Welch Foods, Inc. is the most recent recipient of a letter from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) warning the company that, if not otherwise resolved, the watchdog’s claims that Welch is making deceptive health-benefit representations about its fruit snacks, spreads and juices will be taken to court for injunctive relief. According to the August 14, 2012, letter, the types of matters about which CSPI is most concerned are (i) “Welch Foods claims that its 100% Fruit Juice product line is heart-healthy and may promote overall health”; (ii) “Welch Foods claims that its Fruit Snacks, Fruit Juice Cocktails, Spreads, and 100% Fruit drinks ‘Reward Your Heart’ and are heart-healthy products”; and (ii) “Welch Foods claims that its Fruit Snacks products are nutritious and healthful to consume.” CSPI contends that, to the contrary, the products contribute to “insulin resistance and obesity, and may thus promote heart disease and…
Tag Archives snack
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has sent a July 18, 2012, letter to the chief executive officer of DreamWorks Animation SKG, criticizing the studio’s decision to license its popular film characters to food companies. Focusing on the recent film Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted, the consumer group cited tie-ins “with multiple companies and retailers” that allegedly market food products to children, but singled out DreamWorks’ partnership with Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. as particularly problematic because the snack manufacturer is not currently a member of the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI). “DreamWorks characters from Madagascar 3 are depicted on the packages of Nekot Cookies and Sandwich Crackers, which are of poor nutritional value,” alleges CSPI, which has also called on Snyder’s-Lance to apply nutrition standards “to 100% of the company’s marketing, not only via television, print, radio, Internet, and mobile devices, but…
Seeking to represent a statewide class of product purchasers, a California resident has filed a putative class action against Costco, alleging that the company falsely sells its Kirkland Signature Kettle Brand Potato Chips®, which purportedly contain “more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams,” with a “0 Trans Fat” label. Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 12-2908 (N.D. Cal., filed June 5, 2012). Citing 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(h), plaintiff Karen Thomas contends that the defendant is “prohibited from making the unqualified nutrient claims of ‘0 grams Trans Fat’ on its food products if they contain fat in excess of 13 grams, saturated fat in excess of 4 grams, cholesterol in excess of 60 milligrams, or sodium in excess of 480 mg per 50 grams, unless the product also displays a disclosure statement that informs consumers of the product’s fat, saturated fat and sodium levels.” She alleges that the product…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Starbucks Corp. alleging that the company deceived consumers by failing to disclose that some of its products were made with cochineal extract, a common food-coloring ingredient made from crushed insects. Anderson v. Starbucks Corp., No. BC485438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 25, 2012). Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff claims that she and the class members, had they known about the company’s use of the ingredient, would not have purchased the products for a number of reasons, including objections to consuming animal products, allergic responses to the ingredient or “sheer disgust.” Alleging violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and False Advertising Act, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/concealment, and violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, payment to a cy pres fund,…
A Florida resident has filed a complaint on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers against Frito-Lay, alleging that it sells the company’s snack foods, such as Tostitos® chips, Sunchips® and bean dip, as “All Natural” without disclosing that they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Foust v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-21975 (S.D. Fla., filed May 25, 2012). According to the complaint, “The Product poses a potential threat to consumers because medical research and scientific studies have yet to determine the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods. Recent studies suggest that GMOs may in fact be harmful to a consumer’s health.” Still, the plaintiff does not allege personal injury, claiming instead that he would not have purchased the product “if he had known that the Defendant could not support their [sic] claim that the Product is all natural because it contains GMOs.” In this regard, the plaintiff notes that…
A federal court in California has dismissed several of the claims brought in a putative class action against General Mills, alleging that the company misleads consumers with the package labeling for its Fruit Roll-Ups® and Fruit by the Foot® products. Lam v. General Mills, Inc., No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 10, 2012). Additional details about the litigation, in which the Center for Science in the Public Interest is representing the plaintiffs, appear in Issue 414 of this Update. The court agreed with General Mills that label statements about the products’ flavorings, i.e., “naturally flavored” and “fruit flavored,” conform to federal law, and thus state-law claims alleging that these statements are misleading or deceptive are preempted. In this regard, the court noted, “the regulation allows a producer to label a product as ‘natural strawberry flavored,’ even if that product contains no strawberries. While the regulation’s logic is troubling, the Court…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that its product labels, ads and Website representations for Muscle Milk® ready-to-drink beverages and snack bars violate state unfair competition and false advertising laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and constitute fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Delacruz v. Cytosport, Inc., No. 11-3532 (N.D. Cal., decided April 11, 2012). While the court determined that the plaintiff has standing to pursue the putative class claims and that the claims are not preempted by federal law nor should be stayed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, it found many of her claims insufficiently pleaded. According to the court, the only claim that survives the motion to dismiss alleges that the term “healthy fats” on the 14-ounce Muscle Milk® ready-to-drink label could constitute deceptive product labeling, because “[a] reasonable consumer would be likely…
Contending that snack maker Frito-Lay North America makes “improper nutrient content claims on products containing disqualifying levels of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol or sodium,” a new plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the company and its parent in a California federal court. Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1586 (N.D. Cal., filed March 29, 2012). Several other cases have recently been filed against the company, challenging its “all natural” claims for products allegedly containing genetically modified ingredients. The new action targets the company’s “0 grams of trans fat” representations on its Lay’s Classic Chips® “despite disqualifying levels of fat that far exceed the 13g disclosure level.” The plaintiff reportedly cites Food and Drug Administration warnings to other companies “for the same type of improper 0 grams trans fat nutrient content claims at issue in this case.” See Foodnavigator-usa.com, April 4, 2012.
A federal court in Texas has determined that a trademark and patent infringement lawsuit involving Frito-Lay North America’s corn chip products can be maintained in the Eastern District of Texas because it has jurisdiction over the defendants and the defendants failed to show that it was “clearly more convenient” to litigate the matter in Arkansas. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., No. 12-74 (E.D. Tex., order entered March 30, 2012). Details about the case are included in Issue 427 of this Update. According to the court, after Frito-Lay notified the defendants that their BOWLZ product infringed its patent and trade dress rights, the defendants filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Frito-Lay filed its suit the same day in the Eastern District of Texas. The Arkansas court stayed that action pending the Texas court’s ruling on jurisdiction and venue, noting that “[i]f the…
A federal court in New York has reportedly consolidated three putative class actions against Frito-Lay North America Inc. involving claims that the company falsely advertised its chips as “all natural” despite using genetically modified corn and oil in the products. In re: Frito-Lay N. Am. Inc. “All-Natural” Litig., No. 12-00408 (E.D.N.Y., order entered March 20, 2012). Two of the suits were filed in December 2011 in California, and the plaintiffs agreed to transfer the claims to New York where a similar action had been filed in January 2012. The parties reportedly stipulated to the consolidation “to streamline the litigation and conserve judicial resources.” See Law 360, March 21, 2012.
