According to a putative class action complaint, Kodiak Cakes LLC and Baker Mills Inc. deliberately mislead consumers by labeling Kodiak Cakes pancake and waffle mixes as containing 14 grams of protein despite allegedly containing only 11.5 grams. Hinkley v. Baker Mills Inc., No. 21-221 (D. Utah, filed April 13, 2021). "Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers seek foods high in protein to support weight loss, exercise, and general fitness, among other perceived health benefits of protein consumption," the plaintiffs argue. "To capitalize on this trend, Defendants prominently label their Kodiak Cakes products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as '14g protein' on the label of its Buttermilk Flapjack and Waffle Mix. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will provide the actual amount of protein per serving that the label claims it will. In truth, however, Defendants’…
Tag Archives Utah
The University of Denver law professors who filed a challenge to Utah’s law barring audio or video recordings of purported animal abuse in agricultural operations have filed a second challenge to a similar law that recently took effect in Idaho. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, No. 14-0104 (D. Idaho, filed March 17, 2014). Both lawsuits challenge the so-called “ag-gag” laws on constitutional grounds. Utah’s attorney general has requested that the lawsuit filed in that state in 2013 be dismissed on standing grounds; the issue will be argued on May 15. Filed against the governor on behalf of animal rights organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Food Safety, journalists, historians, and an “agricultural investigations expert,” the Idaho lawsuit contends that the statute “defines ‘agricultural production facility’ so broadly” that it would apply to “public parks, restaurants, nursing homes, grocery stores, pet stores, and virtually every public accommodation and…
Advocacy organizations including the Center for Food Safety and Food & Water Watch have filed an amicus brief to support an animal rights organization coalition’s challenge to a Utah law that criminalizes undercover investigations of meat and poultry processing facilities. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, No. 13-0679 (D. Utah, brief filed December 17, 2013). Contending that the government has failed to prevent illegal animal-handling practices that ultimately threaten consumer safety and that consumers have the right to know how food is produced, the brief calls for the court to decide the challenge to Utah’s “ag-gag” law, Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112, on the merits. Among other matters, amici refer to the undercover investigation conducted by the Humane Society of the United States in 2007 of a Hallmark/Westland facility and its conclusion in a U.S. Department of Agriculture ground-beef recall over concerns that the meat “did not receive complete and proper inspection…
Utah State Representative Bill Wright (R-Holden) has reportedly introduced legislation (H.B. 365) that would exempt from federal regulation all foods grown and consumed within the state’s borders. He was quoted as saying, “Within the state, it’s state’s rights. We already have regulations over those items. We function well now. We don’t think they have a right or authority to regulate those items that are not in interstate commerce, as long as they’re grown within the state, packaged in the state and remain in the state.” A Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) spokesperson apparently responded by claiming that the politician was “playing to people’s fears and misrepresenting the facts and doing it for political purposes.” According to CSPI, Utah merited a “D” grade for its ability to detect contaminated food outbreaks. Some produce and livestock farmers echoed Wright’s concerns, contending that regulations and inspections add costs to their…
Nestlé Prepared Foods Co. has filed a complaint against the suppliers of ingredients for its Lean Cuisine® frozen meals, which it was apparently forced to recall when it learned that some of the meals were contaminated with foreign, hard blue plastic pieces. Nestlé Prepared Foods Co. v. Nat’l Food Trading Corp., No. 10-1077 (D. Utah, filed October 29, 2010). According to the complaint, the plastic pieces were mixed into the sun-dried tomatoes that defendants sold to Nestlé. Customer complaints purportedly alerted Nestlé to the contamination, and “[a]t least one consumer reported an injury caused by the hard blue plastic materials.” Recalling some 880,000 pounds of frozen meals allegedly caused Nestlé to incur “substantial losses, including, but not limited to, refunds to customers, the value of the recalled meals, the value of the unusable sun dried tomatoes, cancelled orders, and the costs of shipping, storage, plant operations, and investigation, as well as…
