Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man shocked to find preservatives in his fruit cups, so naturally, he sues
By adamg on Thu, 10/09/2014 - 10:42am
A Middlesex County resident who claims to have been shocked to discover ascorbic acid and citric acid added to packages of Dole's "Mandarin Oranges in 100% Juice" is, of course, suing.
In a lawsuit filed this week in US District Court in Boston, Benjamin Mahan says Dole's packaging, which claims the products contain "all natural" fruit, violate federal and Massachusetts food-labeling laws because of the addition of the two preservatives.
It's the fourth such lawsuit filed by a group of attorneys across the country that includes Boston attorney Erica Mirabella against various food manufacturers since the beginning of August. Their local clients are also suing Whole Foods, Blue Diamond and Coca Cola over their labeling.
The latest lawsuit, against Dole, alleges:
Plaintiff was misled by the Defendant’s unlawful and misleading label on this product. Plaintiff would not have otherwise purchased this product had he known the truth about this product, i.e., that it was not truly “all natural.” Plaintiff had other food alternatives that that satisfied legal standards and Plaintiff also had cheaper alternatives.
This product is unlawful, misbranded and violates Massachusetts law, because the label fails to disclose that chemical citric acid is used as a preservative. This product is misleading and deceptive because the label’s failure to identify citric acid as a preservative helps conceal the product is not all natural and falsely suggests that the product not preserved to the degree it actually is preserved.
Plaintiff reasonably relied on these label representations/omissions and based and justified the decision to purchase the Mandarin Oranges, in substantial part, on these label misrepresentations/omissions.
Mahan is seeking to become lead plaintiff for a class of people that would include every Massachusetts resident who purchased any Dole fruit cup after Oct. 7, 2010. And apparently Dole fruit cups are quite popular in Massachusetts, because the complaint estimates the number of class members "is potentially in the millions."
He seeks damages, penalties and lawyers' fees.
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Mahan complaint | 236.57 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Im going to sue DD
Next time they put cream instead of milk in my coffee. This country is getting softer every day.
Of Course!
I just found DIRT in my garden! I'm suing!
I also want to sue the guy in front of me at Starbucks who always needs an extra ten minutes to explain what GLUTEN is to everyone on line.
Can I sue my neighbors for leaving tires in their yard?
I want to sue that fisher cat for keeping me up all night.
I'm suing Dorito's for making me eat the whole bag EVERY time.
I'm definitely suing the mailman for not putting the little flag thing down again after he takes my mail.
I'm suing my lawyer for charging me too much and not itemizing my bill.
I'm suing Susan Sarandon for having the name Sue .
To be continued.
http://cappyinboston.blogspot.com/
You should have added "I'm
You should have added "I'm going to sue everyone who replies to this post."
Sue is a boy's name and the
Sue is a boy's name and the estate of Johnny Cash is going to take you to court for royalties.
Really?
And, of course, if the person who sold you the house had made the claim, in writing, as part of the marketing of the property, "Garden contains no dirt," you'd be on solid ground.
And, of course, if your lawyer is charging more than he or she agreed to charge, and if your contract requires an itemized bill, you'd be on solid ground there, too.
Thank you
But how do we get Susan Sarandon to change her to name?
Sarandon
Just start referring to her as "Phyllis Sarandon," I'll do the same. maybe it'll catch on.
"Plaintiff would not have
"Plaintiff would not have otherwise purchased this product had he known the truth about this product"
In other words, the plaintiff would not have purchased this product if he turned the package 90 degrees and read the ingredient list.
Also, buy a real manadrin orange. Not one packaged in a plastic cup, asshole.
Breaking new ground in frivolity
It's almost like the plaintiff has no idea WTF is in oranges. He only wanted them for the vitamin C, not the devil additive ascorbic acid!
Hint: Orange juice contains water, too.
