Categories
Labeling Miyoko Vegan Cheeses Net News

Judge Rules in Favor of Miyoko’s in Vegan Butter Case 

JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF MIYOKO’S IN VEGAN BUTTER CASE

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled in favor of vegan dairy brand Miyoko’s, allowing the brand to use the terms ‘butter’, ‘cruelty-free’, and ‘lactose-free’ when labeling its products.

The lawsuit stems from a letter sent to Miyoko’s in December 2019 from the California Department of Food & Agriculture, informing the vegan dairy brand that the label for its vegan butter failed to comply with state and federal law. Miyoko’s was told to remove the terms ‘butter’, ‘lactose-free’, ‘hormone-free’, and ‘cruelty-free’ from its plant-based butter packaging. The California Department of Food & Agriculture claimed that due to the butter’s ingredients (coconut oil, sunflower oil, and cashew nuts) “it is not a dairy product.”

Miyoko’s responded in February 2020 with a lawsuit claiming the state and its demands were in violation of Miyoko’s First Amendment rights. The lawsuit also stated that the advertising and packaging for the butter product were neither misleading nor deceptive due to the packaging also including the words ‘plant-based’ and ‘vegan’ in reference to the word ‘butter’.

On August 21, 2020 Judge Richard Seeborg granted Miyokos’ motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from enforcing its claims in regards to the words ‘butter’, ‘lactose-free’, and ‘cruelty-free’. Explaining his ruling, Judge Seeborg stated, “The state’s showing of broad marketplace confusion around plant-based dairy alternatives is empirically underwhelming” and that the state did not “present testimony from a shopper tricked by Miyoko’s vegan butter, or otherwise make a case for why Miyoko’s substitute spread is uniquely threatening to the public weal.”

Judge Seeborg, however, denied Miyoko’s motion in regards to the use of the words ‘hormone-free’ and the phrase ‘revolutionizing dairy with plants’, the first because plants contain naturally-occurring hormones and the second because Judge Seeborg ruled the phrase “plainly misleading”.

The Miyoko’s case is not the only one in which states have aimed to enforce labeling laws against plant-based brands. In December of 2019, a federal court blocked the state of Arkansas from enforcing a meat label censorship law against plant-based meat brand The Tofurky Company. The law would have made use of the words ‘burger’, ‘sausage’, and ‘roast’ on plant-based meat packaging illegal, even with the inclusion of qualifiers such as ‘veggie’, ‘vegan’, and ‘plant-based’.

Upton’s Naturals Co., a vegan meat brand, sued the state of Mississippi’s governor and commissioner of agriculture and commerce in federal court last year, as well, when the state passed a law stipulating that plant-based foods cannot be labeled as meat even if the label also states that the product is ‘100% vegan’, ‘plant-based’, or ‘meatless’. The lawsuit was dropped in November 2019 after Mississippi revised the law, permitting the use of meaty terms on the packaging of plant-based meat products providing that qualifiers such as ‘meat-free’, ‘meatless’, ‘plant-based’, ‘vegetarian’, or ‘vegan’ were used as well.

The outcomes of these cases are huge wins for vegan and plant-based meat and dairy companies. In his ruling for Miyoko’s, Judge Seeborg noted the case between Arkansas and The Tofurkey Company, stating that “an Arkansas district attorney recently rejected that state’s framing of commercial speech as misleading where the label of plant-based ‘meat’ products included ample terminology to indicate [their] vegan or vegetarian nature.” This is promising for any plant-based companies that may come up against similar lawsuits in the future, as they now know that attempts by states to similarly enforce FDA regulations this way will likely be found unlawful under the First Amendment.

Source: Judge Rules in Favor of Miyoko’s in Vegan Butter Case – Veg World Magazine






 

Categories
Net News STARBUCKS COFFEE

Starbucks Sued for Allegedly Exposing Customers and Employees to Deadly Pesticide – update

CHEF’S NOTE: I’m glad I saw this today. I’m in Cleveland and the popular Lounge across the street has that same pest strip under the bar near food and beverage, visible to anyone sitting on the side of the bar. Almost identical to the pictures shown below.

BROTHERS PESTICDES 1

BROTHERS PESTICDES 2

The day after I posted this article, I went across the street and the health department was there. She never checked the end of the bar where this pest strip was hanging. Never even looked.

