A New York resident has filed a putative class action against Boar’s Head Provisions Co., alleging that the company’s advertising and labeling representations—“47% lower sodium,” “42% lower sodium,” and “40% lower sodium”—for some of its deli meats, including turkey breast and ham, contain as much sodium as its regular deli meat products and a higher percentage of sodium than stated when compared to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reference products. Mackles v. Boar’s Head Provisions, Co., Inc., No. 13-4855 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 12, 2013). According to the complaint, the defendant’s representations are inaccurate by a factor of more than 10 percent. The plaintiff also alleges that when he asked the company about the lower-sodium claims on its product labels, he received a letter stating that they “were submitted to and approved by the USDA.” On further investigation, the plaintiff allegedly learned from USDA that companies must ensure labeling accuracy, and…
Tag Archives labeling
A California resident has filed consumer fraud claims on behalf of a putative statewide class against a company that makes fruit juices with “No Sugar Added” statements on the product labels and without a statement that the juice is not a “low calorie” or “calorie reduced” product allegedly in violation of federal regulatory requirements. Cuzakis v. Hansen Beverage Co., No. BC513620 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 27, 2013). According to the complaint, the juices are made from fruit juice concentrate and thus cannot be labeled “No Sugar Added,” and with 120 calories per reference serving greater than 30 grams (“about as much as a conventional soft drink”) must include a disclosure that they are not “low calorie.” While the plaintiff alleges that he is a diabetic and must purchase products low in sugar, he does not seek damages for personal injury; rather, he claims he would not…
A federal court in California has dismissed in part and granted in part allegations in a second amended, putative class complaint filed against three food and beverage companies for alleged violations of state consumer fraud laws in the labeling claims on a plethora of products including chewing gum, juices, cookies, crackers, granola, stuffing, and cheese. Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 12-2554 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered June 28, 2013). Information about a previous ruling in the case appears in Issue 473 of this Update. The court dismissed with prejudice (i) the plaintiff’s claim that a “natural flavors” label on Crystal Light® is misleading because the product contains artificial flavors; the court found that the two specific ingredients alleged to be “artificial” flavors are artificial ingredients and nothing in the Food and Drug Administration regulations suggests that potassium citrate and sodium citrate are flavors; and (ii) the…
A federal court in California has dismissed as preempted certain claims filed by a putative class alleging that Unilever deceptively markets “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray.” Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 13-1675 (N.D. Cal., order entered July 9, 2013). The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiff has 30 days to amend her complaint. Other claims were also dismissed without prejudice because they were not sufficiently pleaded or because the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a claim under the consumer protection laws of the other states named in the complaint. A claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff claims that the product is deceptively marketed as having “0 fat” and “0 calories” when it actually contains 771 calories and 82 grams of fat per bottle. While the product label specifies that the no-fat and no-calories claim is per serving, and users are referred to…
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published a final rule “to enhance the requirements for documentation to support labels on tuna products that represent the product as dolphin-safe.” According to NMFS, the rule “is intended to better ensure dolphin-safe labels comply with the requirements of the DPCIA [Dolphin Protection Consumer Identification Act] and to ensure that the United States satisfies its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).” Information about an adverse WTO ruling in a dispute with Mexico over U.S. dolphin-safe labeling provisions appears in Issue 424 of this Update. See Federal Register, July 9, 2013.
Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Kellogg Co. in a California federal court alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Super Mario Fruit Snacks® and Pop Tarts® as “Made with Real Fruit.” Spevak v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2767, Barnes v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2768, Ford v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2770 (N.D. Cal., filed June 14, 2013). Each plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Lopatin in the Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein. Plaintiff Alicia Spevak alleges that the “real fruit” claim is misleading because the fruit snack product “merely contains de minimis real fruit and unhealthy, unnatural ingredients, chemicals and preservative additives, in addition to merely containing apple puree rather than real fruit, which a reasonable consumer would not expect from a product claiming to be ‘Made with Real Fruit.’” Spevak seeks to represent a class of California product purchasers and alleges unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices; false and…
The European Parliament has reportedly passed legislation regarding the labeling and content of baby formula and other foods for special medical purposes. Included in the new rules, which reportedly take effect in 2016, is a ban on the use of images of babies on infant formula packaging. Specifically, the new rules state that the labeling, presentation and advertising of infant formula and follow-on formula (for babies ages 6 to 12 months old) must not include “pictures of infants, or other pictures or text which may ideali[z]e the use of such formula[]” in order “not to discourage breast-feeding.” Graphic representations intended for “easy identification of the formula and for illustrating methods of preparation” will evidently still be permitted. See European Parliament News Release, June 11, 2013.
An international group of nutrition scientists has recommended that the quality of carbohydrates in foods as measured by their glycemic index (GI) should be included in national dietary guidelines and on food labels. Drafted during the International Scientific Consensus Summit on Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load and Glycemic Response held June 6-7, 2013, in Stresa, Italy, the group’s scientific consensus statement concludes that carbohydrate quality is significant and that carbohydrates present in different foods affect post-meal blood sugar differently, with important health implications. The scientists also cited “convincing” evidence that low GI/glycemic load (GL) diets reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease, help control blood glucose in people with diabetes and may help with weight management. “Given essentially conclusive evidence that high GI/GL diets contribute to risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, reduction in GI and GL should be a public health priority,” said participating scientist…
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Pepperidge Farm falsely advertised and labeled its Goldfish® crackers as “Natural” despite using genetically modified (GM), synthetic or artificial ingredients to make them. Koehler v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 13-2644 (N.D. Cal., filed June 10, 2013). Among other matters, the plaintiff alleges that the company changed the product’s packaging and labeling to remove the “Natural” statement and characterizes this as “an implied admission that the Products were not natural at all material times hereto when the Plaintiff and putative Class Members purchased the Products that claimed to be ‘Natural’ and no longer make said claim.” According to the complaint, the company’s cheddar-flavored products “contain genetically modified soy in the form of soybean oil, as well as the following ingredients, which, upon information and belief, were each synthetically produced: thiamine mononitrate (‘vitamin B1’), riboflavin (‘vitamin B2’), folic acid and…
A federal judge in California has notified the parties to a consumer-fraud action against the company that makes Mission® tortilla chips of her inclination to stay the litigation for six months and refer to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the question “whether products containing GMO [genetically modified organisms] or bioengineered ingredients may properly be labeled ‘Natural’ or ‘All Natural.’” Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal., notice filed June 7, 2013). The plaintiffs have opposed the tentative stay order, arguing that a prompt regulatory determination is unlikely given FDA’s past inaction on the matter. They reportedly cited a recent Florida decision denying a soup company’s motion to dismiss similar litigation on preemption grounds because FDA does not regulate “Natural” or “All Natural” food labeling claims. The court, however, cited a Ninth Circuit ruling deferring to FDA’s regulatory authority so that the agency’s “considered judgments” would not be undermined…
