Litigation Project - Current Docket
SUPERBUG LAWSUIT In 2011, CSPI (along with Public Citizen, Food Animal Concerns Trust, and Union of Concerned Scientists, Inc.) joined the Natural Resources Defense Council in filing a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration in order to compel FDA to address the egregious overuse of antibiotics in animal feed.
The livestock industry feeds antibiotics to healthy animals in order to promote rapid growth. In fact, over 70% of all antimicrobial drugs used in the US are fed to healthy animals. 35 years ago, FDA proposed banning the use of certain antibiotics in animal feed because of human health concerns but the agency never took any further action. For the following decades, however, FDA has not taken action, thus turning a blind eye to the reckless non-therapeutic overuse of medically important antibiotics like penicillin and tetracycline on animal farms. Meanwhile, mounting evidence has shown that the overuse of drugs in animal feed has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that is transferred from animals to humans, putting public health in danger.
On March 22, 2012, Judge Theodore Katz agreed with our position and ordered the FDA to begin proceedings to remove two important drugs (penicillin and tetracyclines) from animal feed. This is an important victory for public health. It is a big step toward preserving the effectiveness of medically important antibiotics.
The case is proceeding on claims by CSPI and the other plaintiffs. 03/22
AMWAY NUTRILITE CSPI's litigation department has sent a letter to Amway concerning its Nutrilite line of dietary supplements. CSPI warns the multi-level marketing company that its labeling and advertising for Nutrilite products violates federal regulations and state consumer protection laws and that CSPI will pursue class action litigation unless Amway stops advertising unsubstantiated nutrition and health benefits in connection with Nutrilite products.
Labels for Nutrilite "fruit & vegetables 2GO Twist Tubes" claim that the product contains two servings of fruit and vegetables. The fine print clarifies that a serving contains "the antioxidant equivalent of 2 servings." The Twist Tubes do not come close to providing the same benefits that real fruit and vegetables provide.
Nutrilite "Immunity" Twist Tubes present a similar problem. Amway claims that the product is an "immune system booster" that will "protect your cells." This is an unlawful claim that implies the product will prevent disease. 02/12
GENERAL MILLS CSPI's litigation department is serving as co-counsel in a class action lawsuit against General Mills for misleading consumers about the nutritional and health qualities of its "fruit" snacks.
General Mills Fruit Roll-Ups, Fruit by the Foot, and Fruit Gushers Snacks are marketed as healthful and nutritious. The labels for these products claim that the snacks are "fruit flavored," "naturally flavored," a "good source of vitamin C," "Made with Real Fruit," low in fat and calories, and gluten free. In fact, the "fruit" snacks lack any significant amount of real fruit and are instead made mostly of sugars, artificial additives and artificial dyes. The snacks have no dietary fiber and contain the dangerous trans fat.
Marketing a product that is little more than candy by touting its "nutritional qualities" is misleading to consumers and is a practice CSPI's litigation team hopes to stop with this lawsuit. 10/11
PEPSICO NAKED JUICE. CSPI's litigation department is acting as co-counsel in a class action lawsuit against PepsiCo, on behalf of consumers who purchased Naked Juice products that were falsely and misleadingly labeled as 100% Juice 100% Fruit "ALL NATURAL" suggesting that the beverages' vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and juices, rather than the added synthetic compounds such as calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde).
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as an injunction against Naked Juice preventing the company from advertising its products as 100% juice and all-natural, when they are not. 09/11
KELLOGG/ KASHI Kellogg's brand Kashi has cultivated a healthy and socially conscious image for itself by misleading consumers about the ingredients in its products.
CSPI's litigation department is serving as co-counsel in a class action lawsuit against Kellogg's Kashi for false and misleading labeling of its "all natural" products.
Kashi product labels prominently boast that these products are "all natural" and "nothing artificial" when the products contain unnaturally processed ingredients and synthetic ingredients including sodium molybdate, phytonadione, sodium selenite, magnesium phosphate, niaciamide, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, and potassium iodide. In fact, many Kashi products contain unnaturally processed and synthetic ingredients as their primary ingredients. 08/11
MCDONALD'S. On June 22, 2010, CSPI notified McDonald's that if the company continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals, CSPI will file suit to stop that practice. Using toys to lure small children into McDonald's is unfair and deceptive marketing, which is illegal under various state consumer protection laws.
"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. "McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."
Of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations on the McDonald's Web site, all exceed 430 calories (430 is one-third of the 1,300- calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old). A Happy Meal of a cheeseburger, French fries, and Sprite has half a day's calories and saturated fat (640 and 7 grams, respectively), about 940 milligrams of sodium, and about two days' worth of sugar (35 grams). And even that meal might have come with a toy related to Star Wars, iCarly, How to Train Your Dragon, Night at the Museum, or, of course, Shrek. Getting children accustomed to eating burgers, fries, and soda puts them at greater risk of becoming obese and developing diabetes or other diet-related diseases, according to CSPI.
