Beyond Pesticides, Moms Across America and the Organic Consumers Association on Thursday said the settlement calls for General Mills to remove the phrase “Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” from Nature Valley labels.

Why it matters: Glyphosate, particularly Bayer’s Roundup herbicide, is the center of thousands of lawsuits in North America over claims it causes cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has assessed glyphosate to not pose a cancer risk.

The groups said independent tests showed that the granola bars contained 0.45 parts per million of glyphosate, and that oats were the “most likely” source of the herbicide.

While this was below the maximum 30 parts per million that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends, the groups said General Mills’ label was deceptive and that “no reasonable consumer” would expect the bars to contain anything unnatural.

“Nature Valley is confident in the accuracy of its label,” General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said in an email.

He said the Minneapolis-based company settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, and focus on making Nature Valley products “with 100 percent whole grain oats.”

The settlement came 13 days after a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto Co to pay a school groundskeeper $289 million (C$394.2 million) after he said his exposure to its Roundup weed killer and another glyphosate herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has said it would appeal the jury’s verdict.

The General Mills lawsuit was one of many accusing food companies of using deceptive labels, including terms such as “natural” that do not have clearly understood meanings, to induce consumers to buy or pay more for their products.

In July 2017, a Minneapolis federal judge dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit over General Mills’ “100% Natural” label, saying that even if the oats contained traces of glyphosate, “there is no allegation that the oats, themselves, are not natural.”

A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

The consumer groups had sued General Mills two years ago in Superior Court in Washington, D.C.

The Organic Consumers Association sued Unilever Plc in the same court on July 9 over its labeling for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, including a claim over the use of glyphosate.

The post General Mills changing Nature Valley labels after lawsuit’s glyphosate claim appeared first on Country Guide.

U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras in Chicago ruled on Tuesday that reasonable consumers would not agree with the plaintiff Adam Sorkin that “farm fresh” necessarily meant hens “living on farms, with open green space, grass, hay and straw.”

Sorkin said he paid a premium price for “farm fresh” eggs under the Roundy’s label at Mariano’s Fresh Market stores—Kroger owns both brands—in the Chicago area, and would have paid less or not bought them had he known their origins.

But in dismissing the proposed class action, Kocoras distinguished “farm fresh” from descriptors such as “cage-free,” “free-range” and “pasture-raised” that actually describe the living conditions of hens.

“The court agrees with Kroger that no reasonable consumer would plausibly spin free-roaming hens on a grassy, open field from the term ‘farm fresh,'” Kocoras wrote.

“‘Farm Fresh Eggs’ means precisely what it says: the eggs are fresh from a farm,” he added. “It is about origin and timing, nothing more.”

Lawyers for Sorkin did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Kroger and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Sorkin sued last October, eight months after the nonprofit advocacy group Data for Progress released a report, “Cracking Down on Kroger,” calling for increased transparency about where Kroger’s eggs come from.

The report included a survey of 646 Kroger customers, where 41 per cent said they thought “farm fresh” meant cage-free, 14 per cent said it meant cages were used, and 45 per cent didn’t know.

The case is Sorkin v Kroger Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 23-14916.

The post U.S. grocer Kroger wins dismissal of ‘farm fresh’ egg lawsuit appeared first on Country Guide.

Attorney General Letitia James said JBS USA Food Co, the Brazilian company’s American-based unit, has “no viable plan” to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, making its stated commitment to achieving that goal false and misleading.

James said JBS has admitted its “Net Zero by 2040” commitment did not incorporate the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain, including from deforestation in the Amazon.

She also said reaching the goal was “infeasible” given JBS’ plan to increase production and therefore its carbon footprint, on top of greenhouse gas emissions that had by 2021 exceeded those of the entire country of Ireland.

“Families [are] willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment,” James said in a statement. “JBS USA’s greenwashing exploits the pocketbooks of everyday Americans and the promise of a healthy planet for future generations.”

