Why Do Food Manufacturers Think They Have The Right To Deceive The Public With False Labeling? Well, Because They Pay Congress To Let Them

A friend of mine who runs a progressive PAC called me to go over some of the senators he was thinking of doing fundraising for. "Is there anyone else as good as Bernie Sanders (I-VT)," he asked me. I said there isn't, aside from Jeff Merkley (D-OR) who doesn't have a race this year. (Bernie is the only incumbent senator endorsed by Blue America so far this cycle.) "Well, what about Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Al Franken (D-MN), and Tom Harkin (D-IA)," he asked. Good point, especially in the case of Brown, who's pretty amazing on many issues and immeasurably better than the Republican corporate whore running against him in November. But that wasn't the question. Brown, Franken and Harkin would all be on any progressive's list of the top half dozen senators. But the question wasn't who is good; it was who's as good as Bernie. We argued back and forth a little and then I pointed out that Brown, Franken and Harken were among the 28 Democrats to vote against Bernie's amendment to allow states to insist that food companies label GMO products. He blanched... and dropped the topic. He knows how important this battle is in real outside-the-Beltway life.

Only one Republican supported the labeling amendment, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) but the real tragedy was that more Democrats sided with Big Business than with the rights of consumers to know if they're being force-fed genetically modified frankenfood. Over the weekend, the NY Times reported that food labeling battles are moving into the courts and out of easily bought-off legislatures. This is why conservatives hate trial lawyers so passionately, especially conservative politicians whose careers are financed so lavishly by Agribusiness-- like John McCain (R-AZ)- $4,222,694; Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)- $3,931,879; Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $2,534,522; Pat Roberts (R-KS)- $1,985,328; and Jerry Moran (R-KS)- $1,731,920, just to name the worst of the worst.

More than a dozen lawyers who took on the tobacco companies have filed 25 cases against industry players like ConAgra Foods, PepsiCo, Heinz, General Mills and Chobani that stock pantry shelves and refrigerators across America.

The suits, filed over the last four months, assert that food makers are misleading consumers and violating federal regulations by wrongly labeling products and ingredients. While there has been a barrage of litigation against the industry in recent years, the tobacco lawyers are moving particularly aggressively. They are asking a federal court in California to halt ConAgra’s sales of Pam cooking spray, Swiss Miss cocoa products and some Hunt’s canned tomatoes.

“It’s a crime-- and that makes it a crime to sell it,” said Mr. Barrett, citing what he contends is the mislabeling of those products. “That means these products should be taken off the shelves.”

The food companies counter that the suits are without merit, another example of litigation gone wild and driven largely by the lawyers’ financial motivations. Mr. Barrett said his group could seek damages amounting to four years of sales of mislabeled products-- which could total many billions of dollars.

...While the lawyers are being questioned about their motives, they are not alone in pursuing the food industry.

In recent weeks, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued General Mills and McNeil Nutritionals over their claims on Nature Valley and Splenda Essentials products, and warned Welch’s it would sue unless the company changed the wording on its juice and fruit snacks. The Federal Trade Commission won settlements from companies like Dannon and Pom Wonderful for claims about their products’ health benefits. And PepsiCo and Coca-Cola face lawsuits over claims that their orange juice products are “100% natural.”

The latest playbook-- like the one that paid off in the wave of tobacco litigation-- could prove potent, as the food companies’ own lawyers have warned.

Other plaintiffs’ lawyers have largely taken aim at food products marketed as “healthy” or “natural,” subjective claims that can be easily disputed by expert witnesses. Unlike foods labeled “organic,” there are no federal standards for foods that are called “healthy” or “natural.”

The new batch of litigation argues that food companies are violating specific rules about ingredients and labels. Mr. Barrett’s group, for example, has brought a case against Chobani, the Greek yogurt maker, for listing “evaporated cane juice,” as an ingredient in its pomegranate-flavored yogurt. The Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly warned companies not to use the term because it is “false and misleading,” according to the suit.

“If you’re going to put sugar in your yogurt, why not just say it’s sugar?” said Pierce Gore, a lawyer affiliated with Mr. Barrett’s group.

...The lawyers who took on Big Tobacco decided the time was ripe to go after Big Food. Consumers are increasingly conscious of their eating habits as rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and other health problems rise. State and local governments are also becoming alarmed at the escalating costs of caring for people with those diseases and are putting pressure on food companies.

“People want to put good, healthy, nutritious food in their bodies,” said Keith M. Fleischman, a former federal and state prosecutor who is now working with the tobacco lawyers group. “They are very aware of what’s on labels.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers realize that critics may counter that their lawsuits do not have real victims.

Mr. Barrett fought tobacco cases for years on behalf of smokers dying of cancer-- and lost because juries agreed with the tobacco companies that smoking was a personal choice. Not until he and Richard Scruggs sued on behalf of states, which had spent hundreds of millions of dollars caring for sick smokers, did they win their record settlement.

“Food companies will argue that these are harmless crimes-- the tobacco companies said the same thing,” Mr. Barrett said. “But to diabetics and some other people, sugar is just as deadly as poison.”

A week from tomorrow, August 28, is primary day in Arizona. There are a few important races and one of them is for the 2nd district where a state Rep., Dr. Matt Heinz is running for the seat ConservaDem Ron Barber won when Gabby Giffords resigned. Barber won a special election for the remainder of Gabby's term and immediately on be sworn in began voting with Boehner and Cantor-- first to gut a package of environmental laws and then joining Darrell Issa's witch hunt against Eric Holder. Boehner and Cantor couldn't ask for anything more. Arizona Democrats can. Blue America has endorsed Matt Heinz in this race and because he's both a doctor and a state legislator and ran the labeling policies by him last night. He talked to me about the idea of encouraging personal responsibility in healthy lifestyles, including eating, and worried that without clear and truthful labeling there can be no meaningful personal responsibility.

"As a physician and legislator, I recognize the need for transparency in labeling of food products so that my patients and constituents can make the best decisions possible for their families as they purchase their groceries. We must inform consumers about the nutritional value and all contents of the products they have to choose from in the stores. If we fail to inform the public, we will never be able to halt and reverse the spiraling rate of diabetes, obesity and related health problems in Americans. Of special concern is the impact on our children, where these diseases are at all time highs according to recent studies. Our focus has to be on preventing and reducing these costly health conditions. Such health matters have a direct impact on the budget and ongoing deficit and debt crisis because the expense of treating these diseases often falls on taxpayer funded health programs. For the good of our nation, and especially our children, we must aggressively push for transparency in food labeling. The future of our country depends on it."