During a recent interview with Atlantic journalist Joe Fassler, author Michael Moss discussed “the language of junk-food addiction” and the role of salt, sugar, fat, and texture in snack foods allegedly engineered to promote “mindless eating—where were [sic] not really paying attention to what we’re putting in our mouths.” According to Moss, who spoke with Fassler about why consumers find processed foods like potato chips so appealing, the food industry has invested “a trillion dollars of money” in creating and marketing products that seek “to override the natural checks that keep us from overeating.” “And I’ve found that the language they use to describe their work and their products and their [sic] striving not just to make us like their products but to make us want more and more of them is absolutely revealing,” opines Moss. “When they talk about the allure of food, they hate the word addiction: but…
Tag Archives snack
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal court has approved a consent decree with Clifton, New Jersey-based Butterfly Bakery, Inc. over claims that it distributed misbranded food products, such as muffins and snack cakes. United States v. Butterfly Bakery Inc., No. 13-669 (D.N.J., order entered March 5, 2013). Under the agreement, the bakery will be unable to process or distribute food until it complies with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA and state testing apparently showed that foods labeled as “sugar free” contained sugar, and some products contained three times the amount of declared or labeled sugar and two times the amount of fat or saturated fat. See FDA News Release, March 13, 2013.
According to news sources, a federal jury in Texas has determined that Ralcorp Holdings, which makes bowl-shaped tortilla chips sold as store brands, did not violate trademarks or infringe patents on an allegedly similar product made by Frito-Lay and sold as TOSTITOS SCOOPS!®. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., No. 12-00074 (E.D. Tex., decided March 1, 2013). Additional information about the lawsuit can be found in Issue 427 of this Update. Frito-Lay had sought an order requiring that the defendant cease making BOWLZ® and CUPZ® chips and $4.5 million in damages. See Businessweek, March 4, 2013; The Kansas City Star, March 5, 2013.
A federal court in California has determined that Diamond Foods’ investors adequately pleaded knowledge, or scienter, on the part of the company and individual senior officers to allow putative class claims against them for false and misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws to proceed. In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litig., No. 11-05386 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 30, 2012). The court also dismissed claims filed against the company’s auditor, finding insufficient allegations to raise a strong inference of scienter, but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to cure its deficiencies. The litigation arises from events occurring in 2010-2012, when Diamond was attempting to purchase the Pringles brand of snack chips from P&G. The company allegedly manipulated prices paid to walnut growers during those years and failed to properly account for the payments, resulting in what appeared to be an inflated value for its shares. When the irregularities…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Compliance, claiming that caffeinated snack foods violate the agency’s determination “that caffeine is generally recognized as safe only in cola-type beverages and only at concentrations at 0.02 percent or less (about 72 mg per 12 oz.).” Singling out a new line of Frito-Lay’s Cracker Jack® snacks, Kraft’s MiO Energy “water enhancer” and Jelly Belly’s “Extreme Sport Beans,” CSPI alleges that these products could represent “the beginning of a craze in which many companies, large and small, disregard FDA’s regulation and begin adding caffeine to all kinds of foods and beverages.” In particular, the consumer group has raised concerns that caffeinated snacks like “Cracker Jack’D” are child-friendly even if they are not marketed directly to children. “Kids will naturally be attracted to a tasty, finger-friendly snack food packaged and advertised with…
A Colorado resident has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative nationwide class against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Cheddar Goldfish crackers “natural,” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 12-2918 (D. Colo., filed November 6, 2012). Claiming damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff claims that she “purchased the Product believing it to be ‘Natural’ because he [sic] read and relied on Pepperidge Farm’s material statement that the Product is ‘Natural,’ prominently displayed on the Product’s front labeling/packaging. Plaintiff has been damaged by her purchase of the Product because the labeling and advertising for the Product was and is false and/or misleading under Colorado law; therefore, the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and/ or Plaintiff did not receive what he [sic]…
School districts in California, New Mexico and Illinois have reportedly publicized their intention to ban “Flamin’ Hot” Cheetos® snacks from campus vending machines and lunches over concerns about the product’s nutritional content. According to media reports, the schools in question have described the snack item as “hyperpalatable” with each bag containing 26 grams of fat and one-quarter of the recommended daily amount of sodium. As University of Michigan clinical psychologist Ashley Gearhardt further explained, “Our brain is really hardwired to find things like fat and salt really rewarding, and now we have foods that have them in such high levels that it can trigger an addictive process.” “It’s something that has been engineered so that it is fattier and saltier and more novel to the point where our body, brain and pleasure centers react to it more strongly than if we were eating, say, a handful of nuts,” Gearhardt said. “Going…
A federal court in California has denied Nabisco, Inc.’s request that it reconsider a previous ruling granting a motion to remand a consumer fraud class action to state court for failing to satisfy the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Garcia v. Nabisco, Inc., No. 12-04272 (C.D. Cal., decided September 26, 2012). Because the product targeted by the plaintiff, “Wheat Thins 100% Whole Grain” crackers, is no longer on the market, the court rejected an estimate of expenses that would be incurred, if the plaintiffs succeed, to reformulate product packaging for other newly formulated products, “which are not the subject matter of this action.”
A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Frito-Lay falsely labels its snacks, including “Bean Dip products,” as “ALL NATURAL” despite the use of ingredients—particularly soy—containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Altman v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-61803 (S.D. Fla., filed September 13, 2012). The gist of the complaint is that products containing GMOs should not be labeled “all natural” unless they also disclose that the products contain GMOs. The plaintiff contends that she would not have purchased the company’s bean dip if she had known the company “could not support its claim that the Product is all natural.” Seeking to represent a class of Florida consumers who purchased Frito-Lay “All Natural” products over the past four years, the plaintiff alleges violations of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. She requests injunctive relief, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs,…
New York and New Jersey residents have filed a putative nationwide class action with two statewide subclasses against General Mills, Inc. in a Minnesota federal court, alleging that the company has violated federal and state consumer fraud laws by marketing its Nature Valley snack bars as “100% Natural” when they contain high-fructose corn syrup and other non-natural ingredients. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., filed August 31, 2012). The plaintiffs also allege that the products contain highly processed high-maltose corn syrup and the texturizer maltodextrin. They allege that they relied on the company’s marketing and advertising and purchased its products “believing them to be 100% natural,” but sustained “injury in fact and lost money as a result of General Mills having misrepresented the Nature Valley Products.” According to the complaint, General Mills incorporates the “100% Natural” claim into its primary branding of the Nature Valley products and…
