California to Allow Consumers to Sue Over Deceptive Food Labels

organic-eggs-compressed

By Julie Fidler | Natural Society

The California Supreme Court ruled recently that under California law, consumers have a right to file lawsuits alleging food products are falsely labeled “organic.”

Related Article: FDA Approves First GMO Animal: Salmon To Be Sold With No GMO Label


The ruling overturned a lower court decision that banned such lawsuits on the basis that they were outdated and not permitted by federal law.

The word “organic” was defined by a 1990 federal law that set uniform national standards for classifying and labeling a product as such. Under that law, “organic” meant that a certain product was grown without pesticides and other chemicals. The law displaced standards established by nearly half the states, including California, and is enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, which oversees agencies that certify a company’s products as organic.

In 2013, the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that lawsuits over food labeling were not valid, citing the federal government’s role in creating and approving what is considered organic. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines “organic” produce as fruits and vegetables produced without genetic engineering, most conventional pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, ionizing irradiation or human sewage sludge as fertilizer. Organic meat or animal products come from animals not given antibiotics or growth hormones.

Related Article: DARK Day: House Passes Anti-GMO Labeling Bill That Takes Away Our Right to Know

The basis of the decision was a class-action lawsuit filed by California consumer Michelle Quesada against Herb Thyme Farms Inc. that alleged the company falsely labeled its food, mixing organic and non-organic herbs together under the organic label. Herb Thyme advertises its products as 100% organic, and had received the USDA’s authorization to use the organic label.


Prior to the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the law stated that private citizens could only file complaints with the USDA but had no right to sue a company for violating the federal law. A Superior Court judge and the appellate court ruled that such lawsuits would interfere with uniform nationwide standards.

The California Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, saying that private suits under state laws actually promote the goals of national organic regulation.

“Intentionally marketing products as organic that have been grown conventionally undermines the assurances the USDA Organic label is intended to provide,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in the 7-0 decision. She said private lawsuits further the federal law’s purposes of “reassuring consumers and enabling fair competition.” Barring such claims would render organic labeling uniquely immune from suits for deception” under a law that was meant to provide complete transparency.

Raymond Boucher, one of the attorneys for Quesada, said ruling provides a solution for “overpaying for products that aren’t what they were represented to be.” (Organic foods are generally priced higher than non-organic foods, and sometimes unjustly.) He added that both the USDA and state food regulators lacked the staff and resources necessary for preventing companies from mislabeling their products.

“When Ms. Quesada goes in to buy a product that’s stamped as organic, she wants to know this truly is organic, and she can feel good about it,” Boucher says.

Related Article: Dr. Mercola Says Now Is the Time to Make GMO Labeling a Reality (Defeat the Pompeo Bill)

Marsha Cohen, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, says the ruling will have a nation-wide impact.

“Nothing in here is irrelevant to a parallel case in another state,” she said. “The court is simply saying federal law does not supersede our consumer protection functions,” Cohen said.

Read more great articles at Natural Society.

Tags: , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

13 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. 1045727952115684@facebook.com' Gary Richard says:

    That’s one way to get manufacturers to stop making fake or dangerous products. If they get sued enough, they will straighten out or go out of business.

  2. 10153776670208288@facebook.com' Jay Cuza says:

    Such a shame consumers should be told that they can sue. It should be a given. I sell something. I lie about it. I make money by lying. I am stealing your money. That should be punishable as any theft.

  3. 967841176591347@facebook.com' Locke Jeff says:

    Unless you hunt your food in the wild, and gather your food in the wild, you are being lied to.

  4. 1054097931290865@facebook.com' Debra Moore says:

    Whole foods is already on the list!

  5. 10153141937980780@facebook.com' Tracie Walker says:

    It’s pathetic that the population is “allowed” to sue. Lol! I thought we were always allowed! Apparently not 🙁

  6. 10205442041914675@facebook.com' Rob Brandsma says:

    nonsense, these companies are run by Christians, deceit is far from them !

  7. 10207950975363060@facebook.com' James P Moon says:

    False advertising is a crime

  8. 10206207584323281@facebook.com' Ben Finnis says:

    Haha I hope McDonalds gets sued to the moon and back for thier crappy burgers versus those tasty looking pictures.

  9. 150990275249676@facebook.com' Susan Home says:

    Are there free lawyers available to help?

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend