The lawsuit seems sort of weird since the amount of glyphosate detected is really, really small — well below the limit set by federal regulators. However, the lawsuit is aimed at what it calls false advertising. The oatmeal contains something not “100% natural.”
Quaker clearly wants to shift the subject — it argues that the oats used in its products are “grown in an environmentally responsible way,” and face “less risk of pollutants and groundwater contamination,” it says.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Courts in New York and California, contends that such statements are false and misleading. “There is nothing unlawful about Quaker Oats’ growing and processing methods,” the suit says. “What is unlawful is Quaker’s claim that Quaker Oats is something that it is not in order to capitalize on growing consumer demand for healthful, natural products.”
Quaker, for its part, argues that it did not add glyphosate during any part of the milling process “but that it might be applied by farmers to certain grains before harvest.” In addition, it says it cleans the oats so that “any levels of glyphosate... are below any limits which have been set by the EPA as safe for human consumption,” the company said.
Turns out that the law firm for the plaintiffs, the Richman Law Group, found glyphosate at a level of 1.18 parts per million in a sample of Quaker Oats Quick 1-Minute, the Times says, roughly 4% of the 30 parts per million that EPA allows. However, Kim Richman, the lead lawyer of the firm representing the plaintiffs, is adamant that the amount of glyphosate is not the issue. It is the claim that these products are 100% natural that offends, and “glyphosate in any amount is not natural,” he said. Quaker thinks the pesticide is not used for weed control, but is increasingly being used as a “desiccant” to dry out crops to speed harvesting.
The plaintiffs are seeking refunds for purchasers. They also are asking that Quaker either be required to reformulate the products or disclose the presence of glyphosate in them.
The Quaker Oats suit is not the only “label problem” being discussed in the press these days. Bloomberg reported recently that Chipotle also may face a class-action suit challenging the chain's representations that its food contains no genetically modified ingredients.
The case is being held up for additional evidence needed to establish a definition of “non-GMO” and whether a reasonable consumer would share plaintiff Leslie Reilly's interpretation that animals raised on GMO-containing feed can't produce non-GMO meat, Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the US District Court told the press.
Ms. Reilly claims that she regards meat and dairy products sourced from animals raised on GMO-rich feed as GMO products, so she expected that Chipotle's ads would mean its animals were not fed such ingredients. She alleges she was duped into paying a premium price for the food.
Chipotle doesn't regard the meat from these animals as GMO products, and says Reilly’s charges are “nonsensical” and not plausible.
What we are seeing is likely a widespread effort to capitalize on claims that imply product purity, but can’t be defined — and which likely mean a continuing source of confusion for consumers, producers, regulators and others.
In fact, there is no official definition of “natural” so it is not crazy to advertise something that way — but, that may prove hard to defend, since trace amounts of many things in foods are hard to avoid especially when the amounts handled are large and the tolerances are small or non-existent.
Similarly, efforts to sell “no GMO” products under the promise of “no GMOs, never, anywhere” is being challenged, too — and, Chipotle’s effort to define that universe unilaterally may be hard to defend.
As long as major actors in the food industry believe they have found a way to achieve a “golden, consumer magnet” label without the hard work of testing and policing its real attributes, there likely will be a “full employment for litigators” aspect to this issue.
It will be important to see what develops from the serious legal cases now emerging and how they impact the use of these important labels — at the same time the nation considers whether to allow mandatory GMO labels by individual states. This is a high-stakes fight producers should watch carefully as it intensifies, Washington Insider believes.