San Francisco Superior Court Judge Decides in Favor of Tuna Canners

From: Pamela Tom (pdtom@ucdavis.edu)
Date: Fri May 12 2006 - 18:16:58 PDT

  • Next message: Anthony Bimbo: "Re: omega-3 fatty acid -nutrition claim"

    To: Seafood HACCP Discussion List
    Fr: Pamela Tom, Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California

    Following two months of testimony, the tuna industry won a court decision
    in California regarding mercury-warning labels.

    Last year Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, filed
    a law suit (Case No.: CGC-04-432394) in San Francisco Superior Court
    against three major tuna producers (Tri-Union Seafoods, Del Monte and
    Bumblebee Seafoods). California has a Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
    Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6) known as
    "Proposition 65." Business are required to provide a "clear and
    reasonable warning" to consumers that they are being exposed to such
    chemicals (including methylmercury which was added to the list on July 1,
    1987).

    Superior Court Justice Robert Dondero ruled that the tuna canners are
    exempt from the warning requirement under Proposition 65 because there is
    a naturally occuring exemption under the California Code of Regulations
    Title 22 Section 12501(a)(1) which applies to environmental methylmercury.
    The Judge Dondero also determined that the proposed Proposition 65 label
    warning conflicts with and is preempted by the federal [labeling]
    regulations

    The lawsuit asked the court to prohibit the companies from selling their
    tuna in California without providing a warning as required by Proposition
    65. Potential alternatives for adequate warnings include signs posted in
    grocery aisles or labels placed on cans. Additionally, the complaint
    sought civil penalties for violations of Proposition 65 and the state's
    Unfair Competition Law. Under both laws, each defendant was liable for
    civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. The complaint
    covers the defendants' alleged Proposition 65 violations dating back to
    2000.

    The judge's decision is 118 pages long. It's not easy to access, but
    here's how you can view the decision to understand the case and strong
    arguments. Go to the Superior Court of San Francisco, County of San
    Francisco, Electronic Information Center at http://www.sftc.org/ You'll
    need to download the plug-in on that web site in order to be able to view
    the documents. Select "case number query." Then enter either 402975 or
    432394. (The cases were merged.) The server is slow...so be patient.
    Only one page can be viewed at a time.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the Seafood HACCP Discussion Group. Subscription
    information and archives are available on the web at:
    http://seafood.ucdavis.edu/listserv/Listserv.htm

    If you need help subscribing or unsubscribing, e-mail
    Pamela Tom at pdtom@ucdavis.edu .
    --------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2006 - 18:27:03 PDT