Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Page 1
C.A. Broadly Interprets Act Regulating Ads, Labels That Represent Goods as ‘Organic’
Justices Say California Organic Food and Farming Act Doesn’t Impose Restrictions Only on Marketing of Edibles, Agricultural Products
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
Truthfulness of the packaging of a Rael product, pictured above, and other merchandise sold by that company, is questioned in a lawsuit brought under the California Organic Food and Farming Act. A Superior Court judge ruled that the act does not apply to such products, but the Court of Appeal reversed. |
A judge erred in ruling that California statutes restricting use of the word “organic” on product labels and advertising apply only to agricultural products, Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal has held, reinstating a lawsuit by an environmental advocacy group against the maker of feminine hygiene merchandise.
Presiding Justice Therese M. Stewart pointed out in the opinion, filed Wednesday, that Health and Safety Code §110880, a part of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (“COFFA”), specifies:
“This article shall apply to all products sold as organic within the state, wherever produced, handled, or processed, and to all products produced, that are handled or processed in the state, wherever sold as organic.”
She cited two other sections in the act that “apply broadly to ‘products,’ without exception.”
The jurist remarked that “the stray reference to the term ‘food’ ” in one section of the act “appears to be an inadvertent oversight,” declaring:
“[T]he statute as a whole indicates the Legislature intended to include, and did include, all products sold as organic under its umbrella. There is no indication that it meant to exclude personal care products from regulation.”
Elsewhere in the opinion, she parted from her statement that COFFA covers “all products,” acknowledging that it expressly exempts cosmetics from its reach. Stewart mentioned that in the course of observing that the exemption evidences state lawmakers’ ability to create exceptions when they want to, and had created no exemption for personal care goods.
“Organic” is defined in the Meriam-Webster Dictionary as “of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides”
Injunctive Relief Sought
Bringing the action was the Environmental Democracy Project (“EDP”), a nonprofit organization. It sought to enjoin Rael, Inc. from selling products as “organic” or “made with organic” materials in violation of COFFA.
That act (mirroring federal standards) defines an “organic” product as containing “a minimum of 95% certified organic materials by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt” and products containing specified organic materials as being made up of “a minimum of 70% certified organic materials by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt.”
EDP alleged that Rael products, such as its ““organic cotton cover period underwear” and its “100% certified organic cotton cover sheet” don’t meet the standard.
Trial Court’s Ruling
In granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Raul, Alameda Superior Court Judge Stephen D. Klaus found that COFFA applies “to specified products, not every product sold, such as the personal hygiene products involved here.”
But Stewart countered that the language of the act leaves no “room for judicially developed, implied exceptions, such as one for feminine hygiene products.”
She remarked that even if Rael’s contention that COFFA is confined to “agricultural products,” which she said it is not, the defendant would gain nothing, noting:
“Giving the phrase its plain meaning, cotton is clearly an ‘agricultural’ product because it is derived from (i.e., ‘relat[es] to’) the cultivation of crops.”
Public Policy
Stewart commented that it would contravene public policy to “leave manufacturers of a vast array of products—including many like those at issue here that are applied to, worn on or otherwise potentially affect the human body—free to make claims about organic content to the consuming public while, at the same time, manufacturers of dog food, cat food, and even guinea pig pellets cannot do so without complying with COFFA’s requirements and enduring significant regulatory oversight.”
She continued:
“Bug spray, for example. Laundry detergent. Clothing. Body soap. Tobacco products. Even personal lubricants and condoms. We do not think the Legislature intended to protect consumers of pet food with regard to organic content and advertising to a greater degree than consumers of household cleaning products, feminine hygiene products, or products relating to sexual health.”
Lack of Mention
Rael argued in its respondent’s brief that “[b]ecause COFFA does not anywhere mention personal care products, the only way” they could be covered is if COFFA’s requirements were to be held to apply “to every product ever made or sold in California or which will ever be made or sold in California.” It maintained:
“Such an interpretation is unsupportable by, and indeed contrary to, the plain language of the statute and would lead to impossible inconsistencies and absurd results.”
Stewart responded:
“There is nothing extreme about permitting only those products that contain a specified percentage of certified organic material to be marketed as ‘organic’ or as ‘made with organic’ ingredients. Indeed, that is the very purpose of COFFA. Broadly applying COFFA to all products, the manufacturers of hand soap, bathroom cleaner or t-shirts can no more market their products as organic if they contain only minimal amounts of certified organic material than the manufacturers of eyeliner or orange juice. That is not an absurd result.”
The case is Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc., 2025 S.O.S. 3448.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company