Our consumer protection attorneys were pleased to hear of the FDA’s recent decision on labels using the term “corn sugar.” For some time, certain food manufacturers have added high-fructose corn syrup to soda, breakfast cereal and virtually all other processed foods and beverages sold in grocery stores today. However, in recent years, high-fructose corn syrup has come under fire for the myriad of problems to which it contributes, including obesity, diabetes, and even, due to the method of processing, mercury poisoning.

As a result, many manufacturers have simply sought to mislead consumers about the contents of the foods they sell, leaving the ingredients intact but changing the ingredient list to read “corn sugar” instead. Now, at last, the FDA has taken action to stop this deceptive practice.

Manufacturers have argued that they should be permitted to continue labeling high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar” in the interests of consumers. Food manufacturers, together with the Corn Refiners Association, argued that the two terms were equivalent both nutritionally and metabolically.

The FDA, however, disagreed. The agency ruled that the term “corn sugar,” as applied to high-fructose corn syrup, was inconsistent with both the common understanding of the term “sugar” and the term’s dictionary definition. As such, using the term could mislead consumers.

Additionally, the FDA noted that the use of the term could not only expose consumers to the dangers described above, but could cause more direct harm. This is because “corn sugar” is already used to refer to dextrose, a dry, crystalized sugar made from corn starch. This sugar is essential to certain individuals whose bodies cannot process fructose. Thus, labeling high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar” could risk the health and lives of these individuals.

While the FDA ruling serves to protect consumers from this deceptive practice going forward, it does not put an end to legal claims based on prior labeling. For instance, there is litigation currently pending between the corn-syrup industry and the sugar industry over advertising that equated sugar and corn syrup. The ruling also does nothing to stop products liability claims by individuals injured by the mislabeling, such as those with the inability to process fructose.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago consumer protection lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

The experienced personal injury attorneys of Passen Law Group were disappointed to see the Illinois House take action last week to cap appellate bonds. While this action may prevent extremely rare instances of excessive bonds, it also acts to curtail the rights of successful plaintiffs and put them at risk of losing their recovery should the circumstances of the offender change.

When a plaintiff prevails in a civil lawsuit in Illinois, the defendant may appeal the ruling to a higher court. However, to protect the plaintiff’s rights, an appealing defendant – particularly a corporate defendant – is typically required to put up a bond to secure the amount of the judgment. That way, should the company’s fortunes change during the course of the appeal, or the defendant attempt to declare bankruptcy after losing the appeal, the plaintiff will still be able to recover for the harm done to her, as awarded by the lower court.

This system generally works well to protect the rights of victorious personal injury and product liability plaintiffs, while still allowing defendants their own appellate rights. There is, however, very rarely an outlying bond award which makes observers suspect abuse.

That was the case recently when Philip Morris USA was ordered to post a $12 billion bond in order to appeal the verdict in a Madison County tobacco lawsuit. After a verdict that the company had misled consumers about the dangers of “lite” cigarettes, a $10.1 billion judgment was entered. The court then set the bond at $12 million, to provide for interest during the period of the appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court later reduced the bond to $6 billion, before finally reversing the original judgment.
Thus, the Illinois House has now passed a bill limiting appellate bonds to $250 million. This limit would be enforced regardless of the size of the award in the lower court.

While we appreciate that the Philip Morris case was an outlier, our Chicago product liability attorneys do not believe that the correct response is to punish all plaintiffs for this aberration. Arbitrary caps on bonds, much like arbitrary caps on damages, impair the rights of plaintiffs who have suffered the worst injuries, at the hands of defendants who have engaged in the worst misconduct.

We urge the Illinois Senate, to whom the bill now returns, to kill this inappropriate and unfair legislation. We hope that, through such action, the rights of Illinois plaintiffs can still be preserved and protected.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.