BROTHERS PESTICDES 3
Health Department Inspector

I’m assuming that the pest strip isn’t designed for pests to walk into it, like a motel, since it’s hanging on a cable. That means that the gases or vapors the strip emits kill the pests in the neighborhood, not by actual contact. It’s awfully close to that open ice machine.

I suspect that food and beverage establishments and manufacturing plants across the country are using those strips and making people sick.

The government needs to get on this immediately. Some of those places they frequent. Maybe that’ll get them to move.

For years STARBUCKS has been cited and for years there was no enforcement. Why wait till thousands of people get pesticide poisoning before forcing compliance?

What, there’s no system in place for forced compliance? And Starbucks’ former CEO is running for president? This doesn’t look good for him nor the upscale chain stores he controlled at every level. Why pay top dollar at a ghetto coffee shop when for half the price you can go to the real ghetto. They’re probably using the same strips there.

I blame the Defense Of Department for not regulating these poisons. They’re all biological weapons. Pest companies are regulated by the DOD. And the DOD is allowing them to mass-poison customers and workers.

Time to end this insanity.



A lawsuit filed today in New York City claims coffee giant Starbucks has been exposing its employees and customers to deadly pesticides for years, despite several warnings from pest control experts.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, a former Starbucks employee and two pest control workers who serviced Starbucks stores for years claim the company “has for years permitted the deployment of toxic chemicals in its stores, which infused not only the food products and fixtures, but also the very air circulated throughout its retail locations in Manhattan.”

The former workers claim that Starbucks was “provided with no fewer than a dozen different explicit written warnings from external experts in the past three years.” They claim the company “systematically and unlawfully hid these toxic products in their stores for the past several years.”

The lawsuit claims, “Starbucks stores located throughout Manhattan –– from Battery Park to upper Manhattan –– continuously failed to take necessary or adequate measures to ensure their cleanliness and instead recklessly hid hazardous pesticides throughout their stores, including in close proximity to food and food preparation areas.”

Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Starbucks used “Hot Shot No-Pest 2” strips in their stores. The strips contain a toxin called Dichlorvos, which the lawsuit claims is “hazardous to humans.”

The lawsuit claims that the labeling for the strips warns, “Do not use in the food/feed areas or food/feed processing or food/feed manufacturing or food/feed establishments.”

Paul D’Auria — a pest control technician who worked for an outside company that serviced Starbucks stores for years — claims he “discovered that Starbucks management personnel routinely placed numerous sets of DDVP No-Pest Strips within virtually each of the more than 100 stores that he serviced from at least early in 2015 through June 2018, and in multiple locations in each such store.”

D’Auria claims he “routinely photographed many of the No-Pest Strips that he discovered for purposes of documenting and reporting the dangerous misuse of this product which posed an obvious threat to his own health and safety (as he worked in close and unsafe proximity to these DDVP strips) and the health and safety of Starbucks patrons and employees alike (who are also all commonly in close and unsafe proximity to these DDVP strips).”

He claims he found the strips:piled on or around air vents affixed behind the coffee bar piled in heaps along high shelves and ledges under and along countertops in and next to pastry cabinets in employee break areas in out-of-sight areas of near-permanent filth and disrepair…

FINISH UP: Starbucks Sued for Allegedly Exposing Customers and Employees to Deadly Pesticide






 

Categories
Net News

83 Bottles Of Wine On The Shelf: RE: Arsenic In Wine Lawsuit

Remember the lawsuit alleging that 83 wine brands were in violation of California labeling laws, with the plaintiffs claiming that the wineries had a responsibility to warn consumers of the risk of high levels of arsenic found in the wine? I often thought about it, and just today decided to see where that stood, not realizing how much time had passed. Well, the case was dismissed. The judge ruled that the hazardous labeling on all wine bottles was sufficient given that there were no government studies proving that trace amounts of arsenic in wine posed a health risk.

The companies apparently never did deny the arsenic claims, neither did any stores remove any of the wine from the shelves in the name of public safety.

The plaintiffs vowed to continue the fight. Just in case you were wondering as I did at the time, which bottles from which companies when tested showed, what were reported as containing, high levels of arsenic. Here they are: You make up your own mind.

