My colleague Anne Glazer recently co-authored an article with Connie Kirby of Northwest Food Processors Association titled “Summary of Regulatory Intersection between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration over the Labeling and Advertising of Food Products: Implication for Genetically Engineered Foods.” Prepared for Oregon Governor Kitzhaber’s Task Force on Genetically-Engineered Agriculture, … Continue Reading
In a lawsuit filed yesterday, June 12, 2014, in United States District Court for the District of Vermont, four national trade associations representing food producers and manufacturers sued the state of Vermont claiming that the state’s recently passed Act 120, which would require certain food containing ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops to be labeled … Continue Reading
This week, Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG), a non-profit organization that files numerous Proposition 65 (Prop 65) lawsuits each year, issued notices of violation alleging that 15 companies violated California law by selling rice containing arsenic (and in some instances, lead) without a Prop 65 warning. The notices targeted a wide a range of companies, from small … Continue Reading
For the past few years, there has been a steady, if not increasing, stream of class action lawsuits filed against various food and beverage manufacturers and retailers alleging misbranding and false advertising due to the presence of “All Natural” claims. The companies sued in these cases range from major manufacturers and retailers to small private … Continue Reading
Recently, there have been both positive and negative developments in California regarding "All Natural" consumer class action litigation. By way of background, these cases are typically brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200), False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code §1750) regarding … Continue Reading
When innovation meets the law, the results are often surprising. We in Seattle are confronting this as ride services like Lyft compete with a regulated taxi industry. Now consider Pirate Joe’s, a business located in the upscale Kitsilano neighborhood of Vancouver, B.C.. I will let them describe their business model in their own words: Pirate … Continue Reading
Coauthored by Claire Mitchell and Thomas Woods: California federal courts now appear positioned to lead the way nationally on the issue of whether food products containing genetically modified ingredients, commonly referred to as “GMOs” can be labeled “All Natural.” Just last week a federal judge in Colorado stayed the case of Nicole Van Atta v. General … Continue Reading
Everyone from the First Lady to the Mayor of New York to my own personal physician is on an anti-obesity campaign these days. Michelle Obama generally operates by trying to instill healthy habits; my doctor simply says I will lose weight if I use more calories than I consume (which is why you’ll find my … Continue Reading
A Washington Supreme Court decision, Bylsma v Burger King Corp., has decided that in Washington, under the Products Liability Act, an individual who claims damages for emotional distress in the absence of having actually consumed a product may bring a suit for damages. Other than proving "objective symptomology", the seller of that product will have no defense to the action.… Continue Reading
Our colleague Claire Mitchell recently published an article in Law360 that discusses a recent class action lawsuit filed against Pepperidge Farm, Inc. in Colorado on November 6, 2012. The complaint alleges that Pepperidge Farm misrepresented its Cheddar Goldfish crackers as “natural” when, in fact, they contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The lawsuit is one of … Continue Reading
Although California’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, better known as Proposition 37, failed earlier this month when put to a vote, food companies still remain vulnerable to attacks over the use of genetically engineered ingredients in their products. Specifically, it appears that marketing a food as “all natural” when it contains a genetically … Continue Reading
A few months ago, I wrote about a $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), a South Dakota-based meat processor, against ABC News Inc. found here. The most recent development in the case occurred on October 31 when lawyers for ABC filed a motion to dismiss. In September, BPI, along with Technology, … Continue Reading
Just yesterday, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), along with Technology, Inc. and Freezing Machines, Inc., collectively filed suit against ABC in Circuit Court in Union County, South Dakota claiming that ABC’s news coverage of lean finely textured beef (LFTB), or what became infamously known by the nickname “pink slime,” was defamatory and ultimately devastating for the … Continue Reading
The Alaska Supreme Court has come down with a decision that appears to place any owner of premises, such as the fast-food restaurant in the case, at risk for any dumb thing a motorist who might claim to be patronizing the premises does on the way to the premises, even if illegal. The plaintiff need not be someone patronizing the restaurant, but just passing by on the way to other things. This is a bad decision, with a good dissent that shows why.… Continue Reading
AFA Investment Inc., and its affiliates, including AFA Foods, American Foodservice Corporation, United Food Group, LLC, and American Fresh Foods (together “AFA”) have requested that the Bankruptcy Court overseeing their Chapter 11 cases approve procedures for a sale of all of their assets. The sale process was a condition required by AFA’s lenders to continue financing … Continue Reading
The “All Natural” class action litigation in California has continued into 2012, as expected. The claims in California are being filed under California’s consumer-friendly unfair competition law (or UCL), which is codified in sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business & Professions Code, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Given the costs and … Continue Reading
For news on the first alleged Proposition 65 violation concerning 4-Methylimidazole (4-MEI) in soda, see my blog posting in the environmental law blog. 4-MEI exists in some food and beverage products, including certain sodas, beers, soy sauces, breads, and coffees, among others. http://www.californiaenvironmentallawblog.com/first-prop-65-notice-of-violation-issued-regarding-4-mei-in-soft-drinks/ … Continue Reading
California litigators Tom Woods and Melissa Jones have prepared a Litigation Legal Alert on "All Natural" class action litigation in California and what to expect in 2012. The Alert, which is linked above, provides background information regarding "All Natural" class action litigation in California. It also discusses why the authors believe that class action litigation in this area … Continue Reading
By California litigators Tom Woods and Melissa Jones Consumer class action plaintiffs remain very active in California, with cases continuing to be filed against food manufacturers and suppliers regarding alleged misleading labeling and marketing claims. Just this week, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Trader Joe’s alleging that it falsely advertised and sold cookies … Continue Reading
The FDA asserts in its inspection manual its right to photograph in your plant. Yet the FDA does not have statutory authority to photograph. The manual cites the following cases as authority for its right to photograph the inside of a plant: Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), and United States … Continue Reading
Next Wednesday at the ACI Food Regulatory Summit in Chicago I’ll be presenting a talk entitled "Curtailing Downstream Liability Arising Out of On-Site Inspections: How to Prepare and What to Do Should Government Come Knocking." My slide-deck can be linked here. Topics that I plan to cover include: FDA’s plan to increase frequency of inspections … Continue Reading
The Food Safety Modernization Act ("FSMA") significantly expands the FDA’s ability to access a food company’s records. The expanded authority is found in three places in the statute: FSMA § 101 amends 31 USC § 350c(a) and allows the FDA to obtain records related not only to a product that the FDA believes "will cause … Continue Reading
Thank you to Parker Smith & Feek for inviting me to speak to about FSMA and how it’s changing the status quo. My slide-deck can be viewed here. Following my talk, Marty Bask from Parker Smith & Feek led a very interesting discussion about the pros and cons of product recall and contamination coverage. A link … Continue Reading
As we foreshadowed with our blog regarding 60 day notices, the Committee for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) filed a Proposition 65 enforcement action alleging that ready-to-brew coffee exposes coffee drinkers to acrylamide (a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer). CERT v. Brad Berry Co., Ltd., No. BC461182 (Cal. Sup. … Continue Reading
