The defendant, Snapple Beverage Corporation, was on trial for several cases related to the issue of “All Natural” labeling on the company’s caloric beverages. The issue of the labeling was due to the addition of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) into the beverages in which the plaintiffs claimed HFCS to not be “All Natural.” In the first case, Holk v. Snapple, the defendant moved to dismiss the case because of Holk’s claims to be “expressly and/or impliedly preempted,” since one of Holk’s claims was that Snapple was going against the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The defendant claimed the New Jersey Act would conflict with the implied and/or expressed regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…show more content… This was because the FDA was more qualified to determine the standard of HFCS, an area of their expertise. Therefore, the defendant was granted the dismissal of the initial case. However, Holk appealed the case, and within the appellate trial, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim was still expressly preempted by the regulations of the FDA. Specifically, a section from the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), discusses the preemption of the NLEA regarding state laws. However, there was a disclaimer that affirmed that the NLEA cannot be construed to be preempted unless what is expressly stated in the NLEA is preempted by the state. As a result, this argument by Snapple cannot be held against the defendant’s claim that the New Jersey Act is preempted over FDA acts. Further, Snapple waived their claim of HFCS being expressly preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as the plaintiff’s previous claims of the juice content being misleading were dropped. Therefore, the appellate court judge concluded that he could not declare the District Court’s ruling correct since the expressed preemption claim by Snapple was…show more content… Thus, the District Court ruling was reversed, and further proceedings will occur in this case. While the Holk v. Snapple case remained open, the District Court compared other similar cases in the sense of determining whether HFCS was “All Natural.” In the case of Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co., the plaintiff filed a claim for Arizona Sweet Tea claiming to be 100% natural but contained HFCS. The defendants of this case moved to dismiss the case based on primary jurisdiction. The judge in this case acknowledged that the FDA abides by a “case-by-case” policy when determining whether an ingredient is natural. From this, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant for primary jurisdiction as he understood that federal judges would be able to rule over labeling issues, but determining whether HFCS is natural or not is the FDA’s expertise as the factor has to do with the enzyme used to make HFCS. However, the judge ruled for the case to stay in action and seek guidance from the FDA. As a result, the judge in the Holk v. Snapple case ruled for the case to stay in action for six months for the FDA to solve the issue of whether HFCS is natural. However, the FDA refused to address the HFCS issue and both parties agreed to reopen
