The Cancer Project, a vegan advocacy group affiliated with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), has reportedly filed a putative consumer fraud class action on behalf of three New Jersey residents that seeks to require cancer-risk labels on hot dogs and other processed meats. Filed July 22, 2009, in New Jersey Superior Court, the complaint names as defendants the parent companies of several hot dog manufacturers, including Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp. and Nathan’s Famous Inc. The suit seeks damages for the named plaintiffs and declaratory relief under the Consumer Fraud Act for the proposed class. The Cancer Project has contended that processed meats contain human carcinogens like nitrites and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), basing its claim on a recent meta-analysis by the American Institute for Cancer Research that purportedly associates the daily consumption of processed meat with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. “Just as tobacco causes lung cancer,…
Tag Archives New Jersey
A consumer supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has reportedly filed a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging that meals he purchased at Denny’s® restaurants contained “alarmingly large and undisclosed amounts of sodium.” DeBenedetto v. Denny’s Corp., No. ___ (N.J. Super. Ct., filed July 23, 2009). At issue are menu items such as Moons Over My Hammy, Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt and Meat Lover’s Scramble, which purportedly contain sodium levels that exceed the daily recommended limit of 1,500 mg. According to the complaint, “Denny’s menu deceptively presents various items as single meals to be consumed by one individual without disclosing that they contain substantially more sodium (in some case two or three times more) than the maximum recommended amount for all meals consumed by an individual during the day.” The class action “seeks to compel Denny’s restaurants to disclose on menus the…
Acting on behalf of an apparently energized Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a complaint for injunction against a New Jersey company and its owner seeking to halt the manufacture and sale of their dietary supplement products, in part, for failure to comply with good manufacturing practice requirements. U.S. v. Quality Formulation Labs., Inc., No. 09-03211 (D.N.J., filed July 1, 2009). The complaint alleges that the defendants have caused their protein powders and other dietary supplements to be adulterated “in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth (as a result of rodent activity) or may have been rendered injurious to health (as a result of cross-contamination with a major food allergen).” The allergen at issue is milk. The complaint also alleges that one of the defendants’ articles of food is adulterated “in…
A Texas resident has filed a putative class action in a New Jersey federal court against the manufacturer of a fruit blend, which he alleges is falsely advertised as a product that helps control blood pressure and flush sodium. Slaughter v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 09-2072 (D.N.J., filed May 1, 2009). At issue is Unilever’s SuperShots®, a fruit blend in three flavors sold in small “shot”-sized bottles. Each contains 350 mg of potassium and is allegedly promoted as a functional food that “will enable consumers to help control blood pressure and flush sodium from their bodies.” According to the complaint, the product does not have this effect and has not been subjected to any clinical trials. The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of product purchasers and alleges violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, breach of implied and express warranties and unjust enrichment. He seeks restitution, disgorgement, monetary…
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…
A New Jersey resident has filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court against Perdue Farms, Inc., alleging that the company is forcing consumers to subsidize the company’s costs of disposing of extra giblet parts by “a secret practice” of inserting them into whole chickens sold by the pound to retail customers. Marin v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 08-001 (D.N.J., filed December 17, 2008). The plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a “(b)(2) Injunctive Relief Class” consisting of “All persons who purchased Perdue whole chicken at retail” and a “(b)(3) Multi-State Sub-Class” consisting of those who purchased whole chickens at retail “in the states of New Jersey, California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington.” The complaint alleges violations of consumer protection acts and unjust enrichment, and seeks “a declaration that “only the proportional amount of giblets are to be packaged in a whole chicken,”…
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in New Jersey has entered an order approving the settlement of claims that pet food contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid sickened and killed thousands of cats and dogs in the United States. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1950 (D.N.J., filed November 18, 2008). In its 65-page opinion, the court certified the class for settlement purposes and approved an award of $24 million to the plaintiffs and nearly $6.4 million in attorney’s fees. The court also denied a motion to intervene, overruled several objections and granted a motion to strike a separate motion for attorney’s fees. Pet owners will be eligible for documented economic damages, such as veterinary bills, cremation, burial services, costs of new pets, and healthy pet screenings. Claims without documentation will be paid up to a maximum of $900 for each claimant. If the claims exceed the available funds,…
A federal court in New Jersey has reportedly approved a $24 million settlement that resolves claims for contaminated pet food filed in 80 putative class actions against more than 60 companies. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1850 (D.N.J., settlement approved October 14, 2008). The claims, which had been consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court, arose out of the deaths and illnesses of cats and dogs that consumed pet food with wheat gluten which had been adulterated with melamine in China to boost its protein content. The contamination led to a massive recall in March 2007. Apparently, more than 10,000 pet owners have filed claims; they will reportedly have until November 24, 2008, under the settlement’s terms to obtain up to $900 per animal, even without receipts for pet food or the costs of their pets’ illness and death. No sums will be paid…
According to a news source, a federal court in New Jersey has dismissed claims that the manufacturer of a beverage containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) deceived the public by promoting the product as “all natural.” The court apparently based its ruling on federal preemption, leaving it to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define the terms “natural” and “all natural.” U.S. District Judge Mary Cooper reportedly stated, “This court will not determine that which the FDA, with all of its scientific expertise, has yet to determine, namely how the terms ‘natural’ and ‘all natural’ should be defined and whether either may be used on the label of a beverage containing HFCS. Instead, this court will allow the FDA, which has already set forth specific requirements for what must be included on beverage labels, to decide whether such a determination is necessary and warranted.” The ruling specifically applies to Snapple®…
