In one legal action*, Filed in December 2020, argued plaintiff Quynh Phan: “Given Sargento’s prominent” No Antibiotics “presentation, reasonable consumers would expect the products to be made without the use of antibiotics and therefore never to contain antibiotics.”
Sargento, in turn, said that his labels explicitly state that “No antibiotics *” means that “* Our cheese is made from milk that does not contain antibiotics”.
Even if consumers read this “fine print disclaimer,” the plaintiff argued, it was wrong, as independent laboratory tests conducted in July 2020 showed that Sargento mildly cut cheddar had “detectable levels (0.985 ppb) of the antibiotic sulfamethazine”. “
Sargento: lawsuit “based on an alleged misrepresentation that does not exist”
In a motion to dismiss the case, however, Sargento said the lawsuit was “based on an alleged misrepresentation that does not exist.”
The meaning of the phrase “our cheese is made from milk that does not contain antibiotics” is crystal clear, he argued: “Nevertheless, the plaintiff tries to base the consumer’s claims of ‘fraud’ on a completely different representation nowhere on Sargento’s packaging – this means that the cheese is made from milk from cows that have not been given antibiotics. “
Of the antibiotic sulfamethazine, which was allegedly found in a sample of a Sargento cheese product, the cheese maker said the amount was “so small that it is less than half a teaspoon of water in an Olympic swimming pool”.
Judge: We don’t know what a reasonable consumer would make of this claim
However, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California Edward Chen was not convinced of Sargento’s arguments and wrote in a June 2 ruling: “There is a factual dispute over what a reasonable consumer would understand by the label of dismissal [at this stage of proceedings] inappropriate.
“Even assuming that a sane consumer would see and read the disclaimer in lower case, it is plausible that a sane consumer could still believe that the milk does not contain antibiotics because the cows that produce the milk do not have antibiotics were administered. “
It’s also not 100% clear that reasonable consumers would think that a trace amount of antibiotics on a “no antibiotic” product is acceptable, he said, although he acknowledged that trace amounts of pesticides such as glyphosate are found in food production ‘Natural claims, other judges disagreed.
However, when it came to plaintiff’s position, the extent of the consumer class (es) that plaintiff could represent, and whether a single test on a single product was representative of other Sargento products, plaintiff found itself on much more uncertain ground said Judge Chen, who gave Phan an opportunity to amend several claims.
Lawyer of the plaintiff: ‘The beginning of the end for fraudulent “no antibiotic” labels on pet food products
Jay Shooster, counsel at Richman Law & Policy (representing the plaintiff) told FoodNavigator-USA, “While the court agreed with some of Sargento’s procedural arguments, the decision is essentially a major victory for consumers. We believe it is means the beginning of the end for fraudulent “no antibiotics” labels on pet food products. “
When asked if his company had plans to change the claims, he said, “We can’t comment on any change at this time.”
Sargento did not comment on any pending litigation.
* The case is Quynh Phan et al. v. Sargento Foods Inc., Case No. 5: 20-cv-09251, filed December 2020 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California
Dairy-cow-GettyImages-stef-bennett
Antibiotics and dairy cows:With the increasing evidence of the risks of antibiotic resistance in humans, the FDA has recently movedEliminate the use of production antibiotics in livestock (to promote growth and feed efficiency in animals raised for meat) and encourage farmers to use them more carefully when treating sick animals.
Milk shipments are checkedFor medically important antibiotics like cephalosporin, the most common antibiotic used to treat mastitis, and when cows are treated, farmers discard their milk until the residue is gone.
The Legal normRequires that milk contain no detectable antibiotics when analyzed using recognized testing methods. According to the FDA, the use of sulfamethazine in lactating dairy cows is banned and there isnot an acceptable level‘Of residues.
Comments are closed.