Plaintiffs seeking to consolidate a slew of lawsuits against baby food makers for allegedly concealing toxic metal contamination into a single multidistrict litigation faced broad opposition both from defendants and fellow plaintiffs at a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict.
NY Attorney General Probes Arsenic in Baby Cereal Monday, May 3, 2021
We have reported on FDA’s guidance document, “Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level Guidance for Industry,” which was finalized in August 2020 and sets an action level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) as the threshold for considering whether infant rice cereal may be “adulterated” and enforcement action is warranted. A February 4, 2021 Congressional report on the finding of heavy metals in baby foods in the U.S. raised questions regarding compliance with FDA’s action level and, among other things, recommended the possibility of “phasing out” ingredients such as rice, that are high in toxic heavy metals. As discussed here, the “Baby Food Safety Act of 2021,” was later introduced, on March 25, 2021, and would impose a lower action level of 15 ppb for inorganic arsenic in infant and toddler cereal.
ADVERTISEMENT
NY AG Probes Baby Food Cos. Over Arsenic In Rice Cereal
Law360 (April 29, 2021, 6:56 PM EDT) The New York attorney general on Thursday announced an investigation into baby food makers, including Gerber Products Co. and Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., over high levels of inorganic arsenic in their food, months after a congressional report revealed high levels of toxins in major baby food brands.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said that she asked the companies, which also include Nurture Inc. and Hain Celestial Group Inc., to look into whether their baby rice cereal has more arsenic than the maximum allowed by state law. She is also examining whether their advertising and promotion comply with New York consumer protection.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In putative class actions alleging false advertising, plaintiffs often argue that class certification is appropriate because the language being challenged appeared on the defendant’s marketing materials or product label, thereby making the class members’ experience and the question(s) to be resolved common. These plaintiffs invariably claim that individualized questions of deception and reliance do not defeat certification, because consumer protection statutes employ an objective, “reasonable consumer” test that does not turn on what each individual class member actually thought or believed.
However, there is often evidence that many of the purported class members
Gerber Products Co., other baby food manufacturers and parents on Tuesday urged the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation not to consolidate suits over allegedly high levels of toxic heavy metals in baby foods because the suits are too different and centralization would be inefficient.