|
Tuesday, April 17 2012 |
|
Four grocery store chains -- Publix, Target, Walgreen and Aldi -- are being sued by five Florida residents who claim the major food retailers are allegedly selling honey that may not be "honey" because it does not contain pollen. According to news sources, the stores' house brands reportedly carry ultra-filtered honey, which removes the pollen along with bee parts, wax and debris.
"Honey that has pollen should be called 'honey,' and honey that's been filtered so that all the pollen has been removed should be called something else," says attorney J. Andrew Meyer, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys in the class-action lawsuit. Meyer further noted that pollen-less honey should be treated like any other fake food in that it can't be called the real deal.
"When you see fake cheese slices at the store, they're called 'cheese food,' " he explains. "Some people don't mind that. It's less expensive. But it differentiates itself from cheese, which we know is made with milk."
Honey producers have argued that ultra-filtration is necessary in order to give honey the clear look consumers like and prevent it from crystallizing. Meyer counters that this justification goes against Florida law that has set a honey standard which dictates that it must contain pollen. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue a set of standards for honey.
"What needs to happen is consumer education," Meyer said. "That's really the thrust of our lawsuit - that there be truth in labeling and consumers understand what they're buying."
—Source: foodsafetynews.com |
|
|
Tuesday, April 10 2012 |
|
As previously reported by CFIF, a California mom and the Center for Science in the Public Interest ("CSPI") filed a lawsuit against McDonald's seeking to have the hamburger giant remove toys from its happy meals. The plaintiffs claimed that the toys were used to lure children to McDonald's restaurants where they were likely to order food that the plaintiffs claimed were too high in calories, fat and salt, and which contributes to childhood obesity. The suit claimed the fast food giant was violating consumer laws.
Last week, a San Francisco judge dismissed the class-action lawsuit. According to news reports, no reason for the dismissal was given.
"We are proud of our Happy Meals and will vigorously defend our brand, our reputation and our food," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement. "We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald's."
—Source: abclocal.go.com |
|
Wednesday, April 04 2012 |
|
A California woman is suing McDonald's claiming the fast food giant is responsible for her being forced into prostitution.
Shelley Lynn has filed a lawsuit in California Central District Court alleging that McDonald's should have done more to protect her from her "predatory" ex-husband and former boss, Keith Handley, who runs a McDonald's franchise and is a named defendant in the lawsuit as well. Among other things, Lynn accuses Handley of forcing her termination from McDonald's to make her more vulnerable to his demands.
According to news reports, after Lynn lost her job at McDonald's her relationship and life started to crumble. She decided to follow her dream of working as a Las Vegas dancer and Handley offered to help by buying her a home. Lynn then claims Handley forced her to get a job as a prostitute in one of the legal brothels to pay for the home.
"Handley then began pressuring Lynn on an almost daily basis, arguing... it was no big deal to engage in sex to make money, that she would lose her home and everything she had, which was true," the complaint said. Lynn added that she took a job at the local Chicken Ranch as a call girl where she was required to sleep with up to 12 men a night.
Lynn charges that Handley should not have been allowed to open his own franchise and that McDonald's failed to conduct due diligence before granting it to him and then failed to supervise him as a franchise owner, claiming Handley conducted inappropriate activities out of the restaurant. Lynn further charges that McDonald's provided no protection for female employees against predatory bosses. "McDonald's had no policy in place whereby Lynn could have filed a grievance against Handley, Ivernia [the franchise], and McDonald's," court documents said.
Lynn seeks lost wages, special damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages for sex trafficking, negligent retention and supervision of franchisees and racketeering. She also complains about McDonald's allegedly low wages and inferior health care plan.
—Source: Reuters.com |
|
Wednesday, March 28 2012 |
|
A Long Island (NY) Apple Store is being sued by a local woman who ran into the glass doors in the front of the store.
Evelyn Paswall (83) is suing Apple for $1,000,000 after she smashed her face into the glass doors and broke her nose. Paswall claims the glass doors pose a risk to the elderly because the clear, see-through glass wall and/or door exist without proper warning.
“Apple wants to be cool and modern and have the type of architecture that would appeal to the tech crowd, but on the other hand, they have to appreciate the danger that this high-tech modern architecture poses to some people,” said Paswall’s attorney Derek T. Smith.
According to news reports, warnings strips have recently been posted on the glass at some Apple stores.
—Source: newyork.cbslocal.com |
|
Wednesday, March 21 2012 |
|
Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a measure largely banning the use of plastic bags by city retailers. The new ordinance is an expansion of the city's existing ban on plastic bags at grocery stores and pharmacies, which now includes all stores and restaurants. Now the city is being sued over its expanded ban.
In a motion filed by Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, the group's attorney, Stephen Joseph, argues that the passage of the ordinance violates the California Environmental Quality Control Act because a lengthy environmental review was not conducted before the measure was enacted. "The California Retail Food Code preempts and prohibits cities and counties from taking these matters into their own hands," Joseph argues.
The group contends that not only are plastic bags less environmentally hazardous than paper bags, but the 10-cent fee the measure imposed on the use of paper bags won't actually have an demonstrable impact on their consumption. "A 10-cent fee is, or may be, far too low to act as an effective incentive to promote the use of reusable bags. Very few people will carry a reusable bag to Macy's or other department stores to save a dime," the lawsuit read.
Supporters of the ban argue that plastic bags are a nuisance and clog up landfills.
—Source: sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com |
|
|
|
