Nestle sued in U.S. for using Thai slave-caught fish in cat food

[webfact]

IUU
Nestle accused of using slave-caught fish in cat food

New York - Swiss food giant Nestle is being sued in the United States for allegedly knowingly allowing its Fancy Feast cat food to contain fish from a Thai supplier that uses slave labor.

Pet food buyers who filed the class action lawsuit on Thursday in US federal court in Los Angeles seek to represent all California consumers of Fancy Feast who would not have purchased the product had they known it had ties to slave labor.

According to the lawsuit, Nestle works with Thai Union Frozen Products PCL to import more than 28 million pounds (13 million kilograms) of seafood-based pet food for top brands sold in the United States, and that some of the ingredients in those products came from slave labor.

Men and boys, often trafficked from Thailand’s poorer neighbors Myanmar and Cambodia, are sold to fishing boat captains who need crews aboard their ship, the complaint said.

It spoke of shifts of up to 20 hours a day with little or no pay, and beatings or even death if the work is deemed unsatisfactory.

"By hiding this from public view, Nestle has effectively tricked millions of consumers into supporting and encouraging slave labor on floating prisons," said Steve Berman, managing partner of the Hagens Berman law firm.

"It’s a fact that the thousands of purchasers of its top-selling pet food products would not have bought this brand had they known the truth -- that hundreds of individuals are enslaved, beaten or even murdered in the production of its pet food."

Nestle lists protection of human rights as one of its Corporate Business Principles.

But "Nestle has failed to uphold its responsibility to ensure the absence of slave labor in its supply chains -- and even worse, Nestle not only supported these human rights violations, but forced consumers to unknowingly do the same."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Nestle-accused-of-using-slave-caught-fish-in-cat-f-30267639.html


-- The Nation 2015-08-28

[Prbkk]

Just the beginning...probably about 20 years worth of law suits in the wings. All because authorities, govts ( of both parties) and the industry did NOTHING to resolve this matter.

[weegee]

You have got to be kidding right?.....lordy lordy lordy, when will this outrageous stupidity stop.

[peterjackson]

Good to see that Cats have a conscience. Can't wait for them to be deposed. Only one winner.... the Lawyers.

[thesetat2013]

It's about time this has happened. Maybe when some of these big companies who turned a blind eye to the way food was caught on boats here and paid for their quiet approval. Maybe this suit is just the beginning of many companies that imported from slave labour. When they start to pull out of Thailand for these reasons then maybe the gov will take serious actions against the bigwigs that allowed and supported those slave labor boats

[NomadJoe]

You have got to be kidding right?.....lordy lordy lordy, when will this outrageous stupidity stop.

You mean the slavery or the suing?

[Traveller45]

THIS IS GOOD! Now, Nestlé may win or lose this, but no matter, public attention is now on the topic. Well done!

[Thai at Heart]

You have got to be kidding right?.....lordy lordy lordy, when will this outrageous stupidity stop.

Welcome to Kansas Alice.

[dageurreotype]

THIS IS GOOD! Now, Nestlé may win or lose this, but no matter, public attention is now on the topic. Well done!

Beaten to it by Costco http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2015/08/costco-sued-for-buying-thai-shrimp-farmed-using.html

Bound to be more ..

[zaphod reborn]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

Edited August 28, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[ChrisY1]

This type of action had to start...this issue has been festering overseas for some time.....and now we wait for the Thai govt. to start their kow-towing and grovelling to the international community with the usual.."we're doing our best"...."it's not our fault"....etc.......

[Thai at Heart]

This type of action had to start...this issue has been festering overseas for some time.....and now we wait for the Thai govt. to start their kow-towing and grovelling to the international community with the usual.."we're doing our best"...."it's not our fault"....etc.......

I am sure they will tell us that foreigners don't understand Thailand and s such it is just a misunderstanding.

[allan michaud]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

I wonder if the fact that Nestle lists protection of human rights as one of its Corporate Business Principles could have any impact on a ruling?

For me that's the big issue here, they claim to be a responsible entity, yet it appears that is nothing more than hot air. If a corporation is going to make such a claim then surely they need to provide evidence that they have investigated people and businesses they are dealing with.

[BKKBrit]

And how much of the award money, if any, will find its way to compensate those labourers from the region used by Thai companies and fishermen? Diddly squat I reckon.

So would then allow a Thai lawyer to file a class action against the US Law firms to retrieve the awards for the actual slaves?

