A California federal court has decertified a class and granted partial summary judgment in an action alleging Kraft Foods Group falsely advertised its fat-free cheddar cheese as “natural.” Morales v. Kraft Foods Grp., No. 14-4387 (C.D. Cal, order entered June 9, 2017). Details on previous decisions in the case appear in Issues 570 and 625 of this Update. The court first granted summary judgment for Kraft as to restitution because the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence about their potential willingness to pay a premium based on the “natural cheese” label and therefore could not establish a basis for calculating restitution for the class. Turning to the issue of whether the consumers' belief that the cheese was "natural" was material to their purchasing decisions, the court determined that the plaintiffs' expert testimony created a triable issue of fact that could not be dismissed during the summary-judgment phase. Denying that portion…
Tag Archives labeling
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will postpone the deadline for food companies to use a revised Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods and beverages that includes added-sugar content and emphasizes calorie content. The FDA guidance document on the changes was updated to note that it received feedback from industry and consumer groups about the compliance dates. "As a result, the FDA intends to extend the compliance dates to provide the additional time for implementation," the guidance documents states. "The framework for the extension will be guided by the desire to give industry more time and decrease costs, balanced with the importance of minimizing the transition period during which consumers will see both the old and the new versions of the label in the marketplace." Issue 638
Ferrero SpA, maker of Nutella®, has reportedly won a dispute in the Brussels Court of Appeal over a rival’s advertising that claimed its similar product was healthier because it does not contain palm oil. Ferrero sued Belgium’s Delhaize Group after the “Choco” maker launched an ad campaign claiming its “certified without palm oil” spread was healthier and environmentally sustainable. The court held Delhaize made illegal and unproven comparisons in its environmental and health claims about palm oil and ordered the company to end the campaign. The court also barred Delhaize’s use of the word “chocolate” on Choco labels because the product does not contain chocolate. See 7 Sur 7, June 2, 2017. Issue 637
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and National Consumers League have filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision to delay implementation of rules requiring chain restaurants and food sellers to display nutritional information violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Price, No. 17-1085 (D.D.C., filed June 7, 2017). The plaintiffs allege that the agency “repeatedly delayed” the compliance date for the nutritional labeling rules, which were originally scheduled to take effect in December 2015. One day before the revised enforcement date in May 2017, FDA announced that compliance would be delayed until May 2018. The plaintiffs request that the court vacate the delay. Additional details on the delay announcement appear in Issue 633 of this Update. “The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan said in a June…
Italian food producers reportedly disagree on how to define whether a food product is "made in Italy" in accordance with the country's attempt to distinguish food produced in Italy, such as parmesan cheese or prosecco, from similar foods produced outside of the country. The dispute centers on whether foods manufactured in Italy using foreign ingredients may be labeled as "Made in Italy." According to Reuters, Parmesan and prosecco producers argue against such foods receiving the rights to use the label, while pastamaker Barilla asserts that its foods are just as Italian because the company is Italian despite manufacturing about half of its pasta in plants outside of Italy. See Reuters, June 2, 2017. Issue 637
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has issued a May 28, 2013, ruling that will allow alcoholic beverage manufacturers “to provide consumers with nutritional information about their products.” Acting under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, TTB will permit the use of “Serving Facts” statements on wine, distilled spirits and malt beverages that describe the product’s “serving size, the number of servings per container, the number of calories, and the number of grams of carbohydrates, protein, and fat per serving.” Manufacturers may also choose to include information “about the alcohol content of the product as a percentage of alcohol by volume and may also include a statement of the fluid ounces of pure ethyl alcohol per serving.” According to the new ruling, TTB issued the voluntary guidance pending plans to require similar Serving Facts statements on all alcoholic beverage labels.…
The Canadian House of Commons has voted 216-67 against a proposal to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. The proposed bill would have amended Canada’s Food and Drug Act to state “No person shall sell any food that is genetically modified unless its label contains information . . . to prevent the purchaser or consumer of the food from being deceived or misled in respect of its composition.” Opponents argued that Bill C-291 did not contain a definition of the term “genetically modified” and that the wording was too vague. Issue 635
Syfrett Feed Co., a Florida manufacturer of medicated animal feeds, has entered into a consent decree to control its production process and comply with federal laws before resuming medicated feed operations. U.S. v. Syfrett Feed Co., Inc., No. 17-14038 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 4, 2017). The court entered the decree after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) filed a complaint alleging the company failed to adequately identify and store the drugs it used or prevent contamination of drugs and feeds as well as mislabeled and misbranded feeds. According to the complaint, 17 horses had to be euthanized after eating the company’s horse-pellet food. Syfrett manufactures feeds for cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep, goats and exotic animals, but has agreed to discontinue production of the horse feed connected to the animal deaths. “Animal feed manufacturers that fail to comply with labeling and good manufacturing requirements for medicated animal feeds jeopardize…
Two proposed class actions have been filed in California claiming false labeling of truffle-flavored olive oil. Schiffman v. Urbani Truffles, No. 17-935 (E.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2017); Quiroz v. Sabatino Truffles, No. 17-783 (C.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that the olive oil producers add 2,4 dithiapentane to flavor their products instead of truffles and sell the “truffle infusions” at markups as high as 1,400 percent over the price of plain olive oils. The actions claim violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws. Details on similar lawsuits in New York appear in Issue 633 of this Update. Issue 634
Consumer advocacy group Beyond Pesticides has filed suit against the maker of Mott’s applesauce products, alleging the term “natural” on its labels misleads consumers because the products contain the pesticide acetamiprid. Beyond Pesticides v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., No. 2017 CA 003156 B (D.C. Super. Ct., filed May 5, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that the “natural” and “All Natural Ingredients” labeling on several varieties of Mott’s applesauce mislead consumers who would not expect the products to contain a “synthetic, unnatural chemical.” Claiming violations of the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, the plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief—including the establishment of a “community fund” to raise consumer awareness of acetamiprid—and attorney’s fees. Issue 634