The lawsuit filed in a New York state court in Manhattan seeks a $5,000 civil fine per violation of state business laws, and to recoup ill-gotten gains from false sustainability claims.

JBS’s businesses include Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, one of the largest U.S. chicken producers.

In a statement, JBS said it disagreed with the lawsuit. It also pledged to continue partnering with farmers, ranchers and others toward a “more sustainable future for agriculture” that uses fewer resources and reduces its environmental impact.

The company generated about $53.5 billion of revenue in the first nine months of 2023, about 59 per cent of which came from North America and Central America.

JBS shares trade in Brazil. The company has been seeking to list its shares in the United States.

The post New York sues meatpacking giant JBS over climate claims appeared first on Country Guide.

Upholding a permanent injunction, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found it unconstitutional to force Bayer’s Monsanto unit, which makes Roundup, and other agricultural businesses to provide California’s proposed carcinogen warnings under a state law known as Proposition 65.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan said making the producers a “billboard” for California’s “at best, disputed” message that glyphosate is unsafe violated their First Amendment commercial speech rights, despite the state’s substantial interest in its citizens’ health.

“Compelling sellers to warn consumers of a potential ‘risk’ never confirmed by any regulatory body — or of a hazard not ‘known’ to more than a small subset of the scientific community — does not directly advance that interest,” she wrote.

Bayer called the decision “a strong blow against compelled warnings for Roundup that are not supported by science and will be important in the company’s ongoing personal injury litigation.”

California’s original warnings linked glyphosate to cancer. A revised warning proposed last year referred to findings in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the France-based specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

Callahan rejected all the warnings, saying they required Bayer and other objectors to convey a “controversial, fiercely contested message that they fundamentally disagree with.”

Tuesday’s decision upheld a June 2020 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Shubb in Sacramento.

“We are disappointed,” the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which had appealed the injunction, said in an email. It declined to address whether it planned another appeal.

Lawyers for 13 agriculture and business trade groups that also opposed the warnings did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Bayer has faced extensive litigation over Roundup, including three losses in trials last month, since it bought Monsanto for US$63 billion in 2018.

It settled most Roundup claims for US$10.9 billion in 2020, but by early this year still faced about 45,000 claims.

— Jonathan Stempel is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. federal and state courts from New York.

The post Appeals court blocks California warning labels for glyphosate appeared first on Country Guide.

The settlement resolves accusations that Bayer and its Monsanto unit failed to substantiate their repeated claims about Roundup products containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

These included that Roundup “won’t harm anything but weeds” and “do not pose a threat to the health of animal wildlife,” as well as suggestions in since-removed YouTube videos that Roundup was safer than detergent and soap.

James said the claims violated state laws against false and misleading advertising, and breached Monsanto’s 1996 settlement with New York over its advertising of Roundup at the time.

“Pesticides can cause serious harm to the health of our environment, and pose a deadly threat to wildlife,” and companies that make them must be “honest” with consumers about the dangers, James said in a statement.

Thursday’s settlement requires Bayer to stop advertising glyphosate-based Roundup as a safe and non-toxic product.

The $6.9 million will be spent on reducing the impact of pesticides on pollinators and aquatic species (all figures US$).

Bayer did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

In a statement, the German company said it was pleased to settle. It also noted that the attorney general probe, which began in 2020, drew no scientific conclusions about Roundup.

Bayer has faced extensive litigation over whether Roundup causes cancer since it spent $63 billion to buy Monsanto in 2018.

It agreed to settle much of that litigation for $10.9 billion in 2020. As of February, about 109,000 of the 154,000 claims Bayer has faced had been settled or deemed ineligible.

— Jonathan Stempel is a courts correspondent for Reuters in New York.

The post Bayer settles with New York over Roundup safety claims appeared first on Country Guide.

Meng, whose father Ren Zhengfei founded Huawei and is the telecommunications company’s chief executive, entered an agreement with U.S. prosecutors last year for the case to be dismissed four years after her December 2018 arrest.

