Posted on 07/01/2010 9:34:42 AM PDT by MissTed
A Brooklyn woman has filed a lawsuit against General Mills, accusing the food giant of making misleading health claims about the popular kid snack Fruit Roll-Ups.
In the class action filed Tuesday in Manhattan Federal Court, Payton McClure says the company lies when it says the rollups, along with Fruit by the Foot and Fruit Gushers, are naturally flavored, low fat, and "a good source of Vitamin C."
"Unfortunately for consumers and, including children, all these claims are false and misleading," the $5 million suit says.
Court papers say General Mills failed to note on packaging that it uses partially hydrogenated oil in the snacks, which the lawsuit says is "dangerous" and "unhealthy."
McClure could not be reached for comment and the law firm representing her did not return calls.
A spokeswoman for General Mills said the company has not yet been served the lawsuit and declined comment.
Oh, that's rich. Let me remind you of what you first said...
Hence the legal profession is nothing more nor less than a corrupt protection racket run by people who were too stupid to do math and had to wuss it out in something easy like law school.
"Unfortunately for you, it's not about me, but I guess Alinsky is part of the modern legal training."
Alinsky, is he the guy who suggests you should isolate and then marginalize your opposition? Gee, who did that, Mr "I don't like lawyers and they must all be bad at math"?
I'll leave it at that.
"You would have to argue that the health problems were caused exclusively by the partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil from this particular product, as if they weren't ingested through other products."
Again, I haven't had the opportunity to read the complaint, but I have no idea if she's alleging any health complications, and/or is asking for compensation for such complications. Centrally, this isn't about making someone ill, it's about misrepresentation and truth-in-advertising. To prove those allegations, plaintiffs don't need to establish actual health complications.
"Remember that this is a class-action lawsuit. If she were to sue for actual damages, they could give her bus fare. The idea is to get the lawyer rich. Period. That's why it's class-action. That's why anybody's even bothering."
No one would argue that there are significant abuses in our class-action system. But, it's also true that class action lawsuits have a necessary place and a vital role in our system of jurisprudence.
If this woman did not ask the court for class-action status, there is still a reasonable chance it would be set as a class action nonetheless. Why? Because if this woman does prevail at trial, that would open the floodgates to perhaps tens-of-thousands of similar claim, which would cripple the federal justice system. Consolidating such claims makes financial sense for the Court, and ultimately the US taxpayer.
"Why don't we just institute a rule that the total compensation to the law firm cannot exceed the least compensation to a member of the class? That would be fair, right? No reason why the lawyer should benefit more than people who suffered actual damages, true?"
No, that wouldn't be equitable or fair - which is actually a word a loathe. As I have explained, the American tax-payer benefits with properly executed class-action lawsuits. Leaving this action alone for the moment and going back to my earlier "gold ring" analogy, it's conceivable that a national jeweler could defraud 100K people with that phony gold ring. Each litigant may only be out $500, but the total value of lawsuit would be in excess of $50M. Using your "math", plaintiff's lawyers would only be able to collect $500 in fees. Now, is that equitable?
Great. How does that make it anything like Nature's Version of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
The second ingredient is corn syrup. ALL corn syrup in the USA is said to contain FRUCTOSE, ALL corn syrup.
Corn syrup can be anywhere from 20% glucose to 98% glucose. Most corn syrup used commercially today is very high in glucose. How would you even know what blend they used in this particular product?
I wouldn't allow this crap inside my house, and I certainly would feed FRUCTOSE to my kids.
Your kids never eat regular old sugar (sucrose) in any foods? They've never had honey? They consume no fruit or fruit juice? Never eat tomatoes, ketchup or pickles? No broccoli, onions, asparagus, lettuce, carrots, cabbage, celery and sweet red peppers? No baked beans, lentils or peanuts? No eggs?
It's no wonder you get flamed.
All the “small” peoples and all the large peoples deserve each others money these days. We can just line up starting at the Treasury and pass the money back to one another. Share and wes all be equal!
I bet there aint no fruit in that stuff...it’s just rolled up plastic or a thin film of vinyl dipped in grape juice.
How about lost sales? Presumably there are other health-conscious consumers out there, like the plaintiff, who wouldn't have purchased the product if they were made aware that it contained tran-fats. It would be argued, I'm sure, that GM intentionally failed to disclose the harmful ingredient to protect the product's annual sales.
