Food & Beverage Litigation Update | April 2018 #4

by Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.


GAO Issues Food Safety Reports for Arsenic and Pathogens

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has announced new food safety recommendations for managing the risk of arsenic in rice and efforts to reduce pathogens in meat and poultry products. Following a request to review issues related to arsenic in rice, GAO determined that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not updated its risk assessment of the human health effects in two years and was unable to provide a timeline for either an update or final draft guidance. GAO has recommended that FDA develop such timelines, work with other agencies to coordinate risk assessments and work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop methods to detect contaminants in food.

GAO also reviewed USDA’s approach to reduction of pathogens in meat and poultry, finding the agency has failed to develop standards for some products—including turkey breasts and pork chops—and has not fully documented its process for deciding which products to consider for new standards. GAO also noted that USDA draft guidelines for controlling Salmonella in hogs do not contain information on the effectiveness of on-farm safety practices. The report recommends that the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service begin documenting agency processes for deciding which products to consider for new pathogen standards and make information on the effectiveness of Salmonella reduction efforts in hogs available as it finalizes its draft guidelines.


Advocacy Groups File Letter in Opposition to Meat Labeling Petition

The Good Food Institute (GFI), with a group of plant-based and “clean” meat companies, has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responding to a petition filed by the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association requesting that the agency restrict the definitions of “beef” and “meat” to products derived from live animals. GFI argues that USDA cannot grant the petition because the agency lacks authority over plant-based products, which are governed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. USDA is “authorized only to regulate meat labels to protect the health and welfare of consumers, not to prop up an industry or favor one production method over another,” the group asserts.

In addition, the group argues that plant-based or clean meat product labels that “clearly and accurately disclose the nature of the product” do not violate the labeling requirements of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The government can restrict commercial speech, such as limiting particular labeling language, only when the restriction “directly advances a substantial government interest,” the group argues. “Privileging one sector of an industry over another does not qualify.”

Finally, GFI asserts that the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association puts USDA in “the untenable position of policing the methods of meat production for ‘traditionality’” by urging USDA to limit the definition of “beef,” potentially diverting the agency’s resources from food safety and inhibiting industry innovation in production methods.


ASA Upholds Challenge to Pret A Manger’s “Natural” Claims

The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld an advocacy group’s challenge to the use of the term “natural” by Pret A Manger but rejected a challenge to the company’s advertising claim that its breads are fresh-baked at each location. Ads on Pret A Manger’s website and Facebook page claimed that the chain makes “handmade natural food,” “avoiding the obscure chemicals, additives and preservatives common to so much of the ‘prepared’ and ‘fast food’ on the market.” Pret A Manger argued that the ads did not imply that it uses only natural ingredients or that its food is additive- and preservative-free; rather, the terminology was used to express the company’s mission, which is partly to “avoid (as opposed to entirely eliminate) ‘obscure’ (as opposed to all)” chemicals. ASA upheld the challenge, determining that consumers were likely to interpret the claims to mean that the chain’s food was “natural” and free from added chemicals.

ASA rejected the advocacy group’s challenge to Pret A Manger’s claim that its breads and pastries are baked in-store daily, deciding that most consumers were familiar with stores’ practice of baking dough prepared offsite. Consumers were “unlikely to interpret ‘baked in store’ to mean only products that were made from scratch using basic raw materials such as flour and butter,” ASA held, ruling the ad was not misleading.


U.K. to Ban Plastic Straws, Stirrers

The United Kingdom has announced plans to ban the sale of plastic straws and drink stirrers in an effort to combat plastic waste in oceans. Previous initiatives to further that goal have included a ban on microbeads in personal care products, fees for single-use plastic bags and a proposal for a deposit-return process for single-use drink containers. Plastic straws necessary for medical treatment may be exempted from the ban.

“Alongside our domestic action, this week we are rallying Commonwealth countries to join us in the fight against marine plastics, with £61.4 million funding for global research and to improve waste management in developing countries,” Prime Minister Theresa May said in a statement.


China Imposes 178.6 Percent Trade Duty for U.S. Sorghum

China’s Ministry of Commerce has reportedly announced that it will require importers of U.S.-grown sorghum to pay a 178.6 percent deposit in anticipation of anti-dumping tariffs, which may discourage imports and directly affect American growers. A Chinese investigation apparently concluded that U.S. sorghum is being dumped on the Chinese market, despite denials from U.S. officials. “This approach is in line with Chinese law and [World Trade Organization] rules; it aims at correcting unfair trade practices, maintaining normal trade and competition order,” Wang Hejun, director of the ministry’s trade remedy and investigation bureau, reportedly said in a statement.



