The following article is from the Associated Press:
Sugar makers should compete in the marketplace instead of the courtroom over the use of the term “corn sugar,” a representative for the corn industry said Sunday.
A federal judge ruled Friday that a lawsuit can go forward as the sugar industry seeks to stop the use of the term “corn sugar” for high fructose corn syrup.
Erickson praised the judge for granting a defense motion to drop individual corn companies as defendants, leaving only the trade association, and dismissing a part of the lawsuit claiming that the corn industry violated California law in addition to federal regulations.
Adam Fox, a sugar industry lawyer who brought the suit, said the judge’s decision was “very encouraging to us.”
U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued the ruling Friday in Los Angeles, allowing the false advertising suit brought by plaintiffs that include the Western Sugar Cooperative against the CRA to go forward.
“It is something we expected, we’re not in the business of filing meritless or frivolous lawsuits,” Fox said.
Corn refiners have been using “corn sugar” in an attempt to rebrand high fructose corn syrup, the sweetening agent found in most sodas and many processed foods.
The sugar industry says the campaign amounts to false advertising, and there are numerous differences between the white, granular product and the sticky liquid that is high fructose corn syrup.
But lawyers for the corn industry arguing for the dismissal said sugar and high fructose corn syrup are equivalent in how they are metabolized by the body.
They also said the lawsuit was an attempt to stifle a national conversation about the merits of high fructose corn syrup versus sugar. Also, they said educational campaigns from the Corn Refiners Association, which does not directly sell any products, cannot be branded advertising.
But the judge dismissed those claims in Friday’s decision, saying the corn industry’s campaigns “constitute commercial speech” and the industry group is not insulated from federal false advertising regulations simply because its statements relate to a public health issue.
“The statements themselves also clearly are promoting corn syrup to food and beverage purchasers,” Marshall wrote.
Fox said the plaintiffs were “a little bit surprised that the defendants would even raise that as a defense, instead of just coming clean about their advertising being advertising.”
Erickson said the educational campaigns are “science based and supported by a wide variety of medical and scientific experts.”
Expert opinion was divided on high fructose corn syrup, with some saying there was no evidence that the sweetener is any worse for the body than sugar, others saying its high levels of fructose can be stored in the liver as fat and trigger gout and hypertension problems.
The corn industry has asked the Food and Drug Administration for permission to use “corn sugar.” The FDA’s decision is pending and it has asked the industry not to use the term before it has received regulatory approval.
In an August letter to the FDA, officials from the Corn Refiners Association said they did not believe anyone could be confused by the term, or believe that it referred to anything other than high fructose corn syrup.
“We do not believe that our statements regarding `corn sugar’ are false,” the letter read, “or that any consumer confusion could result from our use of the term.”
Source: Associated Press
Posted by Haylie Shipp
