from nine lawsuits against PepsiCo, Inc. alleging that the company concealed its products’ content of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical listed as known to cause cancer or reproductive harm under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Sciortino v. Pepsico, No. 14-0478 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 5, 2015). The lawsuits were filed after a January 2014 Consumer Reports test reportedly found that the caramel coloring in PepsiCo sodas contained 4-MEI at levels higher than the Prop. 65 safety threshold of 29 micrograms. Details of a similar lawsuit dismissed in March 2015 requesting medical monitoring appear in Issue 557 of this Update. The court first discussed the notice requirements under Prop. 65, which require 60 days of notice of the alleged violation to government agencies to provide a “non-adversarial opportunity for public agencies to…
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit arguing that PepsiCo Inc. should provide medical monitoring for a class of Diet Pepsi or Pepsi One purchasers because the company does not warn consumers that 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a compound in caramel coloring, has allegedly been linked to potential health risks in rodent studies. Riva v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 14-2020 (N.D. Cal., order entered March 4, 2015). The case was severed from a consolidated class action after the plaintiffs decided to pursue medical monitoring and personal injury claims not included in the consolidated action. Information about the case’s transfer of venue appears in Issue 523 of this Update. The court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claim because “they have not established that the alleged risk of bronchioloalveolar cancer (for which they seek lung scans and testing) is both credible and substantial.” The studies cited as support for the…
A joint study by Consumer Reports and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future claims that 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) exposures “associated with average rates of soft drink consumption pose excess cancer risks exceeding one case per 1,000,0000 exposed individuals, which is a common acceptable risk goal used by U.S. federal regulatory agencies.” Tyler Smith, et al., “Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment,” PLOS One, February 2015. Researchers apparently used ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to estimate 4-MEI concentrations in 12 beverages purchased in California and New York City, then assessed exposure levels based on data obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) and U.S. Census Bureau. In addition to ranking 4-MEI concentrations by brand, product and geographic location, the study authors calculated the lifetime average daily dose and lifetime excess cancer…
A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide and nationwide class action against the Snack Factory, LLC, alleging that it deceptively represents that its Pretzel Crisps are “All Natural” despite including “unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, including but not limited to maltodextrin and soybean oil.” Seidman v. Snack Factory, LLC, No. 14-62547 (S.D. Fla., filed November 7, 2014). The plaintiff asserts claims as to a number of flavor varieties, some of which also contain the “unnatural” ingredients dextrose and caramel color. The plaintiff contends that he and class members paid a price premium for the product “over and above other comparable products that do not claim to be ‘All Natural,’” relying on the product labels to their economic detriment. The complaint specifies in what way the ingredients are not natural, including that some are derived from genetically modified organisms. Alleging violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach…
According to a news source, the Center for Environmental Health has filed a lawsuit under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65), alleging that Reed’s Ginger Products fails to warn consumers about the caramel-coloring chemical 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) purportedly present in its soft drinks. Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Reed’s, Inc., (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filing date unknown). In a June 26, 2014, 60-day notice, the center claimed that the company had violated the law since January 2012, stating, “No clear and reasonable warning is provided with these products regarding the carcinogenic hazards associated with 4-MEI exposure.” Prop. 65, a voter-approved law, requires warnings to consumers about exposures to substances known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive hazards and allows private individuals or organizations to enforce it. See Courthouse News Service, September 11, 2014. Issue 537
