Tag Archives pesticide

A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Mott's apple juices and applesauce are not "natural" as marketed because they contain trace amounts of pesticides. Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp. Inc., No. 18-6664 (N.D. Cal, entered October 6, 2020). The complaint was previously dismissed without prejudice, and the amended version contained the "same five causes of action" but "added two generic surveys to the allegations." The court examined the additional surveys but was unconvinced that they provided enough support to allow the case to move forward. "The 2015 Consumer Reports Survey arguably undermines, rather than supports, Plaintiff’s argument about the reasonable consumer’s interpretation of the word 'natural,'" the court held. "It states, 'Consumers were asked about their perception of the natural and organic labels. The organic food label is meaningful, is backed by federal regulations, and verified by third-party inspections; the natural label, however, is…

A California federal court has granted certification to a class of consumers who purchased honey from one of the brands produced by the Sioux Honey Association who believed the honey to be "pure" or "100% pure. Tran v. Sioux Honey Ass'n, No. 17-0110 (C.D. Cal., entered February 24, 2020). The plaintiff asserts that the honey is not "pure" because it contains traces of glyphosate. The court assessed the plaintiff's claims and found that they met the certification requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality; further, she was found to be an adequate representative of the proposed class. Accordingly, the court certified a class of California residents who have purchased a Sue Bee honey product since January 2014.

A regulatory committee of the European Union has reportedly voted to prohibit the use of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. Member countries voted to withdraw authorization for the insecticide after January 31, 2020, after which companies will have three months to dispose of their stocks of chlorpyrifos. The vote follows an August 2019 determination by the European Food Safety Authority finding that chlorpyrifos has "no safe exposure level."

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has announced that “virtually all use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in California will end” in 2020 “following an agreement between the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and pesticide manufacturers to withdraw their products.” The companies apparently agreed to end sales of chlorpyrifos by February 6, 2020, and growers will not be permitted to use or possess chlorpyrifos after December 31, 2020. Uses before that deadline “must comply with existing restrictions, including a ban on aerial spraying, quarter-mile buffer zones and limiting use to crop-pest combinations that lack alternatives.” “To ensure consistency for growers and for enforcement purposes, DPR is applying the terms and deadlines in the settlements to seven other companies that are not part of the settlement agreement but are subject to DPR’s cancellation orders,” CalEPA’s press release states.

California regulators have reportedly indicated that they will ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) refusal to ban the substance. “We have to step into the void and take action where the federal government has failed to do so,” the head of the state's environmental agency reportedly told The Los Angeles Times. The announcement also follows a lawsuit filed by California and five other states challenging EPA's decision. In Europe, the approval period for chlorpyrifos ends in January 2020, and the European Food Safety Authority has indicated—without issuing a formal decision—that it has "identified concerns about possible genotoxic effects as well as neurological effects during development, supported by epidemiological data indicating effects in children," according to a press release. "This means that no safe exposure level—or toxicological reference value—can be set for the substance."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reportedly rejected efforts to ban chlorpyrifos, finding that "the data available are not sufficiently valid, complete or reliable to meet petitioners' burden to present evidence demonstrating that the tolerances are not safe." The decision follows a 2015 ban and 2017 reversal, which prompted legal challenges. EPA will reportedly continue to review the safety of chlorpyrifos through 2022.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has affirmed its previous opinions finding that "there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen." “EPA has found no risks to public health from the current registered uses of glyphosate,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a press release. “Today’s proposed action includes new management measures that will help farmers use glyphosate in the most effective and efficient way possible, including pollinator protections. We look forward to input from farmers and other stakeholders to ensure that the draft management measures are workable, realistic, and effective.” Meanwhile, the New York legislature has passed a ban on chlorpyrifos that would take effect January 1, 2020. After that date, aerial application of the pesticide would be prohibited; after January 1, 2021, all use of the pesticide would be prohibited except for…

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Mott's Applesauce and Apple Juice products are mislabeled as "natural" because they contain traces of an insecticide. Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp. Inc., No. 18-6664 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., filed November 1, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that reasonable consumers would not expect to find acetamiprid, a synthetic chemical, in a product labeled as "natural." The complaint echoes a similar lawsuit filed by Beyond Pesticides in May 2017; an amended complaint in that lawsuit was filed in October 2018.

A New York federal court has dismissed allegations from a putative class action arguing that Pret A Manger Ltd. sold sandwich wraps with excess slack fill between the wrap's halves. Lau v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., No. 17-5775 (S.D.N.Y., entered September 28, 2018). The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing for an injunction despite their argument that they would consider purchasing the wraps in the future, finding "no sufficient basis for inferring that plaintiffs would ever seek to purchase a Pret wrap again as long as the status quo persists." The court also disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the slack fill in the wraps amounted to an intent to defraud consumers. "Specifically, plaintiffs state that less than half, or 45 percent, or Pret wraps surveyed contained slack-fill," the court noted. "Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, the Court finds that the facts are insufficient to nudge…