"But regardless of the nutritional quality of what's being sold, the practice of tempting kids with toys is inherently deceptive," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "I'm sure that industry's defenders will blame parents for not saying ‘no' to their children.Parents do bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents' job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising."
The practice of using toy promotions to promote fast food to children is under scrutiny elsewhere, too. In May 2010, the Santa Clara County, Calif., Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance preventing McDonald's and other restaurants from including toys or other kid-oriented incentives with the purchase of unhealthy meals. Then, in November 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a similar ordinance. And the Federal Trade Commission may have something to say about toy promotions when it releases a set of voluntary standards for food marketers later this year. According to a 2008 report from the FTC, food companies spend more than $350 million on toy giveaways each year.
This is the first time CSPI has planned to take McDonald's to court.
With the help of CSPI's litigation team, Monet Parham, a mother of two from Sacramento, California, filed a class action lawsuit aimed at stopping McDonald's use of toys to market directly to young children. The suit was filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco.
The case has been moved to federal court but CSPI has filed a motion to remand it back to state court. 5/11
McDonald's attempt to remand to federal court failed and the case is proceeding in California state court. 8/11
SAFEWAY. The sale of tainted food products to consumers who have no way of knowing the risk is one of the greatest food safety problems in the country today. Many chain stores — including Costco, Giant, Harris Teeter, Price Chopper, Sam's Club, ShopRite, and Wegman's — use their customer card programs (or membership cards) to contact people who bought contaminated food.
Even though it collects phone numbers and email addresses from its Club Card members, Safeway doesn't do the same thing. In 2009, as thousands of peanut-containing products tainted with deadly Salmonella bacteria were being recalled, many other chains sent letters or automated phone calls out to people who bought those foods. Safeway did nothing during that recall or many other recalls.
On May 6, 2010, CSPI notified Safeway that CSPI will file a lawsuit against the grocery chain if it fails to adopt a policy to notify Club Card members who purchased contaminated food subject to recalls.
In response to that letter, instead of making any commitment to notify shoppers, Safeway instead threatened to sue CSPI for libel. CSPI has advised Safeway that, as a policy matter, we will not discuss resolution of a libel threat.
"It shocks the conscience that a major retailer would sit on its hands, even though it has easy access to the emails, addresses, and phone numbers of those who have purchased food that might be contaminated," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "Perhaps Safeway saves a few pennies by remaining silent. But why would you knowingly risk letting your customers fall ill, or worse, die?"
With the help of CSPI, Dee Hensley-Maclean of Ravalli County, MT, and Jennifer Rosen of San Francisco, CA, filed a complaint in California Superior Court for not being notified about buying a recalled product. The women ask that they and others who bought recalled food be refunded the price of those purchases, and that Safeway commit to using its Club card data to contact consumers in the event of future recalls.
Safeway has removed the case to federal court where we will proceed. 5/11
Safeway's Motion to Dismiss was rejected by the court and the case is proceeding. 8/11
VITAMINWATER. CSPI's litigation department is serving as co-counsel in this class action lawsuit, now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Under the name Glaceau, Coca-Cola markets VitaminWater as a healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words as "defense," "rescue," "energy," and "endurance." The company makes a wide range of dramatic claims, including that its drinks reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function. In fact, the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles. Despite the full names of the drinks, such as "endurance peach mango" and "focus kiwi strawberry," VitaminWater contains between zero and one percent juice.
Coca-Cola filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the request was denied. The judge ruled that the company's use of the word "healthy" violates the Food and Drug Administration's regulations on vitamin-fortified foods. The FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean" rule prohibits companies from making health claims on junk foods that only meet various nutrient thresholds via fortification.
The judge also said the FDA discourages names of products that mention some ingredients but exclude more prominent ingredients such as, in the case of vitaminwater, added sugar. The names of the drinks, along with other statements on the label, "have the potential to reinforce a consumer's mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water," the judge wrote.
The case is continuing in Federal Court in New York 10/11
AURORA DAIRY. In 2007, CSPI joined a lawsuit in California against Aurora Dairy, the second-largest organic milk company. Aurora produced non-organic dairy products that it sold as "organic." Consumers pay premium prices for organic products, but in this case—due to the illegal behavior of Aurora—they were ripped off. Aurora's practices violated both federal and California consumer protection and organic laws. However, a federal judge has ruled that these consumers' rights are "preempted" by federal law — that is, that the defendants did not have to comply with state consumer protection laws. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the case is proceeding in federal district court in St. Louis.
