Posted March 5, 2014
In Lilly v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 12-55921, 2014 WL 644706, (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2014),
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a case involving the sodium
content labeling on sunflower seeds. The
Court held that the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), 21 U.S.C. §
343 (q)(1)(D) does not preempt state consumer lawsuits under various California
consumer protection statutes. For a copy
of the decision, please contact the National Agricultural Law Center at nataglaw@uark.edu. For more information on
food labeling, please visit the Center’s Food Labeling Reading Room here.
Background
Plaintiff, Aleta Lilly, filed a putative class action against
Defendant, ConAgra Foods, Inc., alleging that the coating on sunflower seed
shells is intended to be ingested, so the sodium content on
the package label must include the sodium contained in the edible coating. Id.
at *1. Lilly alleged that minimizing or
ignoring the sodium content in the coating was misleading and violated the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Act, and the
Unfair Competition Law. Id. at *2. ConAgra moved to dismiss, arguing that
federal law expressly preempts the state law claims. Id. The district court agreed, ruling that
requirement under California law was not identical to the requirement under
federal law, and the state law claims, were thus, preempted. Id. Lilly
appealed. Id.
Analysis and Holding
The Ninth Circuit considered the statutory
interpretation of the federal NLEA and whether the federal law preempts a state
consumer lawsuit. See id.
The court noted that the NLEA requires that a
food’s label include the amount of sodium “in each serving size or other unit
of measure.” Id. (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 343(q)(1)(D). The NLEA provides that no state may
“directly or indirectly establish…any requirement for the labeling of food that
is not identical” to the federal requirements.
Id. (quoting 21 U.S.C. §
343-1(a)(5)). The court also noted that
the FDA’s regulations require that nutrient information must be provided for
all products intended for human consumption.
Id. (quoting 21 C.F.R. §101.9(a). In addition, the amount of sodium in the food
is “based on only the edible portion of the food, and not bone, seed, shell, or
other inedible component.” Id. (quoting 21 C.F.R. §
101.12(a)(6)).
ConAgra argued that Lilly’s lawsuit attempted to force
ConAgra to include the sodium content of an inedible
portion (the seed) and since this is contrary to the federal requirement,
Lilly’s claims are preempted. Id. at *3.
The court reasoned, however, that the while the shells
themselves are inedible, the coating on the shell is edible and is intended to
be ingested. Id. As a result, the court
ruled that the state law requirements were no different than the federal
requirements, and were not preempted. Id.
Since the District Court never reached the issue of
whether ConAgra’s failure to include the sodium content in the coating was
deceptive, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. Id.
