Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

PC Food Litigation Index: July 2019

By Lauren Staniar on August 9, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

July was a hot month in food litigation. There were twenty-eight new filings, which puts total new food litigation filings at about 100 in 2019.  More than half of the new filings were in California state and federal court, with several new filings in D.C. Superior Court and federal court in Illinois and Florida.

Plaintiffs in several new cases allege that defendant’s foods or beverages contain heavy metals, and defendants had a duty to disclose the presence of those metals to consumers.  In Labajo v. Welch Foods, Inc., 5:19-cv-01306 (C.D. Cal.), for example, the plaintiff alleges that Welch Foods fails to warn individuals that Welch’s White Grape Juice and Concord Grape Juice products expose consumers to heightened levels of heavy metals.  Plaintiffs allege Welch’s has a duty to disclose that the products contain metals independent of any duty imposed by Proposition 65.  Likewise, in Arellano v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., 2:19-cv-06462 (C.D. Cal.), plaintiff alleges that testing has found Mead Johnson’s Enfamil Premium infant formula contains high levels of the contaminants arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury, noting that the levels of lead are above the USFDA Provisional Tolerable Intake Level for children six years and under.  

July also saw a continuation of the trend of “multi-function-ingredient” cases.  Plaintiffs in these cases allege that a multi-function ingredient—such as malic or citric acid—functions as a flavor in the sued-on product, rendering any “naturally flavored” or “no artificial flavors” claims false or misleading.  There was one new multi-function-ingredient cases filed this month.  In Gruber v. Ferrara Candy Co., 1:19-cv-04700 (N.D. Ill.), plaintiff alleges that defendant intentionally labeled at least thirty-six of its candy products with false and misleading claims that they contain no artificial flavors, while the products contain synthetic malic acid.  There were two multi-function-ingredient cases filed last month.  See Newman v. General Mills, Inc., 19-cv-0455 (Il. Cir. Ct, St. Clair Cty.); Johnson v. Tropicana Manufacturing Co., 19-cv-01164 (S.D. Cal.).

Annual Filing Trends

Filings by Jurisdiction

Filings by Category

 

  • Posted in:
    Food, Drug & Agriculture
  • Blog:
    Food Litigation News
  • Organization:
    Perkins Coie LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • GovCon & Trade
  • Pro Policyholder
  • The Way on FDA
  • Crypto Digest
  • Inside Cybersecurity & Privacy Law
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo