Pharmaceutical Review (www.pharmarev.com). Last September, Abbott Laboratories recalled more than five million containers of its Similac baby formula because they may have been contaminated with beetles or beetle larvae (https://www.naturalnews.com/029835_S…), which prompted at least one individual to file a lawsuit against the company for deceiving the public about the wholesomeness and quality of its formula.
But US District Judge Virginia Kendall, who presided over the case, recently dismissed it, claiming that Abbott never made any claims that its product was “sage,” but only that it is nutritional and wholesome, which Judge Kendall basically purported is true regardless of whether or not the product contains bug parts.
The crux of the case was based on Abbott’s marketing promise that “Similac stands apart” from other baby formulas, and that it is a healthy and wholesome product. Chalonda Jasper, lead plaintiff in the case, alleged that these statements and others were untrue not only because of the recall incident, but also because Abbott has apparently known about a rampant bug infestation at the Sturgis, Mich., facility where Similac is made for quite some time, but has failed time and time again to address and fix the problem.
The contaminated Similac products apparently caused “gastrointestinal discomfort” in babies that consumed them, as well as “temporary refusal to eat,” two conditions that contradict marketing claims that Similac “provide[s] a strong start for your baby’s developing digestive system.”
And since Abbott has allegedly repeatedly ignored previous complaints that its products were causing digestive problems rather than digestive support, it appeared as though Jasper had a valid case against the company for neglect and false advertising. But Judge Kendall felt otherwise, having claimed that Jasper’s case alleging physical injury and emotional distress was “insufficient.” She also claimed that previous case law in the state of Indiana, which is where the suit was filed, does not allow “a negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed against a manufacturer of consumer goods based on the manufacturer’s advertisements to the public.” “Jasper’s complaint includes no marketing statements from Abbott that claim Similac is safe,” stated Judge Kendall. “Instead, Abbott’s advertisements only refer to the nutritional value and nutrient blend of Similac.” While Jasper may not have adequately proven her case in the eyes of Judge Kendall, this does not mean that her allegations are false, or that contaminated Similac is safe. And based on a previous Natural News story about Similac’s stated ingredients, it is truly a wonder that Abbott has never been required to prove that Similac is nutritious or wholesome in the first place.
Some readers will remember the story we published shortly after the Abbott recall that outlines what is actually contained in Similac formula (besides potential beetle parts, of course).
In case you missed it, the following list of ingredients in Similac Go & Grow, a soy-based formula designed for babies between nine and 24 months of age, was taken directly from the container’s label (https://www.naturalnews.com/029863_S…): – 42.6% corn syrup solids – 14.7% soy protein isolate – 11.5% high oleic safflower oil – 10.1% sugar (sucrose) – 8.4% soy oil – 7.8% coconut oil.
Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/033263_Similac_baby_formula.html#ixzz1UTAb2ccS
Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/033263_Similac_baby_formula.html#ixzz1UTAi4zEz
https://www.naturalnews.com/033263_Similac_baby_formula.html#ixzz1UTAKF3HJ