  1. Acronym’s GR8RW Red Blend 2011
  2. Almaden’s Heritage White Zinfandel
  3. Almaden’s Heritage Moscato
  4. Almaden’s Heritage White Zinfandel
  5. Almaden’s Heritage Chardonnay
  6. Almaden’s Mountain Burgundy
  7. Almaden’s Mountain Rhine
  8. Almaden’s Mountain Chablis
  9. Arrow Creek’s Coastal Series Cabernet Sauvignon 2011
  10. Bandit’s Pinot Grigio
  11. Bandit’s Chardonnay
  12. Bandit’s Cabernet Sauvignon
  13. Bay Bridge’s Chardonnay
  14. Beringer’s White Merlot 2011
  15. Beringer’s White Zinfandel 2011
  16. Beringer’s Red Moscato
  17. Beringer’s Refreshingly Sweet Moscato
  18. Charles Shaw White Zinfandel 2012
  19. Colores del Sol’s Malbec 2010
  20. Glen Ellen by Concannon’s Glen Ellen REserve Pinot Grigio 2012
  21. Concannon’s Selected Vineyards Pinot Noir 2011
  22. Glen Ellen by Concannon’s Glen Ellen Reserve Merlot 2010
  23. Cook’s Spumante
  24. Corbett Canyon’s Pinot Grigio
  25. Corbett Canyon’s Cabernet Sauvignon
  26. Cupcake’s Malbec 2011
  27. Fetzer’s Moscato 2010
  28. Fetzer’s Pinot Grigio 2011
  29. Fisheye Pinot Grigio 2012
  30. Flipflop’s Pinot Grigio 2012
  31. Flipflop’s Moscato
  32. Flipflop’s Cabernet Sauvignon
  33. Foxhorn’s White Zinfandel
  34. Franzia’s Vintner Select White Grenache
  35. Franzia’s Vintner Select White Zinfandel
  36. Franzia’s Vintner Select White Merlot
  37. Franzia’s Vintner Select Burgundy
  38. Hawkstone’s Cabernet Sauvignon 2011
  39. HRM Rex Goliath’s Moscato
  40. Korbel’s Sweet Rose Sparkling Wine
  41. Korbel’s Extra Dry Sparkling Wine
  42. Menage a Trois’ Pinot Grigio 2011
  43. Menage a Trois’ Moscato 2010
  44. Menage a Trois’ White Blend 2011
  45. Menage a Trois’ Chardonnay 2011
  46. Menage a Trois’ Rose 2011
  47. Menage a Trois’ Cabernet Sauvignon 2010
  48. Menage a Trois’ California Red Wine 2011
  49. Mogen David’s Concord
  50. Mogen David’s Blackberry Wine
  51. Oak Leaf’s White Zinfandel
  52. Pomelo’s Sauvignon Blanc 2011
  53. R Collection by Raymond’s Chardonnay 2012
  54. Richards Wild Irish Rose’s Red Wine
  55. Seaglass’s Sauvignon Blanc 2012
  56. Simply Naked’s Moscato 2011
  57. Smoking Loon’s Viognier 2011
  58. Sutter Home’s Sauvignon Blanc 2010
  59. Sutter Home’s Gewurztraminer 2011
  60. Sutter Home’s Pink Moscato
  61. Sutter Home’s Pinot Grigio 2011
  62. Sutter Home’s Moscato
  63. Sutter Home’s Chenin Blanc 2011
  64. Sutter Home’s Sweet Red 2010
  65. Sutter Home’s Riesling 2011
  66. Sutter Home’s White Merlot 2011
  67. Sutter Home’s Merlot 2011
  68. Sutter Home’s White Zinfandel 2011
  69. Sutter Home’s White Zinfandel 2012
  70. Sutter Home’s Zinfandel 2010
  71. Trapiche’s Malbec 2012
  72. Tribuno’s Sweet Vermouth
  73. Vendange’s Merlot
  74. Vendange’s White Zinfandel
  75. Wine Cube’s Moscato
  76. Wine Cube’s Pink Moscato 2011
  77. Wine Cube’s Pinot Grigio 2011
  78. Wine Cube’s Pinot Grigio
  79. Wine Cube’s Chardonnay 2011
  80. Wine Cube’s Chardonnay
  81. Wine Cube’s Red Sangria
  82. Wine Cube’s Sauvignon Blanc 2011
  83. Wine Cube’s Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz 2011

Source of list: https://patch.com/maryland/rockville/wines-named-lawsuit-over-arsenic-levels-whatever-happened-icymi-0