nickel
10-21-2003, 05:42 AM
Smucker sued over '100 percent' fruit label
A suit claims tests on "simply 100 percent" jam showed the Smucker spread contained less than 30 percent actual strawberries.
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A California woman with a "sensitive palate" has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the J.M. Smucker Co. claiming that its familiar label is misleading since its spreadable jam is less than half fruit.
The case was filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of anyone who bought the Smucker premium brand in the past four years.
Lead plaintiff Stephanie Schwebel, described by her attorney as having a "sensitive palate," tasted only an empty promise when she first sampled the jam.
"This young woman said, 'This doesn't taste right,' and she contacted us and we tested it and found she was right," her attorney Allan Sigal said.
The company had no immediate comment.
Tests on "simply 100 percent" strawberry jam revealed that the spread contained less than 30 percent actual strawberries and the blueberry version contained just 43 percent berries, the lawsuit said.
The premium jam also contains fruit syrup, lemon juice concentrate, fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate and natural flavors, according to the J.M. Smucker Co. Web site.
J.M. Smucker Co. has evolved into a market leader in fruit spreads and peanut butter in North American from humble beginnings in 1897, when its founder and namesake began selling apple butter from a horse-drawn wagon, according to the company's own history.
Smucker's "100 percent fruit" claims run afoul of state false advertising and deceptive practice laws, as well as federal food labeling regulations, the lawsuit said.
The Los Angeles case follows a similar action filed last month in Wisconsin, in which a man cited a recent analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest that put the all-fruit claim in question. Consumers in that case also are requesting class action status.
Sigal anticipates that "thousands" of customers could expect to be refunded at least a dollar or so if the lawsuit prevails, or the company could be forced to contribute to a charity, he said.
"They have been advertising this for years," Sigal said. "Everybody who paid more for this fruit product was gypped and they shouldn't have paid more for it."
sticky sweet linky (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/20/food.smuckers.reut/index.html)
A suit claims tests on "simply 100 percent" jam showed the Smucker spread contained less than 30 percent actual strawberries.
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A California woman with a "sensitive palate" has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the J.M. Smucker Co. claiming that its familiar label is misleading since its spreadable jam is less than half fruit.
The case was filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of anyone who bought the Smucker premium brand in the past four years.
Lead plaintiff Stephanie Schwebel, described by her attorney as having a "sensitive palate," tasted only an empty promise when she first sampled the jam.
"This young woman said, 'This doesn't taste right,' and she contacted us and we tested it and found she was right," her attorney Allan Sigal said.
The company had no immediate comment.
Tests on "simply 100 percent" strawberry jam revealed that the spread contained less than 30 percent actual strawberries and the blueberry version contained just 43 percent berries, the lawsuit said.
The premium jam also contains fruit syrup, lemon juice concentrate, fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate and natural flavors, according to the J.M. Smucker Co. Web site.
J.M. Smucker Co. has evolved into a market leader in fruit spreads and peanut butter in North American from humble beginnings in 1897, when its founder and namesake began selling apple butter from a horse-drawn wagon, according to the company's own history.
Smucker's "100 percent fruit" claims run afoul of state false advertising and deceptive practice laws, as well as federal food labeling regulations, the lawsuit said.
The Los Angeles case follows a similar action filed last month in Wisconsin, in which a man cited a recent analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest that put the all-fruit claim in question. Consumers in that case also are requesting class action status.
Sigal anticipates that "thousands" of customers could expect to be refunded at least a dollar or so if the lawsuit prevails, or the company could be forced to contribute to a charity, he said.
"They have been advertising this for years," Sigal said. "Everybody who paid more for this fruit product was gypped and they shouldn't have paid more for it."
sticky sweet linky (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/20/food.smuckers.reut/index.html)