"Maybe you can make a correlation between the oil drilling industry and a snack food but I'm not seeing it."
Then you don't understand the fairly elementary economic principle EBITA. Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold & Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses. In one example, GM is protecting their "Net Sales", and in the BP example, they're illegally reducing their operating expenses. Both scenarios impact the business equation and go directly to the corporation's profit motives.
"Does the requirement state that it must be on the label only if it is present in the product i.e. optional if it is not? No, it has to be there. It can, however, be included in the “Not a significant source of…” statement."
Well, I'm not entirely sure either I'm correct, or your correct, and I'm not really inclined to look it up. But, I'll again point out the label I earlier posted. It does not give any percentage for "trans-fat", but it does list "partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil" in the ingredients. How about that?
I'm not litigating this case, so I don't pretend to know the specifics, but I certainly understand the general principles involved. If there are trans-fats (in the form of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oils) in the product that she purchased, but aren't on the label, then she has a case, probably a strong case.
"Exactly. I can tell you that naturally occurring trans fats contain conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Research has shown that CLA provides many health benefits"
EXACTLY CORRECT, if only those are the trans-fats in the product. Unfortunately for the defendants, they aren't. It's partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.
"No, but your understanding of the topic is simplistic. Kind of like your certitude that virtually every scientific study the last decade has conclusively proven that partially-hydrogenated oils are unhealthy."
I'll amend that statement to read...
"virtually every scientific study the last decade has conclusively proven that industrially created partially-hydrogenated oils are unhealthy"
Of course, since the topic at hand is the product that GM manufactured, you would think my statement would have inferred manufactured trans-fats. Of course, to someone as ridiculously argumentative as yourself, it went over your head.
Of course, if you have reams of information about the healthy benefits of artificial trans-fats, I'd love to read it, and I'm sure defendant's counsel would as well. They probably won't be holding their breath, and neither will I.
I mean that the lawsuit is abusive and a nuisance.
Keep in mind that Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard Law and I think the words "manifestly stupid" could be easily applied.
Centrally, this isn't about making someone ill, it's about misrepresentation and truth-in-advertising. To prove those allegations, plaintiffs don't need to establish actual health complications.
Exactly: Corrupt. Protection. Racket. If nobody was harmed, then why is somebody getting rich? Especially on the backs of innocent Wheaties consumers.
No one would argue that there are [not] significant abuses in our class-action system. But, it's also true that class action lawsuits have a necessary place and a vital role in our system of jurisprudence.
I say it doesn't and that it's little more than theft from poor old retirees who have the misfortune to have their life savings tied up in General Mills stock. Why don't you just go to their nursing home to take it from them directly? Second wrong lesson that you learn from law school: There are no unintended consequences.
If this woman did not ask the court for class-action status, there is still a reasonable chance it would be set as a class action nonetheless. Why?
Corrupt protection racket?
Because if this woman does prevail at trial, that would open the floodgates to perhaps tens-of-thousands of similar claim, which would cripple the federal justice system.
Not if we institute "actual damages" into the law. You can't argue for punitive damages anyway when agencies exist to resolve such issues. The second the FDA required those labels, any complaints should have been registered there.
The fact is that most people don't go to court. It's only a select few who benefit on the backs of the rest of us. While little miss "Horrors! Vegetable oil! I'm getting the vapors!" tries to get her little payday, it gets paid for by everybody else. Corporations, you see, don't ever get "punished" anyway. Their stockholders and customers do, but there is no corpus to spank.
Using your "math", plaintiff's lawyers would only be able to collect $500 in fees. Now, is that equitable?
Yep. Why not? They are crusading for the good of mankind, they should be willing to do it for free. They are noble and are above such petty considerations as money. At least, that's what they all tell me.
But the fact is that even using your hypothetical (which we shouldn't need because this is an actual case with actual details), there is no chance any defrauded person would see the $500 anyway. True fraudsters (and this GM case has no resemblance to that whatsoever) don't sit on the pile of money like Scrooge McDuck. Which means you'll never see anywhere close to true compensation.
