A Florida judge ruled that a proposed class-action suit accusing Chipotle of intentionally misrepresenting that the food it serves does not contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) can proceed.
According to ABC News, plaintiff Leslie Reilly of Florida sued the food chain in September 2015 claiming she paid a "premium price" for Chipotle's food only because she believed it did not contain GMO. While the Denver-based Mexican grille resto claims in its website that it is the first national restaurant company "to cook with non-GMO ingredients," it also admits that the meat and dairy they serve may have come "from animals given at least some GMO feed."
But Reilly's complaint claims that meat and dairy products coming from animals given GMO feed are in themselves GMO products. The suit also says the Chipotle's marketing claim that it uses only non-GMO ingredients constitutes "unfair and deceptive practices."
US District Judge Marcia G. Cooke, said Law 360, ruled Wednesday that the case must proceed to allow for more analysis on the customers' claim that animals given GMO feed can't produce non-GMO meat. She refused to set aside Reilly's assertion that she didn't get the benefit of her bargain when she bought food from Chipotle which she thought was non-GMO, in part because Reilly has put forth enough evidence to show that the definition of non-GMO may require that meat and dairy products cannot come from animals that ate GMO feed, the decision stated.
Chipotle argued that Reilly's interpretation of "non-GMO" is "non-sensical" and it is not the way ordinary consumers would define the term. But Judge Cooke found that Reilly has offered enough evidence to show that some consumers and legislators do believe that non-GMO should also apply to the type of feed the animals consumed.
Food Navigator reported that legal experts warned marketers that they could be sued for making non-GMO claims for meat and dairy products coming from animals given GMO feed. Their warning comes in the heels of Judge Cooke's ruling on the false advertising case alleged in the Reilly lawsuit which comes two months after a California court dismissed a similar suit against the burrito maker.
There is yet no federal definition of non-GMO ingredients although state bills requiring GMO labelling do not require them on meat and dairy products from animals given genetically engineered feed. Reilly's suit asserts that non-GMO claim should not be allowed if genetic engineering had been employed at any stage of the production process, regardless of the final product.
