Tuna "Toxic Warning" Update: California Supreme Court Denies Companies' Request to Depublish Narrow Exemption Ruling
Case: People v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al., Supreme Court of California, No. S172898 (06/24/09)
Summary: The California Supreme Court on June 24, 2009, denied the requests made by industry trade groups, supported by the tuna canning companies, to "depublish" all or part of the March 2009 lower appeals court decision that narrowed their win at the trial court level (that canned tuna, while containing methyl mercury, is exempt from the state's toxic warning law, Proposition 65).
The Controversy:
Although the California Court of Appeal, in March 2009, upheld the decision by the trial judge that canned tuna was exempt from the toxic warning or labeling requirements of California's "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986," commonly called Proposition 65, the ruling was limited to the narrow grounds that in the face of conflicting expert opinion, the trial judge had enough evidence on the question of whether the mercury was man-made or naturally occurring. The Court of Appeals declined to rule on the issue of federal preemption or the issue of the threshold toxicity level. The tuna companies supported the petitions of certain trade associations to the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion (or at least part of it), and thereby eliminate the opinion as precedent, on grounds that part of the published opinion could encourage more litigation.
The parties who requested or supported depublication included Tri-Union Seafoods, Del Monte Corporation, Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, the California Retailers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Herbal Products Association, and the California Grocers Association. The request was opposed by the California Attorney General.
Another Proposition 65 case, dealing with whether warnings about mercury are required for fresh fish, is currently pending at the trial court level.
For more information about the March 2009 canned tuna decision, see the earlier Post [here].
Click here to read more.
Summary: The California Supreme Court on June 24, 2009, denied the requests made by industry trade groups, supported by the tuna canning companies, to "depublish" all or part of the March 2009 lower appeals court decision that narrowed their win at the trial court level (that canned tuna, while containing methyl mercury, is exempt from the state's toxic warning law, Proposition 65).
The Controversy:
Although the California Court of Appeal, in March 2009, upheld the decision by the trial judge that canned tuna was exempt from the toxic warning or labeling requirements of California's "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986," commonly called Proposition 65, the ruling was limited to the narrow grounds that in the face of conflicting expert opinion, the trial judge had enough evidence on the question of whether the mercury was man-made or naturally occurring. The Court of Appeals declined to rule on the issue of federal preemption or the issue of the threshold toxicity level. The tuna companies supported the petitions of certain trade associations to the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion (or at least part of it), and thereby eliminate the opinion as precedent, on grounds that part of the published opinion could encourage more litigation.
The parties who requested or supported depublication included Tri-Union Seafoods, Del Monte Corporation, Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, the California Retailers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Herbal Products Association, and the California Grocers Association. The request was opposed by the California Attorney General.
Another Proposition 65 case, dealing with whether warnings about mercury are required for fresh fish, is currently pending at the trial court level.
For more information about the March 2009 canned tuna decision, see the earlier Post [here].
Labels: Consumers
Click here to read more.
posted by at 6/24/2009
