Search Articles

Showing 11-20 of 242

Virginia Bill Would Require Pet Stores to Comply with Federal Truth in Lending Act

Virginia House Bill 330 would require pet stores to comply with the federal Truth in Lending Act, along with its implementing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation Z, when offering and extending consumer credit. The bill was referred to the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee and to its Agriculture Subcommittee, which recommended the bill with a substitution that instead would prohibit any financing of dogs or cats that does not comply with state and federal consumer credit law.

Arizona Introduces Bills to Ban Cultivated Meat and Regulate Meat Alternative Labeling

Two bills introduced in Arizona aim to ban cultivated meat and restrict labeling of meat alternatives. The first, Arizona House Bill 2121, introduced by Representative David Marshall, aims to outlaw the sale or production of cultivated animal products and allows affected businesses to sue producers for up to $100,000. The second, Arizona House Bill 2244, presented by Representative Quang Nguyen, seeks to restrict the representation and labeling of meat alternatives, preventing the “intentional misrepresentation” of products not derived from livestock. The bill covers laboratory-produced items from animal cells and synthetic products from plants, insects, or other sources. These legislative moves highlight ongoing debates surrounding the regulation and labeling of emerging cultivated and plant-based meat products.

Quebec Superior Court Rejects Rawesome Raw Vegan Inc.'s Challenge to Cheese Labeling Rules

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit by Rawesome Raw Vegan Inc., a vegan cheese company, seeking a declaration that vegan cheese products are not required to adhere to the standards of composition outlined for “cheese” in articles B.08.033 to B.08.054 of the federal Regulations Respecting Food and Drugs. This comes after Rawesome successfully appealed a 2021 conviction that found them guilty of violating food labeling laws by describing their cashew-based products as “cheese.” The Quebec Superior Court overturned the conviction, finding that the labeling laws only applied to dairy-based cheeses. The Attorney General of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency brought a motion to dismiss the case, citing no live legal question, as there was no current challenge by the government to Rawesome's ongoing use of the term “cheese.” The Court ultimately agreed, noting that Rawesome didn’t have sufficient interest in the matter. National animal law organization Animal Justice intervened in the case, arguing that banning vegan companies from using common words like “milk” and “cheese” is a violation of the Charter rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

Survey Reveals Canadian Public Supports Cage-Free Labels on Eggs

A recent survey by Bryant Research highlights Canadian consumers' strong desire for enhanced animal welfare and transparency in the food system, particularly concerning egg production. The study reveals that eighty percent of respondents were disappointed to discover that Canada's cage record is worse than the United States’, with seventy-two percent supporting a ban on caged confinement. 87 percent of respondents believe supermarkets should provide transparent information about egg sourcing, and seventy-nine percent urge grocery stores and restaurants to cease selling eggs from caged hens. The findings underscore a significant shift in consumer preferences, emphasizing the need for clearer communication through in-store signage.

Federal Court Denies Class Certification in False Advertising Suit Against American Tuna

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied class certification in a lawsuit alleging that American Tuna, Inc. falsely advertised its products as being from fish caught in U.S. waters and acted deceptively. The court found that the sole named plaintiff, Ray Glass, failed to demonstrate Article III standing because he failed to prove that he saw the allegedly false advertisements described in the complaint or purchased products with the challenged labels. The court also entered a show cause order requiring plaintiff to submit a brief within 30 days establishing why the court should not dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing.

FSIS Revises Directive Governing Adulterated or Misbranded Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published revisions to its directive regarding adulterated or misbranded meat, poultry, and egg products “to include egg products as an FSIS-regulated commodity subject to voluntary recall.” The revision also “provide[s] instruction regarding large volume recalls and recalls of ingredients regulated by the Food and Drug Administration” and makes other definitional and clarifying revisions.

Missouri Bill Would Permit Sale of Raw Milk

Missouri House Bill 1711 would allow the sale of Missouri-produced grade A retail raw milk, raw milk products, and cream provided that producers conform to warning label, herd testing, and milk inspection requirements. The bill has been pre-filed and has not yet been assigned to a committee.

FSIS Announces Recall of Beef and Poultry Products that May Be Contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced that New York-based Pelleh Poultry Corp. is recalling approximately 708 pounds of ready-to-eat beef and poultry products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes. The recalled products were shipped to retail and institutional locations in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Putative Class Action Alleges Target Falsely Advertises Sunscreen as Using a “Reef-Conscious Formula”

Sunscreen purchaser Annet Tivin filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that Target Corporation’s “up&up” brand sunscreen is misleadingly labeled as using a “reef-conscious formula” despite having ingredients that have been proven to be harmful to corals and coral reef ecosystems. The suit alleges violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false and misleading advertising, and fraud, and it seeks class certification, monetary damages and interest, and costs.

California Court Imposes More than $200,000 in Damages in Connection with Craigslist Sales of Sick Puppies

The Los Angeles County Superior Court held that a Phelan, California family violated numerous state statutes, including California’s Pet Protection Act, consumer protection laws, and animal cruelty laws. The defendants advertised puppies for sale online, including on Craigslist. Shortly after purchasing puppies from the defendants, the plaintiffs each discovered their puppies to be sick and at least three of the puppies died. The court found that the defendants committed fraud, failed to acquire the required permits, sold underage and sick puppies who had not seen a veterinarian, and neglected and harmed dogs, among other violations. The court, referencing the sentience of animals and the special relationship between people and companion animals, awarded each plaintiff-purchaser $10,000 in emotional distress damages in addition to actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court imposed punitive damages in the amount of $100,000. Damages were awarded jointly and severally against all defendants. The court also permanently enjoined defendants from advertising and selling dogs.