I think we probably all agree that orange juice contains water, but that someone who told you you were buying "100% orange juice" and actually sold you a mixture of orange juice and water would be a liar and a cheat, and that "b-b-b-but water is naturally found in orange juice" wouldn't be a valid defense.
Hydroxic acid? Acid?!
Hydroxic acid? Acid?!
I'm suing!
It's Not Frivolous - The Package Is Designed To Deceive
The packaging is trying to make people believe that eating their processed product is the same as eating fresh fruit. It's not the same; nutrients are lost in the processing and using fruit juice (and other substances) as a preservative adds unhealthy calories. Synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid) doesn't make up for the natural vitamin C and other vitamins lost in processing. They should be clearly labeled somehow as "preserved" oranges.
The government regulators are mostly regulated by corporate interests right now, leaving it up to private citizens to call out deceptive marketing practices, especially when it involves unhealthy consumer food products. So, if the industry just cleans up its act, it won't be subject to lawsuits like this anymore.
YES of COURSE
BUT what do you do once you realize this?
You stop buying the product.
NOW because of that ridiculous comment -
I'm suing you.
"I'm suing you."
Please. Act your age.
Is the lawsuit silly? Yeah, probably, because it's damn difficult to argue that any harm was done. On the other hand, there was a similar suit over similar deceptive labeling. The product: McDonald's french fries, "made with 100% vegetable oil". People (not unreasonably) interpreted this as "100% of the oil/fat that is used to make these fries, is vegetable oil". In fact, it turned out that the fries were made partly with oil that was "100% vegetable oil", and partly with beef tallow. Because of the advertising, these fries were apparently considered by a number of Hindus to be safe to eat. Imagine the reaction when they found out otherwise.
(Actually, the person who found out was a Jain...even worse. You can google that.)
So, in short, was harm done in this case? Probably not. Should the company get slapped hard for this kind of labeling? I'd say probably yes. You may disagree, but I'd say there's a reasonable expectation that a manufacturer will not actively attempt to deceive, and you cannot make a reasonable argument that this is not exactly what has happened here. So please, stop with the childish "I'm suing you! Neener neener!" game. There IS a valid point here.
You make a very Good Point:
But since you have no sense of humor.
I'm suing you.
First, off, the labeling is
First, off, the labeling is only deceptive to anyone who has never seen packaged fruit.
Secondly, the reason the lawsuit is frivolous to the average person is because, inevitably, there will be an out of court settlement for a certain sum - let's round it off to $10,000,000. The attorneys will take their cut off the top - in cash - leaving 5 or 6 million to go to the defendants. In the case of the vast majority of class action suits like this, what that means is everyone will get coupons for $.50 off their next purchase, allowing the offending companies to write the whole thing off to marketing!
Win-win for everyone but the poor sap that doesn't understand the only way you get that stuff into a package and ship it 3000 miles for five days so it can sit on the shelf of a 7/11 for three more days, is to add ascorbic acid to it.
Consumer Reports
I believe they're bringing their own action or lobbying to get rid of the now meaningless word "natural" for just these reasons
Taint no difference
Ascorbic acid is Vitamin C is ascorbic acid. There is no difference between 'synthetic' and 'natural' ascorbic acid.
That Is True, But ...
... in fresh fruits and vegetables, vitamin C is accompanied by bioflavonoids and other micronutrients that allow it to be absorbed and utilized. That complex of little things that evolved naturally to work together can't be replaced by simply dropping in a synthesized form of just its main ingredient.
Science still doesn't understand all the mechanisms involved in nutrition; until they do, you're always going to better off eating fresh produce instead of processed foods whenever you can.
Package is the key word here
I confess that I'm a bit saddened by this story. I'm sad that there are people walking around who believe that a processed, shelf stable, vacuum sealed cup of fruit is as fresh and natural as an actual piece of fruit.
This is getting out of hand.
