Multidistrict litigation (MDL) plaintiffs who challenged claims that Tyson products were made from “chickens raised without antibiotics” have sought approval of a settlement reached with the company. In re: Tyson Foods Inc., Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics Consumer Litigation, MDL No. 1982 (D. Md., motion filed January 12, 2010). Under the terms of the settlement, Tyson will pay up to $5 million to three tiers of plaintiffs: those who can provide receipts (they can recover up to $50); those who can estimate how much they spent on the products, how often they purchased them and where the purchases were made (they can recover up to $10) and those who simply claim they purchased the product at least once and submit a claim for a $5 coupon instead of cash. Four named plaintiffs in the suits consolidated before the MDL court for pre-trial proceedings and four class members who were deposed will receive…
Tag Archives poultry
A fractured Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that claims alleging violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 must be supported by proof of injury, or likelihood of injury, to competition. Wheeler v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., No. 07-40651 (5th Cir., decided December 15, 2009). The issue arose from a complaint filed by certain poultry “growers,” alleging under the Act that another grower “was given a contract [with defendant] on preferable terms.” The district court and a Fifth Circuit panel concluded that the Act did not require a showing of adverse effect on competition and allowed the claims to proceed. The appeals court, in a 9-7 decision, reversed, finding the district court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Four judges joined the majority opinion but authored a concurrence to more clearly discuss the statutory interpretation principles at issue in the case. The dissenting judges, relying on…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has published a supplemental proposed rule that would “require nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies.” FSIS proposed a similar rule in January 2001, and this notice responds to public comments already submitted and “explains how the Agency intends to proceed with a final rule.” Under the proposal, the nutrition facts label would contain information about serving size, calorie content, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, fiber, protein, and vitamins. Additional public comments are solicited and must be submitted by February 16, 2010.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that animal rights activists and organizations lack standing to challenge the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) interpretation of a 1958 humane animal slaughtering statute in a manner that excludes poultry from its application. Levine v. Vilsack, No. 08-16441 (9th Cir., decided November 20, 2009). The issue arose in a case alleging that “inhumane methods” of poultry slaughter increased the risk of food-borne illness to plaintiff consumers as well as health and safety dangers to plaintiff poultry workers. The court reversed a district court order granting USDA’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. According to the court, the plaintiffs had the burden of establishing that their alleged injury “was likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.” The key to the court’s redressability determination was that the 1958 law’s only enforcement mechanism was later repealed. If…
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation (S.B. 2819) “to require that food producers take responsibility for keeping food free from harmful pathogens,” according to a November 30, 2009, press release. The Processed Food Safety Act would amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, Federal Meat Inspection Act and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to “prohibit the sale of any processed poultry, meat and FDA-regulated food that has not either undergone a pathogen reduction treatment, or been certified to contain no verifiable traces of pathogens.” The Act also includes provisions to (i) require that “labels on ground beef, or any other ground meat product, specifically name every cut of meat that is contained in the product,” and (ii) close loopholes “in current laws that allow for producers to add coloring, synthetic flavorings and spices to their products without informing the consumer.” In announcing the bill, Feinstein highlighted a recent…
The European Union has reportedly blocked a U.S. request that the World Trade Organization (WTO) settle a dispute over a ban on American poultry imports. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative apparently asked for the ruling after industry groups criticized the scientific evidence behind an EU regulation prohibiting the pathogen-reduction treatments used in U.S. poultry processing. According to the National Chicken Council, U.S. poultry exports could exceed $300 million if EU regulators permitted the in-plant use of chlorine dioxide, trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite and peracetic acid in products destined for the European market. The European Union cannot block a second request, which is apparently expected in November. See Bloomberg.com, October 23, 2009; Meatingplace.com, October 26, 2009.
The National Chicken Council and several other industry groups have signed a letter to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, requesting the initiation of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel to re-establish poultry exports to Europe. According to the letter, the European Union prohibits four antimicrobials commonly applied in the United States to reduce pathogens on processed poultry. The trade groups have reportedly estimated that U.S. poultry exports could exceed $300 million if EU regulators permitted the in plant use of chlorine dioxide, trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite and peracetic acid in products destined for the European market. “[T]he United States should continue to pursue with the European Union resolution of the issue,” stated the letter, which concluded that “it would be most appropriate to take the issue to the next step in the WTO dispute settlement process.” See NCC News Release, October 1, 2009; Law360, October 2,…
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has sued KFC Corp. and its parent Yum! Brands, Inc. in a California court, alleging that they have failed to comply with Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by selling grilled chicken without warning consumers that it contains a substance, PhIP, known to the state to cause cancer. PCRM v. KFC Corp., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed September 23, 2009). According to a news source, the allegations are nearly identical to litigation PCRM filed in 2008 against other fast-food restaurants. A court dismissed that complaint, citing the preemption of Prop. 65 claims by federal law which requires chicken to be cooked to food-safe temperatures. PCRM has reportedly appealed the court’s ruling, arguing that the food-safe temperature requirement is merely U.S. Department of Agriculture policy and that states traditionally govern public health and safety issues. KFC was not apparently included in the earlier…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public feedback on the conditions under which the agency should permit “natural” labeling claims for meat and poultry. The current FSIS standard states that minimally processed meat and poultry products can use the “natural” label if the product “does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredients, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient.” The agency is now considering whether to define the term “natural” or continue evaluating the claim on a case-by-case basis. It specifically seeks comments on “how best to coordinate FSIS’ regulation of ‘natural’ claims with the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) voluntary ‘naturally raised’ marketing claim standard.” FSIS will accept comments until November 13, 2009. See FSIS Press Release, September 11, 2009; Federal Register, September 14, 2009.
South Carolina poultry production line workers have reportedly sued their employer, claiming they are not paid for the time they spend donning and removing safety gear. According to a news source, the complaint alleges that this can extend a worker’s shift by some 75 minutes each day. The employees also alleged that they are required to stand in line before clocking in to start their shifts so they can purchase the protective gear they need, such as gloves, hair nets, face masks, earplugs, and arm sleeves. Apparently, this gear is damaged regularly while in use, so the workers must buy the supplies at the worksite with a company debit card several times each week. The employer has reportedly countered that it “does not consider time spent in line for supplies and time donning and doffing the minimal gear as compensable time.” According to the company, which was recently indicted for…
