Environmental Activist Sues Makers of Slim Fast For Excessive Lead Levels in Diet Drink Products
LOS ANGELES: December 4, 2001 - A lawsuit was filed today against the makers of Slim Fast's "Healthy Ready to Drink Meal" products for violations of California's Proposition 65 and Unfair Competition Laws. The lawsuit charges that several Slim Fast diet drink products, particularly the chocolate flavored varieties, contain excessive amounts of lead, a heavy metal that the State of California has determined to be a carcinogen and reproductive toxin.
The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Unilever and Conopco, corporate parents of Slim Fast Foods, on behalf of all California consumers who were exposed to the lead present in the Slim Fast products. Plaintiff in the case is Lynne Todd Edgerton, an attorney who previously served as a member of the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") from 1993 to 1999. While a member of CARB, Ms. Edgerton was a leader in CARB's regulatory activities to identify lead as a toxic air contaminant.
In announcing her lawsuit, Ms. Edgerton commented: "Lead is highly toxic and has no known human benefit. Lead causes cancer, kidney problems and brain damage. Because lead is so hazardous, there have been extensive efforts over several decades to reduce exposure to lead. The removal of lead from gasoline, from cans that used lead solder and from paint are examples of this longstanding lead reduction policy. There is no excuse today for high lead levels in diet drinks like Slim Fast, which are consumed by pregnant women and nursing mothers, among others."
"Consumers of Slim Fast diet drink products are not told, and have no way of knowing, that drinking these products introduces unnecessary and excessive levels of lead into their bodies. This case seeks to remedy that situation." Ms. Edgerton noted.
Ms. Edgerton's lawsuit alleges that the manufacturer-recommended amount of two cans per day of a Slim Fast diet drink product exposes consumers to more than 100 times the amount of lead required to trigger the Proposition 65-mandated clear and reasonable warning. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to require warnings on offending Slim Fast diet drink products before they can be sold; appropriate restitution to persons who purchased these products without receiving these legally-mandated warnings; and civil financial penalties to punish these violations. Ms. Edgerton served her required sixty-day notice letter on Slim Fast on September 10, 2001, and subsequently offered to negotiate a resolution of this matter without resort to litigation.
Proposition 65, The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is an initiative statute adopted in 1986 to enforce the right of California residents "to be informed about exposure to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm."
Ms. Edgerton is available for comment at (310) 553-0801. For further information concerning this case, Edgerton v. Unilever et al, and its progress in the courts, please contact Ms. Edgerton's attorneys, Roger Carrick or Arthur Angel of the Carrick Law Group P.C., at (213) 346-7930.