Is “health and nutrition” a claim that requires proof? – Advertising, Marketing and Branding

Dole sells a variety of fruit products with various health-related claims, including gel-filled fruit bowls, fruit bowl parfaits, and canned juices. These claims include, for example:

• “Our promise is to provide quality nutrition to everyone, no matter where they are!”




• “Dole Fruit Bowls lock in deliciousness and nutrition.”




• “Vitamin C is an antioxidant that helps support a healthy immune system.”

Some consumers sued Dole, alleging that these claims were false and misleading, misleading consumers into believing the product was healthy. Consumers argued that these fruit-based products are actually not healthy because they derive a significant percentage of their calories from sugar.

good nutrition

First, the court held that Dole’s statements that it provides “good nutrition” for everyone and that its fruit products “lock in deliciousness and nutrition” were exaggerations. Here’s why:

To establish a false advertising claim under California law, a plaintiff must prove that “the public is likely to be deceived” by the challenged representation. This requires more than just the possibility that the packaging “may be misinterpreted by some consumers who view the label in an unfair way.” Rather, plaintiffs must prove that “a substantial portion of the general public or targeted consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances is likely to be misled.”

However, mere hype cannot fool consumers. Here, the court defined “exaggeration” as “exaggerated advertising, loud publicity, and boating that a reasonable purchaser would not rely on and that would not be actionable.” The court explained, “The difference between a statement of fact and mere exaggeration lies in the specificity or generality of the claim.” In other words, can the statement “could be false or could reasonably be construed as a statement of objective fact”?

The court explained that it is important to understand the context in which a statement is made to determine whether it is an assertion or an exaggeration. Here, the court considered that because the statement was made in conjunction with other statements about sunlight, a consumer would not be able to understand that the statement made a specific verifiable representation about nutrition. The court held that “Each reference to the challenged language follows advertising copy that compared the product to sunlight, and that the clearly fanciful analogy It is further reinforced by the picture. In other words, the context clearly sends out a signal.” “The claim is so vague that it cannot be anything other than ‘exaggerated advertising.'”

The court also considered that given the type of product the consumer was purchasing, the statement could not be considered to convey that the consumer was purchasing a healthy product. The court said, “A reasonable consumer who knows he is purchasing a sweet product, such as diced peaches in a strawberry-flavored gel, may not be able to say, “We believe in sunshine for all.” That’s our promise: Bring good nutrition to everyone everywhere!” right next to the Nutrition Facts panel that shows the amount of both naturally occurring and added sugars. If so, it is assumed that the product is generally healthy or does not increase the risk of any disease. ”

Vitamin C claims

Finally, the court held that consumer claims based on Dole’s statements about the benefits of vitamin C in its products were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). The FDCA does not permit states to establish food labeling requirements that differ from those required by federal law.

The FDCA governs “all voluntary statements regarding nutrient content or health information that a manufacturer chooses to include on a food label or package.” This includes both explicit claims as well as claims that implicitly characterize the level of a nutrient or the relationship between a nutrient and a disease or health-related condition.

Here, the court held that Dole’s vitamin C-related claims constituted implied nutrient content claims and were therefore preempted by the FDCA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. You should seek professional advice regarding your particular situation.