Foodie Wars in California

Northern District of California: The Food Court?

With dozens of potential class action lawsuits pursued by California plaintiffs’ attorneys against food producers, the time might be right to call the Northern District Court of California a “Food Court.” As artificial and bizarre as these lawsuits might seem to the food manufacturers and the business community, these cases do address a real concern for consumers: the issue of false advertising.

How Might These Cases Benefit Consumers?

The cases are about drawing a line between 1) effective product marketing and 2) promoting false claims or omitting essential information on food product labels. Some of these cases may benefit the consumer public by doing the following:

• Ensuring food labeling standards comply with consumer protection statutes
• Clarifying health benefits that appropriate labels may contain
• Setting precedents for further protection of consumer public
• Addressing manufacturing defect issues in food production
• Amplifying FDA mechanisms for enforcing its regulations

What are Some Potential Defenses?

It seems reasonable that food manufacturers might simply amend their labeling tactics. By improving labeling, they may minimize future litigation costs. In the meantime, they do have a number of defenses to offer in the face of current litigation. For example, they can claim that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring such cases, or they may claim that certain federal laws preempt the applicable consumer protections laws.

What’s the Plaintiffs’ Position?

The plaintiffs in the foodie wars essentially challenge the legitimacy of healthy-sounding food labels. Several specific complaints brought by consumers include the following:

• A label claiming that juice contains “evaporated cane juice” obscures the fact that juice actually contains sugar, misleading consumers.
• An “All natural” ice-cream label omits ice-cream’s alkalized cocoa content from the description.
• Labels claiming chocolates to be a “source” of antioxidants may violate FDA regulations.
• “Sugar free” gum label omits a “not reduced calorie food” warning.
• Yogurt labels describing probiotic and digestive benefits are excessive and should be modified.

The Bigger Picture

Many consumers with special health needs turn to food labels for critical information. With advances in healthcare (or so we hope…) and earlier diagnosis in health conditions, many “label-conscious” consumers rely on labels not so much out of some bizarre foodie whim (well, may be just a little…), but from a need to address their special needs and conditions. While selling a product successfully is no doubt every honest seller’s dream, the U.S. has a profound history of snake oil salesmen pitching cure-all quackery to a gullible consumer. When health is at stake, food labels should not be an unmonitored playground for clever marketing schemes.