Source: https://www.foodlitigationnews.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:47:14+00:00

Document:
On March 25, 2019, Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the Northern District of New York dismissed a putative class action against CVS and Lang Pharma alleging that the labeling of defendants’ CVS Omega-3 Krill Oil is deceptive and misleading. Plaintiff in the lawsuit, James Gaminde, alleged that CVS Omega-3 Krill Oil contained only sixty percent of the 300mg of Omega-3 Krill Oil represented by the label, and therefore violated New York’s General Business Law sections 349 and 350, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, implied warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud. The court ruled that plaintiff lacked Article III standing stating that plaintiff’s “failure to allege that he tested his bottle of CVS Krill Oil—indeed, his failure to make any allegation regarding how he knows that it was mislabeled—is fatal.” The court held that plaintiff’s conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations failed to demonstrate that he suffered an ‘injury in fact’ which is concrete and particularized, a requisite to establish Article III standing. Noting that any amendment would be futile, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment for defendants. Defendants were represented by the Perkins Coie food litigation team.
As you all know, the Northern District of California jury found earlier this week that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide product was a “substantial factor” in causing a plaintiff’s non Hodgkin lymphoma. The defendants and industry were all very optimistic that the trial, which focused solely on causation and not knowledge or company conduct, would result in an impartial scientific analysis. Unfortunately, the jury ignored a very substantial body of literature that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is safe. It also ignored the conclusions of virtually every regulatory or public health group, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subcommittees off the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Unfortunately, hundreds of similar cases are pending and a state court jury in Alameda also rendered a verdict against Monsanto.
Perkins Coie is pleased to present its third annual Food Litigation Year in Review, offering a summary of the year’s key litigation outcomes, regulatory developments, and filing data. Last year, pointing to uncertainty at the appellate level, Perkins Coie predicted continued litigation in 2018. Using metrics from our proprietary database, developed by our food litigation team in order to track and understand trends in this area, 2018’s Year in Reviewagain reports an increase in class action litigation—indeed, one of the most active years on record, with 158 new lawsuits.
Lawsuits continued to challenge the use of the term “natural” (yet undefined by the FDA) on food and beverage product labels. In particular, these claims continued to apply the theory that foods containing trace amounts of pesticides should not be labeled “natural,” notwithstanding the general skepticism of the courts toward such arguments. Lawsuits alleging slack fill in the packaging of candies, bake mixes, and other foods also continued unabated, despite notable early victories in several such cases. While the courts have seemed increasingly unwilling to adopt plaintiffs’ theories, class action litigation persisted and grew.
For several years, Perkins Coie has been a leader in defending food litigation cases, securing favorable, precedent-setting results for its clients. 2018 was no different, with several important victories, including a pathbreaking decision in the Proposition 65 case Post, et al. v. Superior Court. The California Court of Appeals held that Proposition 65 warnings for cereal based on the presence of acrylamide in those foods would conflict with the FDA’s longstanding policies encouraging the consumption of whole grain cereals. The court granted summary judgment to the food industry’s leading cereal manufacturers, a decision that withstood attempted appeal to the state’s highest court. Consistent with the trend of the past several years, the number of Proposition 65 pre-suit notice letters continues to increase, 2018 seeing more than 530 such notices. Given the proliferation of pre-suit notices, litigation in this area is bound to increase.
On December 20, 2018, President Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (popularly known as the 2018 Farm Bill) into law.
Among the broad-ranging provisions included in the law, it legalizes the cultivation and sale of hemp at the federal level, effective January 1, 2019.
Hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) businesses have thrived in numerous state jurisdictions in which such products are legal. Federal legalization means that hemp producers and businesses that deal in hemp and hemp-derived products, such as CBD, are now free to pursue their businesses more aggressively, and with less concern that a seismic shift in enforcement priorities could result in their investigation or prosecution by federal authorities.
To find out more about the 2018 Farm Bill and the implications for those participating in the hemp and CBD industries, please click here.
November saw a high number of new class action complaints advancing familiar challenges to the “all natural” claims affixed to pasta, ice cream, potato chips and other products. Due to the lack of regulatory guidance around use of the word “natural” on food products, that term continues to be a target for plaintiffs’ suits.
For example, in Rodriguez v. Coolhaus, Inc., the plaintiff claims that several of the defendant’s ice cream products are falsely labeled as “all natural” because they contain allegedly unnatural ingredients like soy lecithin and stabilizers that use dextrose and guar gum.
The popular ingredient malic acid remains at the center of many new “natural” cases. In Lepaine v. UTZ Quality Foods LLC, the plaintiff argues that the defendant’s salt and vinegar potato chips are falsely labeled as flavored only with natural ingredients, because they contain malic acid. Similarly, the plaintiff in Augustine v. Talking Rain takes issue with the “natural” labels on juice products that contain the ingredient. Juice and beverage products are often implicated in these malic acid “natural” suits. Another case filed this month, Anderson v. Outernational Brands Inc., contains substantively similar allegations about a beverage product that is labeled “all natural” and “no artificial color or flavors,” yet contains malic acid.
Plaintiffs are increasingly citing health-related claims on food products as false or misleading, unsupported by scientific evidence. As food manufacturers angle for more health-conscious consumers, their products’ labels are coming under increased scrutiny. For example, coconut oil products have been a frequent target, challenged for labels that describe them as healthy—or at least healthier than other cooking oils such as vegetable oil.
Notable Ruling: What’s In Your Water?
In its recent ruling in Weiss v. Trader Joe’s Company, the Central District of California faced the question of whether certain statements on product labels promoting high-alkalinity water were false and misleading or simply puffery. Among these statements were claims that the water is “ionized to achieve the perfect balance.” Plaintiff Dana Weiss argued that the claims found on the actual product, together with advertising statements made in the defendant’s “Fearless Flyer” marketing brochure, amount to unfair competition and false advertising because no scientific evidence exists supporting the claimed health benefits of drinking water with high alkalinity. Despite the absence of specific health-related promises, Weiss argued, simply noting the water’s alkalinity content on the label implies a health claim. Trader Joe’s Company moved to dismiss, contending that such claims are no more than puffery, and such claims would not deceive or mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the product offers unsubstantiated health benefits.
Though the court hinted that Weiss’s claims would fail as lack-of-substantiation claims (impermissible as private causes of action under California law), it nevertheless proceeded to analyze them under the reasonable consumer test. The court found that the statements and symbols on the label—a plus sign, the words “refresh” and “hydrate,” and a simple definition of alkalinity—would not deceive a reasonable consumer. The court also rejected Weiss’s argument that the statement “water and then some” gives rise to “a contextual inference that Alkaline Water of Trader Joe’s provides more health benefits and better hydration than normal water.” Even assuming the statement “water and then some” was more than mere puffery, the court concluded that a reasonable consumer would read the “and then some” language as referring to either the electrolytes added to the water or to the product’s elevated pH level. The court thus dismissed each of Weiss’s claims. The court did, however, grant Weiss leave to amend one of the claims in the complaint (a claim implicating a statement of the water’s pH level), concluding that it may be possible for Weiss to plead the falseness of that statement with the requisite particularity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.