I'm going to start suing every person I think doesn't live up to my ideal level of intellect. To further complicate the process I will have my attorney write up my paperwork in Elizabethan English, or Old English and put all requested dollars amounts in the form of complex multiples of number e.
Good luck with that, since
Good luck with that, since you clearly fail at reading comprehension.
Wait a minute
He's suing because a package of CITRUS fruit had CITRIC acid in it? Does he even know what citric acid is?
Next he'll sue Evian for including dihydrogen monoxide in its bottles of water!
Citrus fruit contains water, too.
Water is a naturally occurring component of citrus fruits, just as citric acid is.
And, if you sell as "100% orange juice" something that is in fact a mixture of orange juice and water, you are lying and cheating. "I only put into the product something that naturally occurs in orange juice anyhow," is not even remotely an acceptable defense.
Dihydrogen Monoxide is not the preferred name, by the way; the IUPAC (which controls the standard names chemists use for everything) likes "oxidane"
Next time this guy goes food
Next time this guy goes food shopping I want to tag along so that I can remove anything he puts in his cart that is 100% bonafide, certified, graced by the hand of God natural.
You're kind of missing the point
The issue at hand is not whether or not the product is "natural," whatever that means, it's whether or not the label is deceptive, which this one obviously is.
Throw a little lemon juice
Throw a little lemon juice into those oranges and you have both those things, AND still 100% juice.
Why the naysayers?
You people who are ridiculing the claim, please answer me this:
If the label says, "100% fruit juice," what would you expect to find on the list of ingredients?
If you find something on the ingredients that is not fruit juice, wouldn't you consider the claim "100% fruit juice" dishonest?
Are they natural?
This is not a debate, but a question. And I don't mean that you should have the answer. Are citric and ascorbic acids natural or man made?
I'm pretty sure that "Natural" is a bogus word on product labels
I believe (translation: I'm too lazy to look up) that the use of the word "natural" on food product labels is somewhat regulated, but only weakly so, and by a patchwork of regulations and cases that aren't all that consistent or comprehensible.
Uranium
is naturally occurring. So are mercury and arsenic.
I would not want to eat any of those, even if they are 100% all-natural.
See Hyde_Parker's comment above.
Citric acid is from citrus fruits, and would occur naturally in their juice. Ascorbic acid is VITAMIN C- which, if you know anything about anything, you probably know is naturally...in...citrus fruits.
So they could have added, as Hyde_Parker said, lemon juice- and it'd still be 100% juice. Even if it wasn't, even if they added extra citric & ascorbic acid, the percentage probably isn't even significant enough to warrant changing the label (I'm wondering if there are similar regulations to the "<1g of carbs = 0g of carbs on a label" thing, but I'm unsure about that).
This lawsuit is absurd.
Furthermore
Maybe in the processing of the fruit, they add the ascorbic acid and citric acid to the oranges. Then the juice would still be 100%, and the labeling would be true despite the additional ingredients.
You're wrong
It's deceptive packaging, and that's obvious. The intent is to mislead.
And the intent of these lawsuits is...
...to help the public be better informed? Please. Don't kid yourself. These are moneygrubbers looking for easy cash (scumbag lawyers included).
So the lawyers make money on it. Big deal
That's one of the benefits of our legal system - when the FDA and the FTC fail at the job, there's an opportunity for private business (lawyers, in this case) to step in, force a company to comply with the law, and make money doing it.
Without the threat of litigation there would be even less incentive for companies to be honest.
100% juice
When I see the phrase "100% juice," I interpret that to mean that it's not packed in 10% juice and 90% water.
I was under the impression
I was under the impression that federal standards allow fruit juice that contains preservatives to be labeled as "100% juice." It bugs the hell out of me, because how can a drink with three ingredients, two of which aren't juice, be 100% juice?
I pondered this recently
Cranberry juice.
Ocean Spray got into trouble for calling what they were selling "100% Cranberry Juice" when it was something like 10% juice and 90% water. No one wants to drink pure cranberry juice, to they were in trouble. I believe the result was "cocktail" drinks.
