A federal court in New Jersey has reportedly refused to seal information about a proposed settlement involving putative class claims that the manufacturers of “Pirate’s Booty” and “Veggie Booty” food products misrepresented their nutritional labeling information. Schatz-Bernstein v. Keystone Food Prods., Inc., No. 08-3079 (D.N.J., order entered April 17, 2009). The snacks were allegedly marketed as containing only 2.5 grams of fat and 120 calories per serving, when they actually contained nearly four times the fat and were 25 percent higher in calories. The plaintiff alleges breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and a violation of consumer protection laws. According to a news source, the defendants sought to seal settlement details that the plaintiff allegedly published improperly. The plaintiff has apparently maintained that the defendants reneged on the agreement. Denying the defendants’ motion to seal, the court reportedly ruled that the defendants wrongly classified their settlement discussions with the court…
Tag Archives labeling
The Kansas Senate will apparently not try to override former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s veto of a bill that would have required a disclaimer on dairy products made without artificial growth hormones. Sebelius, recently confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, vetoed the bill in late April 2009 reportedly because it would have made it more difficult for consumers to get clear information. “Supporters of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information,” she was quoted as saying. “Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation.” Under the bill, manufacturers that have stated their product is not from cows supplemented with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST) would have had to document the claim and put a disclaimer on the product label. State Senator Marci Francisco, (D-Lawrence) a vocal opponent…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has prepared a summary of the comments and information provided during a 2007 hearing on the use of symbols to communicate nutrition information. Posted to the hearing docket on April 28, 2009, the document notes that significant gaps remain in research about consumer perception, understanding and use of symbols that convey information about nutrition claims on food products. According to the FDA, numerous nutrition symbol systems already exist, but because they “differ greatly,” “the ability of consumers to use these symbols to make nutritional comparisons between products or to determine how a food fits into a diet is uncertain.” FDA commissioned a focus group study and “is currently analyzing qualitative information collected from the study to explore varieties and ranges of consumers’ understanding of and reactions to a selected sample of existing and alternative nutrition symbols.” The agency also apparently needs more information about…
A European Union (EU) ban on U.S. wines violating rules about the use of terms such as “clos” and “chateau” apparently took effect in March 2009. With strict regulations about the use of words like “Champagne,” “Chablis” and “Burgundy,” the EU has been feuding with the United States at least since 2002, and has ended a three-year waiver extended to U.S. vintners in 2006. The United States considers these terms to be “semi-generic,” descriptive of wine styles and not French geography. A number of Sonoma County, California, wineries have reportedly been affected; they include Clos du Bois, Chateau St. Jean, Clos Du Val, and Clos Pegase. According to a news source, the term “clos,” which means “enclosure,” can appear on a French wine label only if the vineyard using the term produces and bottles its own wine. See Miami Herald, March 27, 2009. Meanwhile, a study published in March 2009…
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration have announced an April 7, 2009, public meeting to discuss agenda items and draft positions for the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s 37th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) slated for May 4-8, 2009, in Calgary, Canada. The CCFL “drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses specific provisions on labeling of draft standards, codes of practice, and guidelines prepared by other Codex committees; studies specific labeling problems assigned to it by the commission; and studies problems associated with the advertisements of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.” In particular, the U.S. agencies are seeking public input about (i) draft codex standards for food labeling; (ii) the implementation of the World Health Organization’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; (iii) guidelines for the…
As members of the 111th Congress actively consider how to address food-safety issues and debate in committee whether splitting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in two would best reform federal oversight, new bills addressing food health and safety continue to be introduced. The most recent include: H.R. 1324 – Introduced March 5, 2009, by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), this bill would update national school nutrition standards for foods and beverages not included in school meals. The proposed legislation, with 101 co-sponsors, was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 1332 – Introduced March 5, 2009, by Representative Jim Costa (D-Calif.), this measure, titled the “Safe Food Enforcement, Assessment, Standards, and Targeting Act of 2009” or “Safe FEAST Act of 2009,” would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by strengthening FDA’s authority to inspect records during food-related emergencies, recall contaminated products, accredit food-testing laboratories, and…
California consumers have filed a putative class action against Van’s International Foods and retailers Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Trader Joe’s Co., and Costco Wholesale Co., alleging that Van’s frozen waffles did not accurately state the calorie and nutrient content throughout 2007 and into 2008. Hodes v. Van’s Int’l Foods, No. 09-01530 (C.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2009). According to the complaint, which seeks certification of a nationwide class, the sale in late 2006 of the company that made Van’s frozen waffles involved a change in personnel that required “reverse engineering the recipes for Van’s existing product lines.” That process allegedly resulted in findings that the nutritional information on the product packaging “contained numerous substantial inaccuracies.” The calorie, fat, sodium, carbohydrates, calcium, iron, and fiber content listed purportedly varied by 20 to 100 percent or more from the actual nutritional values. The plaintiffs allege that the company continued to “distribute…
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that rejected the restaurant industry’s preemption and First Amendment challenge to New York City’s health code provision mandating that certain restaurant chains post calorie information on their menu boards. New York State Rest. Ass’n v. NYC Bd. of Health, No. 08-1892 (2d Cir., decided February 17, 2009). The rule has been in effect since July 2008 and applies to restaurants that are part of chains with at least 15 outlets nationwide. The New York State Restaurant Association contended that the rule was preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and infringed its members constitutional rights by compelling speech. According to the court, “In requiring chain restaurants to post calorie information on their menus, New York City merely stepped into a sphere that Congress intentionally left open to state and local governments. Furthermore, although the restaurants are protected…
Multnomah County commissioners have reportedly adopted regulations requiring restaurant chains with 15 or more locations nationwide to display calorie content alongside individual items on their menus. Effective March 12, 2009, the law also requires these establishments to provide information about sodium, saturated fat, trans fat, and carbohydrate content at the point of sale. Restaurants must institute these new policies before the end of the year, when the health department can begin issuing citations and civil fines for violations. “No one says this will solve the problem of obesity in Multnomah County, but it’s an important first step. This is about giving people information. That’s fundamentally different than saying you can’t eat this hamburger, it’s bad for you,” county commissioner Jeff Cogen was quoted as saying. See The Oregonian, February 12, 2009.
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss putative class claims that Arizona Beverage Co. deceptively labels its products as “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” or “Natural,” despite using high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient. Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, No. 08-809 (S.D. Cal., order entered February 4, 2009). The complaint also alleges that those beverages with fruit in the name are deceptively labeled because they “do not contain any substantial amount of the fruit named on the label.” The defendants sought to dismiss claims that they violated consumer fraud statutes by contending that they are expressly and impliedly preempted under federal law. The court summarily ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were not expressly preempted because they do not fall within any of the express preemption provisions of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act. The court also ruled that the claims were not impliedly preempted because (i) the…
