Challenging Hormel’s Deceptive Advertising Practices: Natural Choice®
Animal Legal Defense Fund v Hormel Foods Corporation
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against Hormel Foods Corporation alleging the company is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice® brand of lunch meats and bacon.
Opening appeal brief filed
Hormel's Opposition brief
Due September 30, 2019
In 2016, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against Hormel Foods alleging the company is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice® brand of lunch meats and bacon. The lawsuit was filed with Public Justice and the Richman Law Group in the District of Columbia Superior Court, under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
Contrary to Hormel’s branding campaign, the lawsuit alleges, meats the company advertises as “natural,” “honest,” “wholesome,” and “clean,” actually come from animals raised in the worst factory farms that employ additives, hormones and antibiotics, and contain nitrates and preservatives.
The lawsuit followed an Animal Legal Defense Fund undercover investigation revealing significant animal neglect and violations of laws protecting both consumers and animals at a Nebraska-based farm owned by The Maschhoffs, LLC, a major Illinois-based pig producer and one of Hormel Foods’ largest suppliers.
Under the slogan “Make the Natural Choice®” Hormel has run a wide-ranging advertising campaign that takes advantage of consumers’ beliefs that “natural” meat comes from animals raised in more natural, sustainable ways.
A 2015 Consumer Reports survey found that half of consumers surveyed believed the “natural” designation means animals were raised outdoors; even greater percentages believed it meant animals were not given antibiotics and other drugs. Hormel’s Natural Choice® products, in contrast, are not from more humane or more natural farms, but come from the same industrialized, pharmaceutical-using factory farms as any of Hormel’s other products.
The court denied Hormel’s motion to dismiss the suit in 2017.
Though Ruled Unconstitutional, Industry Continues Pushing Ag-Gag Laws: Updates in North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and Ontario
Though Ruled Unconstitutional, Industry Continues Pushing Ag-Gag Laws: Updates in North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and OntarioIn the first half of 2020, there were multiple developments in the realm of Ag-Gag laws — so named because they criminalize whistleblowing and undercover investigations in agricultural facilities, thus “gagging” activists and others who expose animal abuse in factory farms and slaughterhouses.September 15, 2020 Animal Law Update
Earlier this summer, the driver of a pig transport truck struck and killed longtime animal advocate Regan Russell. The circumstances regarding her death are not fully known to the public, but top to bottom, the animal agriculture industry is rarely held accountable.August 4, 2020 News
Kentucky has amended its law prohibiting veterinarians from reporting suspected animal cruelty. Advocates worked for years to change this law, which had good intentions regarding personal privacy but unintended consequences for animal victims of abuse.July 9, 2020 Animal Law Update
Cape Fear River Watch v. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Justice Foundation v. Farm Service Agency
Petition to the USDA submitted in June 2020