KHN Morning Briefing

Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations

Supreme Court Weighs Truth-In-Labeling Issue In Case Involving Juice Product

The makers of a pomegranate juice called Pom Wonderful ask the court to rule that Coca-Cola is falsely labeling its Pomegranate Blueberry juice that is 99.4 percent apple and grape juice.

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Seems Inclined To Bolster Truth-In-Labeling Laws
In a case that could strengthen truth-in-labeling laws, Supreme Court justices on Monday voiced deep skepticism about Coca-Cola's Pomegranate Blueberry juice that is 99.4% apple and grape juice, saying the name would probably fool most consumers, including themselves. The high court is hearing an appeal from Stewart and Lynda Resnick of Los Angeles, makers of a rival pomegranate juice called Pom Wonderful, who complained that the name of the Coca-Cola product, sold under the Minute Maid brand, is false and misleading. … At issue is whether federal law permits selling a product with a name or a label that is almost sure to mislead consumers, and how much latitude manufacturers have in marketing (Savage, 4/21).

The Wall Street Journal: Justices Skeptical Of Coke's Pomegranate Juice Label
Los Angeles-based Pom, which sells juices and juice blends with high content of costly pomegranate juice, claims that Coke is misleading consumers with a Minute Maid product it calls Pomegranate Blueberry Blend of Five Juices. The product, which contains about 0.5% of pomegranate and blueberry juices, highlights the words Pomegranate Blueberry, features a pomegranate and blueberry on its label, and is colored a bluish-purple, altering the natural hue of the less pricey apple and grape juices that make up more than 99% of the beverage (Bravin, 4/21).

The high court will also consider a case Tuesday involving abortion and free speech -

Politico: Abortion At Heart Of Ohio Speech Case
The Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether an anti-abortion group can challenge an Ohio law that could have restricted it from publicly accusing a political candidate of voting for taxpayer-funded abortions in Obamacare. The justices aren’t likely to decide whether the law chills free speech—although Susan B. Anthony List and even the Ohio attorney general say that it does. They’re instead being asked to decide whether SBA List has standing to challenge the law since the group was never prosecuted under it (Winfield Cunningham, 4/22).

This is part of the KHN Morning Briefing, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.