Kraft Foods and its subsidiary have asked a federal court in California to dismiss claims that they mislead consumers by labeling Wheat Thins® crackers as “100% whole grain,” contending that the theory of the case does not meet the plausibility pleading standard and the state law-based claims are preempted under federal law. Garcia v. Nabisco, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04272 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., motion filed June 22, 2012). According to the defendants’ motion, this is nothing but a “lawyer-concocted class action lawsuit” and reasonable consumers understand that the “100% whole grain” representation “merely indicates that the only type of grain used in the crackers is ‘whole grain’ as opposed to non-whole grains used in enriched flours,” not that the crackers contain nothing but whole grains. “Common sense dictates that processed crackers are not made with only a stalk of whole grain and that they are made with the help of processing agents, baking aids, and seasonings.” In any event, say the defendants, all of the ingredients appear on the packaging ingredient list “in accordance with federal law.”
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Kraft calls Wheat Thins® labeling challenge a “lawyer-concocted class action”
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the...
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the same topic for the purpose of getting the fullest understanding of a new law, a court case or other legal development.”
Audrey E Mross
Labor & Employment Attorney
Munck Carter LLP