You don't like "fair" but that is exactly what you are arguing. You think that the courts can act like a strict nanny, punishing whomever performs a misdeed and -- even if compensation is impossible -- that punishment should be inflicted anyway.
And in the meantime, a lawyer gets rich. Nice work if you can get it.
It's an interesting rational you posit - don't hold corporations to account, because really there is no corpus and it's the old retirees who pay the price.
BP is looking for a new national spokesman. I hear the pay is good, and I think you'd fit right in.
"But the fact is that even using your hypothetical (which we shouldn't need because this is an actual case with actual details), there is no chance any defrauded person would see the $500 anyway"
No, we shouldn't just be limited by the facts in this case, because you just didn't indict this class action, you indicted all class action lawsuits.
"You don't like "fair" but that is exactly what you are arguing. You think that the courts can act like a strict nanny, punishing whomever performs a misdeed and -- even if compensation is impossible -- that punishment should be inflicted anyway."
Yes, I would MUCH rather have Courts punish people who violate terms of contracts - and this is what we are talking about here, a contract of sale - rather than governments exercising broad and unnecessary regulation. Torts are a necessary and integral part of the free market system. They hold unscrupulous merchants to account, and create a penalty if "they don't do that thing that they say they're going to do". In this instance, GM said there were no trans-fats in their product vis-a-vis their product label. I don't want the government overseeing this, I want consumers holding the feet of corporations to the fire. Tort law is one of the tools consumers use.
They look like grapenuts
The label lists "Partially Hydrogenated Cotton Seed Oil"
I don't believe in punishment for punishment's sake. In the case of the BP oil spill (much of which can be blamed, by the way, on the close relationship Beyond Petroleum had -- via its lawyers -- with the federal government) they can pay for actual damages. And rest assured, the board of BP and their army of legal counsels are doing quite well. Quite well, indeed. Especially the lawyers.
Because it is simply corruption. I.e., the company looks to whomever is in power and bends themselves to serve political ends, rather than commercial ones. Lawyers exist to facilitate this arrangement.
No, we shouldn't just be limited by the facts in this case, because you just didn't indict this class action, you indicted all class action lawsuits.
Fair point, but life isn't perfect and concocting a perfect but unrealistic scenario to buttress your point doesn't negate the fact that this silly lawsuit is much more emblematic of class-action lawsuits. That is, aggrieved parties receive nothing, lawyers get rich, customers and stockholders get screwed and the wheel turns.
Yes, I would MUCH rather have Courts punish people who violate terms of contracts - and this is what we are talking about here, a contract of sale
Really? 'Cause when I go to the bakery, they don't tell me everything that's in the fresh bread. Why should General Mills?
I'm going to answer that myself: Because by regulation, they have to. And because of that regulation, the proper place to "punish" the company is that same regulator. The company should not have two masters, the regulator and a mercurial, dim-witted judge.
Tort law is one of the tools consumers use.
Funny. In most other countries, there isn't so much of the get-rich-quick lawsuiting. Including Britain and for quite a long time. Which is where the common law, which our legal system often quotes, comes from.
I'm all for tort reform, and I have said so on this forum and other forums I post on. The UK and other European countries don't have the same problem because their systems have limits, tort caps. Ours doesn't. That has to change.
There are commonsense steps America could take to reform in a substantive way our tort system. I'd be all for it. Incidentally, while I am a trial attorney, I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer. I was, for much of my career, a military lawyer defending the government from torts. I understand the abuse and (your word) corruption inherent in the system.
Having said that, I will fiercely defend anyone's right to address wrongs (as they see them) with our justice system.
There's LOTS of food that can comprise a low fructose diet, and since you are so very interested in this subject, I suggest that you research it on google, starting with the phrase, "Hereditary Fructose Intolerance" -- most people 'just' have fructose malabsorption, but with the HFI you'll learn there's plenty of foods that aren't anything like those nasty fructose filled General Mills snacks for kids.
I am not a doctor, I am not a nutritionist, and I am ending your interrogation of me, NOW.
Good bye.
We do not know what was the labeling on the box that this lady purchased.
If it was hurting their bottom line they could easily convert this product to one of many others available today that are being used to replace partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. But they haven't.