[zaphod reborn]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

I wonder if the fact that Nestle lists protection of human rights as one of its Corporate Business Principles could have any impact on a ruling?

For me that's the big issue here, they claim to be a responsible entity, yet it appears that is nothing more than hot air. If a corporation is going to make such a claim then surely they need to provide evidence that they have investigated people and businesses they are dealing with.

Here's what Nestle says about protection of human rights:

We fully support the United Nations Global Compact’s (UNGC) guiding principles on human rights and labour and aim to provide an example of good human rights and labour practices throughout our business activities. We

• support and respect the protection of international human rights within our sphere of influence (UNGC Principle 1);

• make sure that we are not complicit in human rights abuses (UNGC Principle 2);

• are against all forms of exploitation of children;

• recognise privacy as a human right;

• expect each of our companies to respect and follow the local laws and regulations concerning human rights practices. Where our own principles and regulations are stricter than local legislation, the higher standard applies;

• recognise the responsibility of companies to respect human rights irrespective of the fact that governments are ultimately responsible for the establishment of a legal framework for protecting human rights within their jurisdictions.

We uphold

• the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (UNGC Principle 3);

• the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour (UNGC Principle 4);

• the effective abolition of child labour (UNGC Principle 5);

• the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment occupation (UNGC Principle 6).

We adhere to the eight fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in particular Convention 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (1948), as well as Convention 138, Minimum Age for Employment, and Convention 182, Worst Forms of Child Labour, which are based on the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (Article 32). Furthermore, we adhere to the

Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (ILO) of March 2006 and the OECD Guidelines for

Multinational Enterprises of June 2000.

http://www.research.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/corporate-business-principles-en.pdf

I'm not sure this will have any impact on the consumer class action. SCOTUS in the Halliburton shareholder class action put up a big causation obstacle. In other words, the plaintiffs in the class action are going to have to prove they relied upon Nestle's representation that Nestle supported the elimination of forced labor (UNGC Principle 4). I'm not sure many consumers would have been looking at the corporate policy statement.

On the other hand, if Nestle stock drops, and it will now, there is going to be a shareholder class action lawsuit. The false statement in the corporate policy makes them per se liable, and all the shareholders need to do is prove that they relied upon Nestle's corporate policy statement, and the stock price dropped because it was proven false.

Edited August 28, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[steven100]

So are they going to sue Nike also as the factory they buy from employs some kids. Are they going to sue the company in Bangladesh that supplies copy levi 501 jeans because they hire girls for dying and sewing. Are they going to sue the thousands of companies in Cambodia and Afghanistan that hire kids to work 10 hours a day.

Even the building next door has children mixing cement for block work and painting, are they going to sue that builder ? ... it's rubbish... the only people who benefit are the lawyers. They are rubbing their hands with excitement. The kids however lose the job, cannot help support the family anymore, just more problems to put food on the table.

[toenail]

It is very hard to track down which fish is caught with slave labor since the caught fish from various fishing vessels under Thai licence may or may not have forced labor on their boats. These boats sell their fish to a middle-man which turns around and sells it to varioius companies. Just as shrimp is sold from a middle-man warehouse to places such as Tesco, Wallmart, or Carefour. The chocolate bean in Western Africa is the same ...which beans are gathered by children slaves while other beans are picked by a paid staff?

-So I wonder how this will work out in court?

[phoenixdoglover]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

I wonder if the fact that Nestle lists protection of human rights as one of its Corporate Business Principles could have any impact on a ruling?

For me that's the big issue here, they claim to be a responsible entity, yet it appears that is nothing more than hot air. If a corporation is going to make such a claim then surely they need to provide evidence that they have investigated people and businesses they are dealing with.

However, there is some precedent for protecting lying as free speech. With the penchant for treating corporations as "real people", the lies could be declared OK. I think this will be decided on the question of "harm".

[spidermike007]

And how much of the award money, if any, will find its way to compensate those labourers from the region used by Thai companies and fishermen? Diddly squat I reckon.

So would then allow a Thai lawyer to file a class action against the US Law firms to retrieve the awards for the actual slaves?

Could you find a Thai lawyer with the skills to do such a thing?

[lovelomsak]

So are they going to sue Nike also as the factory they buy from employs some kids. Are they going to sue the company in Bangladesh that supplies copy levi 501 jeans because they hire girls for dying and sewing. Are they going to sue the thousands of companies in Cambodia and Afghanistan that hire kids to work 10 hours a day.