Plaintiff Alleges Panera Salad Cause E. Coli Infection

A New Jersey woman has filed a lawsuit alleging Panera Bread Co. sold her salad greens contaminated with E. coli, causing her to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome after she consumed the meal. Fraser v. Freshway Foods, Inc., No. 18-7734 (D.N.J., filed April 16, 2018). Filed against Panera and its lettuce supplier Freshway Foods Inc., the complaint asserts that Panera sold contaminated lettuce sourced from Yuma, Arizona, which the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has linked to an E. coli outbreak. Alleging the lettuce was “defective and unreasonably dangerous” in violation of the New Jersey Products Liability Act, the plaintiff seeks damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses and attorney’s fees.


Mashed Potato Labels Are Misleading, Lawsuit Alleges

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging the labels for Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Co.’s Diner’s Choice mashed potatoes assert that the products are made with real butter and fresh whole potatoes while the products contain margarine and preservatives. Reyes v. Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distrib. Co., No. 18-2250 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 16, 2018). The complaint alleges that despite the prominent package labeling, the products’ nutrition labels list margarine as the third ingredient, misleading consumers who expect the potatoes to contain only butter. The complaint also asserts that “fresh mashed potatoes have a shelf life between 7 and 10 days. The Products’ 3-month shelf life is due to artificial chemical preservatives including sodium benzoate, disodium pyrophosphate, potassium sorbate and sodium bisulfite.” Alleging violations of New York’s General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.


Plaintiff Alleges Collective Terms in Ingredient List Mislead Consumers

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Trader Joe’s Co.’s two-ingredient fruit bars are deceptively labeled with collective terms such as “apples” on the ingredient list instead of the specific name for an apple-based ingredient. Jamison v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 18-2216 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 14, 2018). The plaintiff asserts that the use of a collective term misleads consumers into believing that the products are made from whole, unprocessed fruit, which would require “an additional binding ingredient such as a gel, pectin, juice concentrate or syrup.” A solid bar made without a binding agent, the complaint asserts, would require fruit powder and water, which are not listed on the product labels. Alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties, fraud and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.


“Natural” Bai Beverages Contain Artificial D-Malic Acid, Plaintiff Alleges

Bai Brands faces a potential class action alleging that it labels its Bai fruit-flavored beverages as containing “natural” ingredients but fails to disclose the inclusion of artificial malic acid. Branca v. Bai Brands, LLC, No. 18-0757 (S.D. Cal., filed April 19, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that the ingredient list is misleading because it contains only the generic term “malic acid” while the product contains artificial d-malic acid. According to the complaint, both forms add a “tart, fruity” flavor to food and drink products. The complaint further alleges that the products, which are named for fruits and fruit combinations, bear “pictorial representations” that “imply to the consumer by operation of law that the Products consist of and are flavored only with natural juices and fruit flavors.” Alleging violations of California consumer-protection statutes, breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation and fraud by omission, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.



Gene-Edited Food Groups Plan Public Perception Approach

As gene-edited foods advance and move “closer to supermarket shelves,” agricultural and biotechnology groups are looking to avoid a dispute over public perception of the technology, according to the Wall Street Journal. Gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, TALEN and zinc-finger nucleases are different from techniques that create genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which involve the insertion of genes from external species to create plants with new characteristics. In contrast, gene-editing technology allows researchers to alter the plant’s DNA; the industry reportedly describes the process as “an extension of plant breeding, the centuries-old practice of crossing plant strains to create improved offspring.”

Industry regulators, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have indicated that they will not regulate gene-edited plants as strictly as those engineered with external DNA. However, the Non-GMO Project has barred gene-edited plants and animals from bearing its verification label, and opponents reportedly refer to the new technique as “GMO 2.0.” Some organic food makers have decided not to use gene-edited crops in their products. In response, trade groups have circulated talking points for crop scientists and industry participants to use in public discussions of gene-editing biotechnologies, recommending they focus on the benefits of the products rather than the technology itself. Public relations experts are reportedly skeptical of the approach, saying arguments that technology is necessary to feed a growing global population do not resonate with U.S. consumers.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.