Prosecutors accused Meng of bank fraud and other crimes for misleading HSBC and other banks about Huawei’s relationship with a company that operated in Iran.

They said Meng’s actions put banks at risk of penalties for processing transactions that violated U.S. sanctions.

Huawei has pleaded not guilty to related U.S. criminal charges.

U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn dismissed Meng’s indictment with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again.

A lawyer for Meng and a spokeswoman for Huawei did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Meng spent nearly three years under house arrest in Canada following her arrest at a Vancouver airport.

She entered a deferred prosecution agreement with U.S. prosecutors in September 2021 in which she acknowledged having made false statements about Huawei’s Iran business.

On the day Donnelly approved that agreement, Meng flew home to Shenzhen.

Shortly afterward, China released two Canadians it had been holding, and two American siblings who had been prevented from leaving the country were allowed to fly home.

Chinese restrictions on imports of Canadian canola from two major Prairie grain firms — imposed several weeks after Meng’s arrest — were lifted about eight months after her departure from Canada.

In suspending the licenses for the two companies in March 2019, China said it had found quarantine pests in canola seed deliveries. The Canola Council of Canada noted at the time that no other export customers had made similar complaints.

Meng, 50, now serves as Huawei’s rotating chairwoman and deputy chairwoman, as well as CFO.

The United States still views Huawei as a national security threat.

On Nov. 25, the Biden administration banned approvals of new telecommunications equipment from Huawei and China’s ZTE Corp. because they posed an “unacceptable risk” to national security.

— Reporting for Reuters by Karen Freifeld and Jonathan Stempel in New York.

The post U.S. judge dismisses indictment against Huawei executive appeared first on Country Guide.

A preliminary settlement in the antitrust case was filed on Tuesday night with the federal court in Minneapolis, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge John Tunheim.

The accord follows the judge’s Sept. 14 approval of a similar $20 million settlement between consumers and JBS, one of Smithfield’s largest rivals (all figures US$).

Smithfield spokesman Jim Monroe said the company denied liability in agreeing to settle, and that the accord reduces the distraction, risk and cost of protracted litigation.

He also said the accord eliminates a “substantial portion” of Smithfield’s remaining liability in the nationwide case.

The company, based in Smithfield, Virginia, is a unit of Hong Kong-listed WH Group, which calls itself the world’s largest pork company.

Several companies have faced lawsuits in Minneapolis and Chicago also accusing them of inflating beef and chicken prices.

In the pork litigation, Smithfield previously reached settlements of $83 million with so-called “direct” purchasers such as Maplevale Farms and $42 million with commercial purchasers, a group that includes restaurants.

Some of the other defendants are Hormel Foods, Tyson Foods and data provider Agri Stats Inc.

Smithfield agreed to provide co-operation that the plaintiffs’ lawyers said will strengthen their cases against the remaining defendants.

The Biden administration has announced plans to bolster competition in the meat sector, amid concern that some meat packers could dictate prices and add to inflationary pressures.

— Jonathan Stempel is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. courts and antitrust regulation from New York.

The post Smithfield Foods to pay US$75 million in pork price-fixing settlement appeared first on Country Guide.

Letitia James, the attorney general, asked a state judge in Manhattan to require Tyson to turn over materials including contractual terms, prices, and profit margins for its sales of meat to New York retailers from December 2019 to April 2022.

James said Tyson stopped complying after providing “limited” information, based on the Springdale, Arkansas-based company’s “novel and unfounded argument” that New York’s price gouging law did not apply to meat imported from outside the state.

That argument “can be tested only by examining the very materials that Tyson now refuses to produce,” James said in a court filing.

Tyson declined to comment. It has said it has raised meat prices to offset soaring costs for labor and livestock feed.

According to court papers, Tyson has about one-fifth of the U.S. market for fresh and frozen chicken, beef and pork.

James’ office had no immediate additional comment about her probe.