I'm still trying to figure out how we give junior "100% juice" that is, according to the label, 40% juice.
Weasel language I've seen
I've seen the weasel language "Contains 100% pure juice!"
Silly you, you thought it meant that the bottle contains 100% juice, but you'd be wrong, it means that the stuff in the bottle contains, as one of its ingredients, something that is itself 100% pure juice, along with a lot of other ingredients, two biggies being water and sugar.
Told to get 100% juice
To be fair, in the universe of raising a kid, I think "100% juice" means no added sugars (sugars occur naturally, since most fruits are basically sucrose and water.) Still, I have to laugh when I see that whole 40% "100% juice" thing. You can get "100% juice", but it has way too much natural sugar, so watering it down is a good thing (and yes, just having water would be even better.)
On a complete aside, I imagine that at some point in my life, we will be told that fruit is not good for you. A friend of mine was dealing with a Type 2 diabetes scare and had to swear off orange juice to get things under control.
EDIT- it's 53% 100% juice. Just looked at the bottle. To be fair to Motts, they don't put any percentage on the bottle, except the 53% in small print.
sigh
Our tax dollars at work! Wasting tax dollars so attorneys get rich and clogging up the court system with such lawsuits. And we wonder why it takes forever and a day to get your day in court for a real issue (i.e. criminal cases), because the courts are too busy determining if labeling is wrong.
Seriously, do people not have anything better to do? This lawsuit is as silly as it comes and is playing on a law that was suppose to protect us from blatant mislabeling, not some idiot who doesn't understand what the label ingredients mean...
It also sounds like the attorneys for this and the other lawsuits are just playing into the court system and the loopholes in order to bill and make bucks.
Agreed
The lawyers will be the only ones getting anything out of its. Maybe the company will be forced to change a word here or there in the labeling to make it more ambiguous, but the plaintiffs will be found to not have suffered any substantial monetary damages. The lawyers will surely still get their $500/hour fees, however.
Quite the contrary: Our tax dollars *not* at work
Quite the contrary: if the FDA and the FTC were doing their job, then this sort of case wouldn't happen.
Do you seriously think it's OK to label something as "100% X" when the ingredients are X, Y, and Z?
You're an idiot
If you believe what's on the front of packages instead of reading the back. This is why we have Nutrition Facts on the back which are a federal requirement to be correct. Its required by law. The front is not.
The FDA and USDA are doing their job by having Nutrition Facts and making sure its factual, which is the point of Nutrition Facts. I remember a time before Nutrition Facts, and it was up to companies to provide that information (most did not and/or it wasn't factual at all).
Anyone who knows anything remotely about nutrition knows to ignore the front and read the "nutritional information" label on the back. Its the back that counts, not the front, when it comes to knowing what is really in what your eating. And 9 times out of 10, the front is misleading. This is why you read the back.
Bob, Why are you sticking up for these idiots and arguing about it? You must be one who only reads the front and ignores the back. Says a lot about you Bob....
PS - Yes our tax dollars at work, stupid lawsuits like this sucking up tax payers money to run trials for crap that really isn't work a hill of beans, only for an attorney to have a payday at the expense of his client and a corporation. When that time and money could be used for real issues and real trials.
PPS - Do I think its OK to label something as 100% X? Of course not, but I also understand that they can put whatever they want (and often do) on the front, it's the back of the package that matters the most. I just err on the side that companies are dishonest in order to sell products... and they are. Is it right? Of course not, but I feel that if we didn't have Nutrition Facts on the back, then this case would have a ground to stand on, but we do, so the whole case is stupid.
Is the FTC doing their job?
I don't know what I think about this lawsuit, but the FTC are the packaging people. If there was some standard that they created and wasn't followed, a case could be made. If there is in fact no standard, then things get muddied and the courts might have to wade into this. Perhaps this will get to the appeals level, where a judge will have to decide and write what "100% Natural" actually is.
