February 2015 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 243: Liable Labels

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. The FDA sets forth regulations defining the terms "natural" or "all natural" as used in food product marketing.


2. In the POM Wonderful case, the class was not ascertainable since there was no way to distinguish between purchasers who bought the product based upon the challenged health claims and those who bought the products for other reasons.


3. The FDA requires a separate labeling regime for food developed using biotechnology or that is genetically engineered.


4. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a business allegedly injured by a commercial rival's false or misleading advertisements (including product labeling) can file a claim under the Lanham Act, even if the competitor's labels were authorized by the FDA.


5. Food law is a popular new area of legal teaching.


6. Under federal court pleading requirements, plaintiffs claiming false or misleading food labeling must set forth factual allegations sufficient to give rise to at least a plausible entitlement to relief.


7. Courts dismissed litigation alleging that Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch Berries cereals were mislabeled because these cereals did contain fruit and berries.


8. California federal district courts have issued consistent rulings in cases involving "all natural" labeling claims.


9. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) amended the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which prohibits the misbranding of foods.


10. The NLEA prohibits state regulations that are not "identical" with its or the FDCA's requirements.


11. The NLEA does not distinguish among photographs, logos, and general marketing terms like "all-natural" and "wholesome" that tend to appear on the front of food packaging and the nutritional labeling, or nutrient content claims, which tend to appear on the back of food packaging.


12. Generally, nutritional content claims that are listed on the back of the label are no more closely regulated than content claims appearing on the front of the label.


13. The federal preemption defense may be successful in subject areas in which the FDA is actively engaged in drafting definitions and regulations.


14. Food companies have had little success in defeating class certification in the majority of cases involving food labeling.


15. One of the most effective means to defeat a food labeling class certification is to attack the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the alleged damages.


16. Some class certification cases have been defeated because plaintiffs cannot calculate damages since the consumer has received some benefit from the product.


17. One possible hurdle in certifying a food labeling class is that the class is not readily ascertainable.


18. The FDA regulates food based upon the objective characteristics and intended use of the food, as well as the method by which the food is developed.


19. The FDA and the weight of scientific studies have concluded that genetically engineered food poses a greater safety risk than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.


20. Because of no clear statutes or regulations on food labeling containing the words "natural" or "all natural," a large number of lawsuits emerged, claiming that product ingredients were synthetic or not naturally found in organic foods.


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.