This putative class action was based on Trader Joe’s sale of
“All Natural” and “100% Natural” products that allegedly contained one or more
synthetic and/or nonnatural ingredients as defined by the FDA. Trader Joe's moved for judgment on the
pleadings with respect to claims related to its Fresh Pressed Apple Juice,
labeled “All Natural Pasteurized” and “100% Juice.” The label lists two ingredients, “APPLE JUICE,
ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C).” Ascorbic
acid is a modified form of vitamin C used in foods as a preservative. It’s produced from corn or wheat starch,
which is converted to glucose, then to sorbitol, through a series of chemical
processes and purification steps. Trader
Joe’s argued that the juice-related claims were preempted by the FDCA and its
implementing regulations.
In essence, Trader Joe’s argued that the plaintiffs were
seeking to impose labeling requirements that would imply that naturally
occurring vitamin C is better than synthetic vitamin C. Plaintiffs responded that they weren’t
seeking additional labeling, but rather to have Trader Joe’s refrain from
labeling its juice as “All Natural” when it actually contains synthetic vitamin
C—ascorbic acid. They argued that,
though the claims were material to them because they believed that natural products were better than synthetic ones, the
validity of their claims didn’t depend on the superiority of naturally
occurring vitamins, and that they weren’t asking retailers to label naturally
occurring vitamin C as superior. Trader
Joe’s rejoined that barring them from using “All Natural” would imply that
ascorbic acid was inferior: “In other words, the lack of a label implies
inferiority, and therefore violates federal regulations which treat ascorbic
acid and naturally occurring vitamin C as synonyms. Trader Joe's goes so far as
to argue that federal law requires that it label ascorbic acid as ‘All Natural.’”
As you can guess from the tone, the court disagreed. California’s ban on false or misleading
labeling was identical to the FDCA/FDA requirements. The court found Trader Joe’s logic strained
and its regulatory citations cherry-picking.
Federal regulations indeed provide that ascorbic acid and vitamin C may
be used synonymously on food labels. But
that doesn’t require the court to adopt Trader Joe’s view that labels can never
make any distinction between these synonyms.
Trader Joe’s argued that labels distinguishing between natural and added
or synthetic vitamins would inherently be misbranded, and that, as long as the
naturally occurring vitamins could be labeled “All Natural,” then “federal law
not only permits, but indeed requires, manufacturers to label products with
[synthetic] vitamins in an identical manner.”
The federal regulations as a whole don’t support that
view. The regulations were, indeed,
explicitly amended to remove the prohibition on differentiating between
naturally-occurring and synthetic vitamins.
While the regulation does prohibit label statements that naturally
occurring vitamins are superior to
synthetic vitamins, it allows labels to “‘differentiate between the different
forms of a vitamin,’ particularly as between naturally occurring and synthetic.” Both the premise (no distinctions in
labeling) and the conclusion (“All Natural” was required because naturally
occurring vitamin C could be labeled “All Natural”) were flawed.
The court noted that some differences may matter to
consumers even if they are not matters of physical/chemical identity: “Simply
because the two products are chemically similar or even identical, it does not
follow that they must be labeled identically in all respects. As the FDA
recognized in removing the strict prohibition on differentiating, there is some
value to consumers and the market of knowing whether ingredients are synthetic
or naturally occurring.” The plaintiffs’
complaint didn’t depend on the actual inferiority of synthetic
ingredients. “At most, plaintiffs allege
that consumers affirmatively choose ‘All Natural’ products for a host of
reasons, including helping the environment, assisting local farmers, and
perceived health benefits.” Moreover,
they weren’t demanding an active “synthetic” or “non-natural” label; rather
they challenged the use of “All Natural.”
This wouldn’t require Trader Joe’s to imply anything positive or
negative about ascorbic acid. “To be sure,
the ability to describe as ‘All Natural’ may have market consequences. But the
absence of a label is quite different from the addition of positive or negative
language, which the regulations plainly prohibit.”
No comments:
Post a Comment