A California resident has filed a pair of putative class actions in state court against companies that market their coconut water with purportedly exaggerated nutrient claims and overstated hydrating benefits or as a miracle cure for a host of medical problems. Shenkman v. All Mkt., Inc., No. BC 467166; Shenkman v. One World Enters. LLC, No. BC467165 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed August 8, 2011). Seeking to certify statewide consumer classes, the plaintiff alleges intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of California’s False Advertising Act and Unfair Business Practices Act. The plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, payment to a cy pres fund, a corrective advertising campaign, and an apology. Among other matters, the plaintiff claims that One World Enterprises sells “O.N.E. Coconut Water” throughout the United States in more than 18,000 retail outlets and promotes it “as a miracle product, curing various medical problems and…
Tag Archives water
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has filed a lawsuit seeking a response to its petition calling for the withdrawal of the federal government’s “current MyPyramid food diagram and dietary guidelines” and the adoption of PCRM’s “Power Plate food diagram and dietary guidelines.” PCRM v. Vilsack, No. 11-00038 (D.D.C., filed January 5, 2011). Brought against the secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the complaint for injunctive relief calls the agencies’ food diagram “ineffective and confusing” and alleges that it “fails to promote overall health and well-being.” PCRM contends that USDA and HHS have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to respond to its petition in a “reasonable time.” PCRM’s “Power Plate” would eliminate all animal-derived products from the diet. A Florida resident has filed a putative class action against Phusion Projects, LLC, claiming that the company’s Four Loko® caffeinated alcoholic…
According to a new report from the U.K.-based Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a majority of the world’s largest companies, including those in the food and beverage sectors, have developed specific water policies, strategies and plans, with 39 percent reporting experience with disruption to operations from drought or flooding, declining water quality or increases in water prices. Titled “CDP Water Disclosure 2010 Global Report,” the study is based on responses from 175 large corporations that conduct water-intensive operations around the world. CDP contends that those most at risk are food and beverage companies, which, among those responding to the survey, had all set specific water-related targets for their businesses and were all able to identify whether their operations were located in water-stressed regions. According to CDP, “Demand for water is projected to outstrip supply by a staggering 40 percent by 2030, and an estimated half the world’s population are likely to live…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reportedly considering addressing toxins in drinking water by regulating them in groups, rather than continuing to address them contaminant-by-contaminant, and has identified nitrosamines as one of the first groups that could be subject to the new paradigm. Other groups under consideration are pesticides, volatile organic compounds and chlorinated disinfection byproducts. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson apparently proposed taking this approach earlier in the year, and the agency conducted a number of workshops over the summer to gauge stakeholder support. InsideEPA.com obtained a draft discussion paper from a September 2010 meeting; it details a number of ways toxins can be grouped, including (i) similar effects on human health and the environment, (ii) similar water treatment options, and (iii) occurrence similarities, i.e., likely to occur with other chemicals in the group. Drinking water industry officials have apparently expressed concerns with EPA’s proposal to address nitrosamines in the…
A federal court in New York has decided to allow most parts of a new state bottle-deposit law to take effect, lifting a injunction that would have delayed implementation until April 2010. Int’l Bottled Water Ass’n v. Paterson, No. 09-4672 (S.D.N.Y., decided August 13, 2009). Additional details about the litigation challenging the law’s constitutionality appear in issue 305 of this Update. The court’s decision overturns an order entered in late May 2009 granting injunctive relief. According to a news source, the ruling means that soft drink and beer makers must now give the state 80 percent of the unclaimed 5-cent deposits, and store and redemption handling fees will increase from 2 cents to 3.5 cents per container. Water companies making products containing flavored water, vitamin water and artificial sweeteners have apparently been given until October 22 to comply with the law, unless they can prove compliance is impossible. They did…
A trade group representing bottled water producers, distributors and suppliers has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Eco Canteen Inc., a stainless steel bottle manufacturer, “for engaging in a deliberate scare campaign to mislead and deceive the public” about the purported health and environmental risks associated with plastic bottle use. Int'l Bottled Water Ass'n v. Eco Canteen Inc., 09-299 (W.D.N.C., filed July 22, 2009). According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), Eco Canteen has made several false and misleading claims about both single-serve and reusable plastic bottles that included likening these products to poison and linking them to breast and prostate cancer. This “viral” marketing campaign was allegedly designed “to be picked up and disseminated by third parties” despite IBWA’s repeated requests for corrective action. The complaint also notes that the defendant “purposefully matches images of single-serve recyclable plastic bottles with its claims relating to an organic compound…
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, released reports at a July 8, 2009, congressional subcommittee hearing that called for bottled water to be labeled with the same level of information as municipal water products. The GAO report stated that federal safety protections are often less stringent for bottled water than tap water, recommending at a minimum that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require bottlers to tell consumers ways of obtaining comprehensive information about the source of their products and compliance with applicable regulations. The EWG report included a survey claiming that all but a few bottled-water companies do not list the sources of their bottled water and how it was treated. EWG reportedly urged Americans to make bottled water “a distant second choice” to filtered tap water because of the lack of information about bottled water. “If the…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule that requires bottled water manufacturers to face stricter standards to prevent E. coli contamination . All manufacturers are currently required to test source water for germs each week, but starting December 1, 2009, if tests prove positive for E. coli, companies must explain in writing how they eliminated the bacteria and retest samples before use. FDA states that “bottled water containing E. coli will be considered adulterated and source water containing E. coli will not be considered to be of a safe, sanitary quality and will be prohibited from use in the production of bottled water.” E. coli infection indicates fecal contamination that can apparently cause stomach cramps, diarrhea or possible fatal infections. Although bottled water is currently tested for coliforms–a group of mostly harmless bacteria–and fecal contamination, the new rules require the water source itself to be tested.…
According to news sources, a bottled water industry trade association and several companies that produce bottled water have sued New York in federal court seeking to overturn an amendment to the state’s Returnable Container Act imposing a 5-cent deposit on water bottles. Int’l Bottled Water Ass’n v. Paterson, No. 09-4672 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 19, 2009). The original law, reportedly adopted in 1982, was intended to encourage recycling and reduce litter and waste. Currently applying to bottles and cans containing soft drinks, beer and wine coolers, the 5-cent-per-container charge can be recovered by consumers who return their empty cans and bottles to the retailer. The deposit for water bottles containing flavored water, vitamin water and artificial sweeteners becomes effective June 1, 2009. An exception is made for bottled water products with sugar. While the plaintiffs are not apparently challenging the law’s sustainability goals, their lawsuit takes issue with its new labeling…
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision not to enjoin Tyson Foods, Inc. from using poultry litter as fertilizer. Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 08-5154 (10th Cir., decided May 13, 2009). Oklahoma’s attorney general sought a preliminary injunction to halt the practice, arguing that poultry litter contains E. coli, Salmonella and Campylobacter and that its use in the Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas and Oklahoma caused fecal bacterial contamination of the watershed’s waterways, which are popular for water recreation and supply drinking water for local residents. Tyson responded that the bacteria come from multiple sources including wildlife, various farm animals and humans. The company also noted that the way its farmers treat poultry litter kills any bacteria and that the watershed’s bacteria levels “do not correlate to poultry farming or litter application, but rather correspond to areas of cattle farming and human activity.” The…
