A federal court in California has denied the class certification motion filed by a woman who sought to represent anyone in the state who had purchased products in entire beverage lines produced by the defendant, because she had purchased just five specific products and thus her labeling and misbranding claims were not typical of those of the putative class. Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 12-3067 (N.D. Cal., decided June 10, 2013). The amended complaint alleged that the company’s juice and drink products were unlawfully labeled “No Sugar Added” or had improper nutrient claims or false representations that the products were “free from artificial colors, flavors or preservatives.” While the plaintiff had purchased five beverages, including a Diet Sparkling Pomegranate Blueberry drink, she sought to certify a class of purchasers of entire product lines, such as 100% juice and Sparkling. According to the court, the plaintiff “has not met her…
Tag Archives labeling
The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has issued a final rule amending the mandatory labeling requirements for wine to permit alcohol content “to appear on other labels affixed to the container rather than requiring it to appear on the brand label.” Effective August 9, 2013, the final rule seeks to provide greater flexibility in wine labeling “and will conform the TTB wine labeling regulations to the agreement reached by the members of the World Wine Trade Group [WWTG] regarding the presentation of certain information on wine labels.” According to TTB, the WWTG Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labeling specifies that all wine labels must display the following common mandatory information (CMI): (i) country of origin, (ii) alcohol content (percentage by volume), (iii) net contents, and (iv) product name. Under the agreement, all four of the CMI elements must appear in a “single field…
A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed a putative class action alleging that General Mills misleads consumers by labeling its Nature Valley products as “Natural” or “100% Natural” when they actually contain highly processed ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose dextrin syrup and maltodextrin. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., decided June 3, 2013). Additional details about the original complaint appear in Issue 453 of this Update. The court dismissed all counts relating to Nature Valley products that the plaintiffs did not purchase, according to their first amended complaint, ruling that they lacked standing to bring such claims. The court dismissed a breach of written warranty claim brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because labeling a product as “100% Natural” is not a written warranty under the law; rather, it is a “product description.” Implied warranty claims under the Act and state law were also dismissed…
Connecticut lawmakers have passed a bipartisan bill (H.B. 6527) that will require labeling on foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, making it the first state in the nation to enact such legislation. Designated as “An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food,” the bill was unanimously passed in the Senate and by a 134-3 vote in the House. Governor Dan Malloy (D) has reportedly indicated that the final step in its passage, his signature, will “not be an issue.” “This is important stuff. . . and I think the rest of the world is starting to understand that.” The bill’s passage came after House and Senate conferees reached a compromise following debate over a different version of the proposal. At issue was whether to allow the law to take effect automatically or to attach a “trigger” that would require neighboring states to pass similar legislation before Connecticut’s law would be implemented and enforced. The final…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Twinings North America, Inc. to the second amended putative class complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she paid a premium for the company’s green, black, white, and red teas relying on their purportedly misleading label—“a natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 23, 2013). The company sought to dismiss claims relating to products the plaintiff did not purchase, labeling the plaintiff did not see or advertising upon which the plaintiff did not rely. According to the court, as long as the “not purchased products” are nearly identical, a plaintiff may bring claims on behalf of others related to those products. Here, “Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon the exact same label describing…
A federal court in Florida has determined that a putative statewide class is not preempted under federal law from claiming that the presence of genetically modified (GM) corn in Campbell Soup Co. vegetable soups renders its “100% Natural” labeling representations false. Krzykwa v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-62058 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 24, 2013). The court also refused to dismiss the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased two soup products with GM corn. Their labels had been pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because they also contained chicken and the agency has pre-approval authority as to these products. Campbell argued that USDA’s seal of approval preempted state law-based labeling-related claims. Later complaint amendments changed the products at issue to vegetarian soups whose labels are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory purview and do not require pre-approval.…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a notice about a collection of information titled “Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts Labels with Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount of Added Sugars” that the agency has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. FDA reported that it plans to use the information to promote public health and explore consumer responses to various food label formats for the footnote section of the Nutrition Facts label, including “those that exhibit information such as a description of percent Daily Value, a succinct statement about daily caloric intake, a general guideline for interpreting percent Daily Values, or a footnote about nutrients whose daily intake should be limited.” This study will also reportedly explore “how declaring the added sugars content of foods might affect consumers’ attention to and understanding of the sugars and calorie contents and other information…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a modified 10-year review schedule that includes Fair Packaging and Labeling Act regulations among those for which the agency plans to request public input in 2013 as to their need, costs, benefits, and burdens. Specifically at issue are the regulations under sections 4 and 5(c), exemptions from requirements under 16 C.F.R. Part 500, and statements of general policy or interpretation (16 C.F.R. Part 503). FTC also intends to review and solicit public comments on its telemarketing sales rule. See Federal Register, May 23, 2013.
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by General Mills in litigation alleging that certain of its Nature Valley® products are deceptively labeled and advertised as “natural” because they contain sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup or maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin, which are purportedly “highly processed” and therefore not “natural.” Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2013). The plaintiffs are represented by Center for Science in the Public Interest attorney Stephen Gardner. The court disagreed with General Mills that the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred the claims, finding that the Food and Drug Administration “has signaled a relative lack of interest in devoting its limited resources to what it evidently considers a minor issue, or in establishing some ‘uniformity in administration’ with regard to the use of ‘natural’ in food…
The Vermont House of Representatives has passed a bill (H. 112) that would require labeling of foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. According to the legislative findings recited in the proposal, “There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods, as indicated by the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies published in international scientific literature showing negative, neutral, and positive health results.” The findings also suggest that GM crops pose environmental hazards. The measure, which requires Senate approval, would define what constitutes genetic engineering, prohibit any GM food from bearing a “natural” label and require placement of the term “‘genetically engineered’ immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.” If enacted, the proposal would take effect on the first of two dates: “18 months after two other states enact legislation with requirements substantially comparable to…