In March, James launched a rulemaking process to crack down on price gouging, examining whether big companies were using the pandemic and rising inflation as an excuse to stick consumers with higher prices on basic goods.

She said her office has during the pandemic received hundreds of complaints about meat price gouging, reinforced by media reports that average prices rose 20.9 percent for beef, 16.8 percent for pork and 9.2 percent for chicken from November 2020 to November 2021.

James said New York law bans “unconscionably excessive” prices and gives her power to impose civil fines on sellers that charge them on essential goods during market disruptions.

In January, President Joe Biden announced a plan to support independent meat processors and ranchers to address a lack of “meaningful competition” in their sectors.

– Additional reporting by Tom Polansek in Chicago

The post Tyson Foods ignoring subpoena for meat price gouging probe, NY attorney general says appeared first on Country Guide.

In a 3-0 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with several environmental, farmworker and food-safety advocacy groups that the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens endangered species.

The litigation began after the EPA reauthorized the use of glyphosate in January 2020.

Groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety and the Rural Coalition, which represents farmworkers, faulted the agency for rubber-stamping glyphosate despite its alleged harms to agriculture, farmers exposed during spraying, and wildlife such as the monarch butterfly.

Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the Pasadena, California-based appeals court that the EPA did not properly justify its findings that glyphosate did not threaten human health and was unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans. She also faulted aspects of the agency’s approval process.

Bayer’s Monsanto unit, which makes Roundup, opposed groups challenging the EPA reauthorization. Friday’s decision does not prevent people from using Roundup or similar products.

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency will review the decision.

Bayer said the EPA conducted a “rigorous assessment” of more than 40 years of science, and believes the agency will continue to conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe and are not carcinogenic.

George Kimbrell, a lawyer for the Rural Coalition, in an interview called the decision “a historic victory for farmworkers, the public and endangered species.”

Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming that Roundup causes cancer and other illnesses.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to hear the German company’s appeal of a $25 million damages award to Edwin Hardeman, a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the product.

— Jonathan Stempel is a U.S. courts correspondent for Reuters in New York.

The post U.S. EPA ordered to reassess glyphosate impact on health, environment appeared first on Country Guide.

The preliminary settlement by the Brazilian company and its U.S. units with so-called direct purchasers was disclosed on Tuesday, and is the first in nationwide antitrust litigation over beef price-fixing.

Lawyers for the purchasers called the accord an “icebreaker” and an excellent recovery, citing JBS’ $24.5 million settlement in 2020 of price-fixing claims by pork purchasers (all figures US$).

In a statement, JBS said it did not admit liability but that settling was in its best interest. It also said it will defend against beef price-fixing claims by other plaintiffs.

The accord requires approval by Chief Judge John Tunheim of the federal court in Minneapolis. Other defendants include Cargill, National Beef Packing Co. and Tyson Foods.

JBS settled one month after U.S. President Joe Biden announced a plan for new rules to bolster competition and stop “exploitation” in the meat sector.

Biden spoke amid concern that a small group of meat packers were capable of dictating beef, pork and poultry prices, adding to inflation pressures caused by rising labour and transportation costs and by COVID-19-related supply constraints.

In their lawsuit, direct purchasers accused the defendants, which controlled an estimated 80 per cent of U.S. fresh and frozen beef supply, of conspiring since 2015 to reduce slaughter volumes, creating a shortfall that smaller companies could not make up.

Commercial beef purchasers and consumers have brought similar lawsuits. Cattle producers also sued, claiming they were paid less than they would have received in a competitive market.

Tunheim also handles litigation concerning the alleged fixing of pork prices. A Chicago federal judge handles litigation concerning the alleged fixing of broiler chicken prices.

— Jonathan Stempel is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. courts and regulators from New York; additional reporting by Tom Polansek.

The post JBS reaches ‘icebreaker’ settlement of beef price-fixing claims appeared first on Country Guide.