Presumably there are other health-conscious consumers out there, like the plaintiff
"Health-conscious" consumers intentionally choose to eat products like Fruit by the Foot and Fruit Roll Ups? They may be "health-conscious" but they don't know much about nutrition.
who wouldn't have purchased the product if they were made aware that it contained tran-fats.
Interesting. The label says it contains "0" grams of trans fat. Maybe the plaintiff is just an idiot.
It would be argued, I'm sure, that GM intentionally failed to disclose the harmful ingredient to protect the product's annual sales.
And maybe unicorns poop skittles. With 25+ years in the food industry I can't think of a single reason they would do this. Maybe they're just evil...like BP.
GM is protecting their "Net Sales", and in the BP example, they're illegally reducing their operating expenses
Why would they do something illegal to protect their sales instead of just switching to another ingredient that provides the same benefits without offering any trans fats? Numerous products exist for that very purpose. Food companies like General Mills just don't go around ignoring labeling laws. They also don't go around making mistakes like leaving an ingredient like this off the label. There's far too big a price to pay.
But, I'll again point out the label I earlier posted. It does not give any percentage for "trans-fat", but it does list "partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil" in the ingredients. How about that?
Good grief. Do you think that, just maybe, it amounts to less than .5g/serving? Like I said......
If there are trans-fats (in the form of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oils) in the product that she purchased, but aren't on the label, then she has a case, probably a strong case.
Or maybe she's just another head case who doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.
Unfortunately for the defendants, they aren't. It's partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil. And you're certain that this ingredient is "dangerous" and "unhealthy" and virtually every scientific study the last decade has conclusively proven that partially-hydrogenated oils (industrial or otherwise) are unhealthy? If so, you and the plaintiff need to read more.
I'm not intentionally being argumentative, I'm just pointing out that your certitude regarding so many things cannot be justified. It's also interesting to find someone so eager to fault industry, and who considers industry so inherently corrupt, on FR. This is the kind of commentary I'd expect to read on the CSPI site, not here.
As for health benefits...tans fats have become the cause du jour for the chemicalphobes, toxic terrorists and food Nazis. When trans fats make up less than 2% of the total daily caloric intake of most people, while saturated fat makes up more like 15%, then you have to wonder where the priorities are in the war on obesity. Just about anything can be considered unhealthy if consumed in the right quantities. Hydrogenation serves many purposes. One important benefit is that it prevents rancidity. Removing trans fats will cause a product, especially oils, to go rancid faster. When rancidity occurs, large quantities of free radicals can be formed. Consuming free radicals will result in a much greater risk to your health than any moderate consumption of hydrogenated vegetable oil.
But the know nothings don't want to have that debate. They're too busy doing good. Rational discussions of benefits vs. risk isn't in the equation. There's an agenda to pursue.
Carry on.
They haven't even been served the lawsuit yet. And you think they already changed the label? Sheesh.
Well, we could get into a lengthy conversation about could they have, or why didn't they. And, those question certainly would be material to the jury if/when determining damages. But, that discussion wouldn't change the central question - did they fail to properly disclose the trans-fats? The "why" is a plainly secondary, but not necessarily irrelevant question
You seem to wish to litigate the case here. I don't. But, it's clear that if the label was incorrect, there is a prima facie case, and we should let the court work it out. That's what courts do.
"And maybe unicorns poop skittles. With 25+ years in the food industry I can't think of a single reason they would do this. Maybe they're just evil...like BP."
Luckily for plaintiffs, it's not you that they have to worry about. It's the judge, and the jury should they make it that far.
"I'm just pointing out that your certitude regarding so many things cannot be justified."
I haven't asserted "certitude about so many things". What I have said, and I continue to say is if the label is inaccurate, General Mills has legal problems. I have also said - with certitude - that trans-fats are virtually universally accepted as unhealthy dietary ingredients. Yes, you have pointed out that there are minuscule amounts of naturally occurring trans-fats. Clearly, that's not what I was speaking about, and anyone giving a fair reading to my post would agree.
If you believe trans-fats (and yes, we're talking about the artificial fats) not to be unhealthy, let's see the evidence. I'd love to read it.
Whatever the case - trans-fats good/trans-fats bad - it's only secondary to the central question posed by the suit - did General Mills fail to properly disclose their presence? That's it.
On the website the label does. Isn’t the complaint that they didn’t list it on the label?
You mean grape seeds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.