Even the building next door has children mixing cement for block work and painting, are they going to sue that builder ? ... it's rubbish... the only people who benefit are the lawyers. They are rubbing their hands with excitement. The kids however lose the job, cannot help support the family anymore, just more problems to put food on the table.

There is a big difference between slaves and child labour that is condoned by parents out of poverty needs.or wants.

[little mary sunshine]

Hope this will bring attention to the horrible

Problem of slavery in SE Asia, but all the

Money will go to the lawyers.

[dcutman]

So are they going to sue Nike also as the factory they buy from employs some kids. Are they going to sue the company in Bangladesh that supplies copy levi 501 jeans because they hire girls for dying and sewing. Are they going to sue the thousands of companies in Cambodia and Afghanistan that hire kids to work 10 hours a day.

Even the building next door has children mixing cement for block work and painting, are they going to sue that builder ? ... it's rubbish... the only people who benefit are the lawyers. They are rubbing their hands with excitement. The kids however lose the job, cannot help support the family anymore, just more problems to put food on the table.

It is amazing in this day and age there are still, sick ass, people that condone child labor.

[keskeseksa]

Nestle is to Europe what Monsanto is to the US.

[NOC]

Good to see that Cats have a conscience. Can't wait for them to be deposed. Only one winner.... the Lawyers.

I employed Steve Berman on a class suit years ago. It's the whole reason he has an office in Arizona. He's relentless! He has a corner office and his intercom system is his voice! The on staff investigator and junior lawyers come, post haste.

Nestle is going to pay through the nose, and, as a result, they will stop using slave labor. As a result, some people might just get their freedom back.

This is one of the areas where I say, let the lawyers have at it!

[Baerboxer]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

As long as California doesn't start to thinks its laws or the way its courts interpret them are the world's laws then fine.

I'm no fan of Nestle or other large Western organizations that have turned a blind eye at best at illegal labor practices, unsafe conditions, child labor, slave labor, bonded labor all whilst claiming wonderful CSR in their bs annual reports.

But, American state law is for that particular state - not the world.

[zaphod reborn]

And how much of the award money, if any, will find its way to compensate those labourers from the region used by Thai companies and fishermen? Diddly squat I reckon.

So would then allow a Thai lawyer to file a class action against the US Law firms to retrieve the awards for the actual slaves?

Could you find a Thai lawyer with the skills to do such a thing?

Now we're getting into my area. First, Thailand doesn't have a class action lawsuit procedure . . . yet. The class action act goes into effect on 8 December 2015 and is modeled after the US procedural law (hence my new job ).

Yes, you can find a Thai lawyer to sue them. However, Thailand doesn't have the substantive legal code to protect consumers. In other words, you can't sue a manufacturer for unfair and deceptive trade practices like false advertising or mislabeling which is the basis for the class action against Nestle. It might take a long time for Thailand's consumer protection act to be brought up to speed. Even in basic contract law, it's very difficult to make a case in Thailand for failure to disclose (as opposed to an affirmative misrepresentation).

There are much bigger fish to fry for class action plaintiff's lawyers in Thailand. They have a lot of catching up to do - especially for things like all the cars that are made and sold here. None of the lawyers here have any experience with class action litigation. It will be like the wild, wild west.

[Kannikapor88]

Should be a Slam Dunk for EU to ban Thai Seafood Products ...

[zaphod reborn]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

As long as California doesn't start to thinks its laws or the way its courts interpret them are the world's laws then fine.

I'm no fan of Nestle or other large Western organizations that have turned a blind eye at best at illegal labor practices, unsafe conditions, child labor, slave labor, bonded labor all whilst claiming wonderful CSR in their bs annual reports.

But, American state law is for that particular state - not the world.

Well, yes and no. California does have progressive protections, but the Federal law provides consumer protection very close to the level of the California scheme. All large class actions are now tried in federal courts (CAFA 2005). So, the plaintiff did file in California to take advantage of the more favorable state law there, but I think this action would be just as strong anywhere in the US under the federal unfair and deceptive trade practices act. The California version just has more teeth and a few added theories of liability. And, don't be surprised if you see Nestle dragged into court for a class action case in the EU - they have similar protections and a similar class action procedural code.

Edited August 28, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[mikemac]

I blame them dang American cats !

[cookee68]

So now i guess there will be a wave of law suits all over the world soon, like a domino affect