Responding to food manufacturers’ requests, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published industry guidance to clarify when fruit and vegetable juices “may be used as color additives for foods without additional premarket review and approval from the agency under its color additive petition process.” Under current regulations, the agency provides that “the safety of fruit juice and vegetable juice as color additives for use in food is assured by the fact that the fruit or vegetable from which the color additive is derived has been safely consumed as food, such that there would not be safety concerns in using the juice or water soluble color components from the fruit or vegetable as a color additive.” In particular, FDA clarifies what it means by the terms “fruit,” “vegetable,” “mature,” “fresh,” and “edible,” as well as “expressing the juice” and “water infusion of the dried fruit or vegetable.” The agency…
Tag Archives juice
Representing a group of three consumers, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo, Inc. alleging the company’s Naked line misleads consumers by naming and labeling its juices with foods “perceived by consumers to be highly nutritious, like kale,” but manufacturing the products without “the ingredient profile represented.” Lipkind v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 16-5506 (E.D.N.Y., filed October 4, 2016). “Consumers are paying higher prices for the healthful and expensive ingredients advertised on Naked labels, such as berries, cherries, kale and other greens, and mango,” said CSPI Litigation Director Maia Kats in an October 4, 2016, press release. “But consumers are predominantly getting apple juice, or in the case of Kale Blazer, orange and apple juice. They’re not getting what they paid for.” The complaint asserts Naked products “predominantly consist of cheaper and less nutritious ingredients like apple juice” and targets the label’s “no…
A consumer has filed a purported class action against PepsiCo and subsidiary Izze Beverage Co. alleging Izze carbonated juice drinks are misleadingly marketed as containing “no preservatives” despite the presence of citric or ascorbic acid. Lindberg v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 16-6569 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 19, 2016). The complaint also challenges Izze’s claim that each bottle “delivers two servings of fruit based on [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)] 2010 Dietary Guidelines,” which is misleading because “the USDA did away with this measure of servings in its 2010 Guidelines precisely because it misleads consumers about how much of various food groups they should eat or drink.” The plaintiff asserts the dietary guidelines claim is also misleading because it “falsely suggests that Izze Sodas contain the nutritional value and health benefits that can be obtained by eating fruit. Whole fruit contains fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Even if Izze Sodas were originally manufactured with…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has threatened to bring lawsuits against Plum Organics and Gerber Products Co. for allegedly deceptive trade practices in the marketing and labeling of their food products for babies and toddlers. In its May 11, 2015, letter addressed to Gerber and its parent company Nestlé S.A., CSPI notes that the company labels several of its products in the 2nd Foods, 3rd Foods and Graduates lines “as being composed of certain healthful ingredients, when, in fact, the Products contain substantial amounts of other less healthful, less valuable ingredients, such as apple juice, that are not identified at all on the [principal display panel].” Similar allegations appear in the letter addressed to the heads of Plum Organics concerning the company’s baby food and 4 Essential lines. The letters assert that both companies market the products as containing high amounts of “healthful, high-value ingredients, such…
A California federal court has approved the proposed settlement in a class action alleging that Jamba Juice® mislabels its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients gelatin, xanthan gum, ascorbic acid, steviol glycosides, and modified corn starch. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., settlement approved March 18, 2015). The December 2014 proposed settlement was reached three months after the court certified the class for liability but not for damages. Under the agreement, Jamba Juice® will remove “all natural” on the product packaging and the company website by March 31, 2015. Additional information about the settlement appears in Issue 547 of this Update. Issue 559
Refusing to certify the class, a California federal court has granted a partial motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging that Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. mislabels its “100% Juice” products as “No Sugar Added” despite adding fruit juice from concentrate. Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 12-3067 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 26, 2015). The plaintiff argued that adding the concentrate and labeling the products “No Sugar Added” violates California law, which prohibits use of that phrase on food “containing added sugars such as jam, jelly, or concentrated fruit juice.” Instead, she asserted, Ocean Spray must include the disclaimer that their products are not low-calorie foods. Ocean Spray argued that the plaintiff did not rely on the “No Sugar Added” label when purchasing the products, and the court agreed, pointing to a deposition in which the plaintiff admitted that calorie content was not a motivating factor in…
A Florida federal court has dismissed a case alleging that Campbell Soup Co. misleadingly labeled its V8 V-Fusion® Pomegranate Blueberry and Acai Mixed Berry products as “100% juice” in a way that implied they contained only the flavoring juices rather than a base mix of fruit and vegetable juices. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 14-291 (N.D. Fla., order entered December 11, 2014). The plaintiff argued that the label was misleading because the “100% juice” statement appeared so close to the flavor name on the label, but after examining each labeling statement, the court disagreed. “[W]hen a product’s flavor comes from a juice that is not the primary ingredient, the name may include the flavoring juice, without including other juices, so long as the label includes the statement ‘that the named juice is present as a flavoring.’ [T]he flavor—in this instance pomegranate and blueberry—must be ‘followed by the word ‘flavored’ in…
A California federal court has denied certification to a putative class action alleging that Mott’s misleadingly labeled its apple juice as having “No Sugar Added” because the plaintiff failed to provide a feasible model for calculating damages. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 3, 2014). The court further refused to certify a liability class, finding it would not materially advance resolution of the case. The court first assessed the proposed class definition. It found that the plaintiff and the proposed class met the requirements of numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, and adequacy; in addition, the court rejected the juice company’s argument that the plaintiff was atypical because he is a Type 2 diabetic who closely reads nutrition labels. The court then discussed whether the plaintiff established that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that…
After a California federal court certified the class for liability but not for damages, the parties to a class action alleging that Jamba Juice mislabeled its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients like gelatin and xanthan gum have reached a settlement. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., plaintiffs’ motion for settlement approval filed December 1, 2014). Under the proposed settlement agreement, Jamba Juice will remove “all natural” from its smoothie kit labeling and advertising by March 2015. The agreement will remain in force until the smoothie kits no longer contain the allegedly unnatural ingredients or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies the ingredients as natural. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive $425,000 in costs and fees. Additional information about the class certification appears in Issue 539 of this Update. Issue 547
A California federal court has certified a statewide liability class in a lawsuit accusing Jamba Juice of labeling its home smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing five synthetic ingredients—ascorbic acid, xanthan gum, steviol glycosides, modified corn starch, and gelatin—but it refused to certify the class for damages. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 18, 2014). The court dismissed Jamba Juice’s argument that the class was unascertainable because no purchase records existed for the kits, finding that such an approach would “have significant negative ramifications for the ability to obtain redress for consumer injuries.” The court agreed, however, with Jamba Juice’s proposition that the plaintiffs could not provide a plausible class-wide damages model, because they did not show “any evidence, expert reports, or even detailed explanation about how those damages models can be fairly determined or at least estimated.” See Bloomberg BNA, September 19, 2014.…
