Food labeling requirements result in dismissal of consumer fraud suit
In a clear victory for food companies, the 7th Circuit emphatically rejected a consumers attempt to use state law to charge fraud in the nutrition labeling and marketing of cereal bars that she alleged contained an inferior form of fiber.
December 31, 2011 at 07:00 PM
11 minute read
In a clear victory for food companies, the 7th Circuit emphatically rejected a consumer's attempt to use state law to charge fraud in the nutrition labeling and marketing of cereal bars that she alleged contained an inferior form of fiber.
The court asserted that such claims are preempted by the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and that states cannot impose food labeling requirements that are not identical to those in the federal act.
Food companies have included labels listing grams of fiber—along with fat, sodium, sugars and other ingredients—on food packaging for more than 20 years. The NLEA, a 1990 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, requires such disclosure. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) establishes regulations.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not permit a private right of action, which is presumably why Carolyn Turek, who was upset about what she alleged was deceptive labeling of Fiber Plus and other chewy bar products, filed suit against General Mills Inc. and Kellogg Co. under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and another state law.
Turek had concerns about a source of dietary fiber listed in the product labels. She claimed the companies failed to specify that the principal fiber used in the products was not “natural” but rather was inulin extracted from chicory root and that it was misleading to call it fiber. Turek also claimed that inulin does not have the health benefits of natural fiber and can cause health problems for some people.
The defense claimed federal preemption of the plaintiff's state law claims arising from the labeling requirements of the NLEA.
Posner's Position
In an October 2011 decision written by Judge Richard Posner, a 7th Circuit three-judge panel unanimously dismissed Turek's case on the merits with prejudice.
The 7th Circuit held in Turek v. General Mills, Inc. and Kellogg Co. that the NLEA prohibits states or their political subdivisions from imposing any requirements that are not “identical” to its requirements.
Even if the plaintiff was accurate in stating that inulin produces fewer health benefits than “natural” fiber, the manufacturer is not required to disclose that the fiber includes inulin or the alleged health implications of that, Posner added, because the NLEA requires only that the label “state the amount of dietary fiber contained in each serving size or other unit of measure.”
The court also found the defendants compliant with other federal regulations relating to health claims for dietary fiber. Ani Gulati, assistant GC and litigation chief at Minneapolis-based General Mills, said in a statement that the company was pleased with the court's decision and declined further comment. Kellogg and its outside counsel declined comment.
Preemption Precedent
According to David Biderman, a partner at Perkins Coie, which represented General Mills, this is the first appellate court decision addressing the preemption language in the NLEA.
“Judge Posner makes stunningly clear that the NLEA preemption language is very broad,” Biderman says. “No state can impose any nutritional labeling requirement that is not identical to the federal standards. Even something consistent with the federal standards is not allowed—the state requirement must be identical. I could not have said it better than Judge Posner. He took a seemingly complicated issue and put it in simple, clear terms with concrete examples.”
The 7th Circuit also held that a state may impose labeling requirements that are identical to those found in the NLEA in order to create a state cause of action to enforce the requirements, while forbidding states from imposing any non- identical labeling requirements, says Keller and Heckman Partner Mel Drozen.
An exception is that a state can ask the FDA for an exemption from labeling “identicalness” for a requirement “designed to address a particular need,” Posner wrote.
No allegation was made in Turek that Illinois had ever sought or obtained an exemption from the federal law to impose any stricter standard. Drozen says he is unaware of any state that has been granted an exemption. But there are separate provisions for maple syrup products written into the NLEA, which he calls “the Vermont exception.”
Judge Posner said there is a clear consumer benefit to having only one national labeling standard.
“It is easy to see why Congress would not want to allow states to impose disclosure requirements of their own on packaged food products, most of which are sold nationwide,” he wrote. “Manufacturers might have to print 50 different labels, driving consumers who buy food products in more than one state crazy.”
Biderman agrees that the decision is consistent with Congressional intent.
“When it enacted the NLEA more than 20 years ago, Congress wanted to assure that consumers would receive consistent and uniform information about food ingredients to allow them to make informed choices about health and nutrition,” he says. “This decision is wholly consistent with that goal.”
In a clear victory for food companies, the 7th Circuit emphatically rejected a consumer's attempt to use state law to charge fraud in the nutrition labeling and marketing of cereal bars that she alleged contained an inferior form of fiber.
The court asserted that such claims are preempted by the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and that states cannot impose food labeling requirements that are not identical to those in the federal act.
Food companies have included labels listing grams of fiber—along with fat, sodium, sugars and other ingredients—on food packaging for more than 20 years. The NLEA, a 1990 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, requires such disclosure. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) establishes regulations.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not permit a private right of action, which is presumably why Carolyn Turek, who was upset about what she alleged was deceptive labeling of Fiber Plus and other chewy bar products, filed suit against
Turek had concerns about a source of dietary fiber listed in the product labels. She claimed the companies failed to specify that the principal fiber used in the products was not “natural” but rather was inulin extracted from chicory root and that it was misleading to call it fiber. Turek also claimed that inulin does not have the health benefits of natural fiber and can cause health problems for some people.
The defense claimed federal preemption of the plaintiff's state law claims arising from the labeling requirements of the NLEA.
Posner's Position
In an October 2011 decision written by Judge Richard Posner, a 7th Circuit three-judge panel unanimously dismissed Turek's case on the merits with prejudice.
The 7th Circuit held in Turek v.
Even if the plaintiff was accurate in stating that inulin produces fewer health benefits than “natural” fiber, the manufacturer is not required to disclose that the fiber includes inulin or the alleged health implications of that, Posner added, because the NLEA requires only that the label “state the amount of dietary fiber contained in each serving size or other unit of measure.”
The court also found the defendants compliant with other federal regulations relating to health claims for dietary fiber. Ani Gulati, assistant GC and litigation chief at Minneapolis-based General Mills, said in a statement that the company was pleased with the court's decision and declined further comment. Kellogg and its outside counsel declined comment.
Preemption Precedent
According to David Biderman, a partner at
“Judge Posner makes stunningly clear that the NLEA preemption language is very broad,” Biderman says. “No state can impose any nutritional labeling requirement that is not identical to the federal standards. Even something consistent with the federal standards is not allowed—the state requirement must be identical. I could not have said it better than Judge Posner. He took a seemingly complicated issue and put it in simple, clear terms with concrete examples.”
The 7th Circuit also held that a state may impose labeling requirements that are identical to those found in the NLEA in order to create a state cause of action to enforce the requirements, while forbidding states from imposing any non- identical labeling requirements, says
An exception is that a state can ask the FDA for an exemption from labeling “identicalness” for a requirement “designed to address a particular need,” Posner wrote.
No allegation was made in Turek that Illinois had ever sought or obtained an exemption from the federal law to impose any stricter standard. Drozen says he is unaware of any state that has been granted an exemption. But there are separate provisions for maple syrup products written into the NLEA, which he calls “the Vermont exception.”
Judge Posner said there is a clear consumer benefit to having only one national labeling standard.
“It is easy to see why Congress would not want to allow states to impose disclosure requirements of their own on packaged food products, most of which are sold nationwide,” he wrote. “Manufacturers might have to print 50 different labels, driving consumers who buy food products in more than one state crazy.”
Biderman agrees that the decision is consistent with Congressional intent.
“When it enacted the NLEA more than 20 years ago, Congress wanted to assure that consumers would receive consistent and uniform information about food ingredients to allow them to make informed choices about health and nutrition,” he says. “This decision is wholly consistent with that goal.”
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
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
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