I think
my whole point was this and packaging is
Ignore the front, read the back (aka Nutrition Facts)
The standard is what is in nutrition facts.. not what the front says.
The *only* time I've seen the front matter is when its Organic. Only because in order to be "Organic" it has to have the Organic Seal from the USDA on it, and needs to meet a criteria to get that emblem. (I'm sure someone who is into organic stuff than I am will correct me if I am wrong)
Good advice, as far as it goes
"Ignore the front, read the back" is excellent advice; it's certainly how I trained my kids to shop.
But, that isn't the end of the story, and it certainly doesn't exonerate the manufacturers from responsibility for misleading labels.
Similarly, "Don't deal with strangers trying to sell you watches on the street" is good advice, but by no means does that mean that the people selling stolen Timexes or fake Rolexes shouldn't be punished.
I hate liars and cheats and those who use weasel words to deceive. I wish the gummint came down harder on them, but, barring that, I hope the people bringing these cases (where they are legitimate) win some big settlements and the companies involved pay through the nose.
Actually, I'm not an idiot, but thanks anyhow
I think your personal attack is entirely unwarranted, and you and I seem to be using a different set of facts.
There are, in fact, well established legal requirements that claims made on packages -- completely aside from the "nutrition facts" label -- must be factually accurate. Deceptive labeling is illegal.
.
It is not a frivolous lawsuit
It is not a frivolous lawsuit because he is correct, the advertising is a lie.
The problem is that they should be the job of regulators to clamp down on this shit.
Instead, its left to the courts, over and over again.
You cant have 100% juice if youre adding other ingredients. The math simply doesnt work.
As another commenter pointed
As another commenter pointed out, if the ascorbic acid and citric acid are added directly to the oranges and then THAT is put into 100% juice, then there is no lie occurring.
I'm assuming it would be similar to avocados that then have lime juice (or a similar acid) put on them to stop the oxidation process.
I don't think that's how it works.
If you put lime juice on pieces of avocado and then crush them into guacamole, the ingredients in the guacamole are avocado and lime juice, not "100% avocado." This is not a complicated concept, folks.
These people...
Are making us look so frigging stupid...
The only people being made to
The only people being made to look stupid are those without the reading comprehension to understand that there's deceptive advertising going on.
Reading comprehension?
What about the guy who didn't read the ingredients, then sued over them? What about the fact that those ingredients already occur naturally in the product he's consumed? What do you think about his reading comprehension?
How are any of these cases really about deceptive advertising, and not just people being manipulative trying to get money- particularly given the recent pattern of extremely similar lawsuits locally with the same group of lawyers? I mean, hello?
Yes, reading comprehension
What guy is that? He's not suing over the ingredient label on the back, he's suing over deceptive claims made on the front of the package. Do you seriously defend "100% fruit juice" as being true?
As has been discussed already, water is a naturally occurring ingredient in orange juice, but adding water to something you're trying to pass off as pure juice is misrepresentation and fraud, no?
Good for them. The agencies that are supposed to enforce this shit fell down on the job, opening up an opportunity for an enterprising local business to clean up some product labels and make good money doing it.
Somma' both
I have a little trouble getting worked up about this particular example. The legal question is if it's compliant with labeling standards, not with any particular person's arbitrary definition of 'natural' (or whatever). Might be worth addressing the standards, and no doubt there's plenty of lobby money in that enterprise. I'd be pretty hard pressed to agree that these particular additives should preclude the usage, though one imagines better examples could be found.
Personally, buying food stored in plastic seems like a bigger worry than vitamin c, but opinions are a dime a dozen.
Bananas!*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas!*
Do you know what citric and
Do you know what citric and asorbic acid is? Natural forms of viramin c. HONESTLY....this is far better than propolyne glycol. or any other nitrate or phosphate. Look up definitions in the dictionary