Hormel Lawsuit Exposes the Beef Over 'Natural' Labeling
A recent lawsuit against Hormel Foods Corp. revealed what exactly goes into its meat products—and how "natural" may not mean what consumers think it means.
April 12, 2019 at 02:26 PM
3 minute read
A recent lawsuit against Hormel Foods Corp. revealed what exactly goes into its meat products—and how ”natural” may not mean what consumers think it means.
The Animal League Defense Fund filed its suit in D.C. Superior Court, alleging Hormel “engaged in potentially misleading advertising of animal products” with its Natural Choice label, Bloomberg reports. The label in question leads customers to believe the meat products do not contain hormones, antibiotics or preservatives. But, according to internal Hormel emails collected in court filings, that is not the case.
Hormel's director of marketing said in an email that “many consumer[s] assume Natural=RWOA [Raised Without Antibiotics].” Corwyn Bollum, Hormel's director of pork procurement, said in a deposition that there is “no separate manner in which the pigs raised for Hormel Natural Choice products are versus any other of Hormel's products, so Spam or any lunchmeat or bacon product.” Very few of those pigs have access to the outdoors, and some used in Natural Choice products received antibiotics and/or ractopamine, a growth promoter.
The Natural Choice label also includes the claim “no nitrates or nitrites added,” and on its website Hormel adds, “except for those naturally occurring in cultured celery and cherry powder.” Celery juice powder is naturally high in nitrates, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest says bacterial cultures convert the nitrates into sodium nitrite, the consumption of which has been linked to cancer.
The court dismissed the ALDF's suit, saying the packaging of Natural Choice products is in line with the legal bounds set by the United States Department of Agriculture. On its website, the USDA defines “natural” as “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as 'no artificial ingredients; minimally processed').”
“[I]f a producer can accurately use a term in a label,” the court wrote, “the producer should be able to use the same term in its advertising.”
The ALDF intends to appeal the ruling. ”It's a massive attempt to manipulate and dupe the consumer to purchase something they have no intention to purchase,” said ALDF lawyer David Muraskin.
“We continue to stand behind Hormel Natural Choice products,” Hormel said in a statement. “Hormel Natural Choice products are minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients or chemical preservatives, and that's clearly stated on the package.”
According to a Consumer Reports survey from 2016, 73 percent of respondents said they sought out products that had “natural” on the label, even more so than products labeled “organic.” A 2017 Arizona State University study found that beef eaters were willing to pay more per pound for meat with “natural” on the label, even if they were unfamiliar with the USDA's definition of the term.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readInfluencers Putting Companies on Hot Seat by Demanding 'Reverse' Morals Clauses
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250