by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

This is an update to our prior articles about the NYC "Soda Ban" posted on October 2, 2012 and March 11, 2013.  As detailed in our prior articles, NYC Mayor Bloomberg enacted a ban against soda and other sugary drinks being sold at NYC establishments in excees of 16 ounces.  Although the law was to go into effect in March 2013, an "eleventh hour" Supreme Court decision struck down the "Soda Ban" as being arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional.

As you may recall, Mayor Bloomberg appealed the decision in his relentlees fight against obesity.  The Appellate Court has just rendered a unanimous decision affirming the lower court's ruling against the "Soda Ban", as being unconstitutional and violative of the state's separation of powers.  

Many thought this second court decision would put an end to this matter once and for all and stop the waste of tax payer money on litigation that borders on absurdity.  Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg in his infinite wisdom, has already declared the Appellate Court's decision to be a "temporary setback" and has vowed to appeal yet again.  While I believe the Mayor has good intentions, if he loses again perhaps the court should enforce baseball's most basic rule of three strikes and your out.  That is to say, that the court should require the billionare Mayor to reimburse the taxpayers every dollar expended on his "Soda Ban" litigation battles, in that they seem to serve his own personal agenda more than anything else.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our July 18, 2013 article entitled "EPA Increases Allowable Toxicity Levels In Our Food", we detailed the new EPA Regulation that doubled the amount of toxic Glyphosate (Roundup) residue allowed on food crops.  Glyphosate is the active chemical ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide used on crops and genetically built into gentically modified (GM) crops.  Genetically modified food represents approximately 80% or more of the food we buy at conventional food stores.

A new scientific study from Brazil and published in the journal of Free Radical Medicine and Biology, examined the effect of Glyphosate relative to male fertility.  This study is in addition to the growing body of research claiming Glyphosate to be a powerful endocrine disruptor.  The study specifically examined how exposure to low doses of Glyphosate affects  Sertoli cells.  Sertoli cells are contained within the testicles, sustain healthy sperm and are required for normal and healthy male sexual development.  According to the results of the study, exposure to relatively low doses of glyphosate, kills the Sertoli cells through a series of Glyphosate-induced changes thereby impacting male fertility.

At the very least, this study and the scores of other studies and evidence showing Glyphosate to be toxic and dangerous for human consumption, represent a red flag that warrants extensive independent and objective study.  It seems only prudent, that such study should be performed before Glyphosate is legally permitted to pollute and contaminate our food supply.  Perhaps that is the reason why European countries as a whole, have rejected Monsanto's GM food that is contaminated inside and out with Glyphosate.  One can't help but wonder whether or not the people in these European nations are more informed than the American people are allowed to be.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.    

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI), is a non-profit organization that brought a class action lawsuit against Coca Cola for alleged fraudulent labeling and advertising of Vitaminwater.  The lawsuit maintains that Coca Cola has used false marketing to claim that Vitaminwater is a healthy alternative to plain water and sugary soda beverages.  Further, that Vitaminwater claims to help boost immunity and fight eye disease.

Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director of CSPI, maintains that "The marketing of Vitaminwater will go down in history as one of the boldest and brashest attempts ever to affix a healthy halo to what is essentially a junk 
food, a non-carbonated soda...Vitaminwater, like Coca Cola itself, promotes weight gain, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cannot deliver on any of the dishonest claims it has made over the years."  CSPI further maintains that many Vitaminwater drinks consist of 99.5% water, crystalline fructose and sugar.  Crystalline fructose is essentially a more processed version of high-fructose corn syrup, which research has linked to a whole host of serious health problems. 

In a failed attempt to get the suit dismissed, defendants essentially argued that no reasonable consumer could have been misled by Vitaminwater labeling and believe the drink to be healthy, because the sugar content is listed on the label.  The court did not agree with defendants' argument and denied their motion to dismiss.  The case will now proceed and is on track for a jury trial.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The EPA has passed a new regulation (40 CFR 180) which has doubled the amount of toxic glyphosate (roundup) residue allowed on many of our food crops, paving the Biotech Industry road for use in genetically modified crops.  

Although the EPA has not conducted any significant independent safety tests on glyphosate before approving its use, it has concluded based on "available toxicity data" that the new increase is safe.  Essentially the "available toxicity data", was the same data submitted with the biotech serving petition for the new regulation.  

Opponents to the new regulation, argue that the newly approved levels of glyphosate in our food, are thousands upon thousands of times the concentration levels needed to induce breast cancer and other diseases.  Further, opponents submit that the EPA has once again failed to safeguard our health in exchange for serving the biotech behest of Monsanto and company.

This latest regulation change is part of a disturbing "whatever Monsanto wants, Monsanto gets" pattern that has emerged in this country.  The days when Monsanto had to gain public acceptance or approval of its methods and ways appear over.  Now if public acceptance cannot be obtained, the law that governs is simply changed to accommodate the wants and likes of the Biotech Industry. Today more than ever, "you are what you eat".

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The United States District Court in the case of United States v. Apple, ruled that Apple violated the Sherman Act by restraining E-book competition.  It was alleged that when Apple entered the E-book market in 2010, many popular and newly released E-books increased 30- 50% in price.  Further, that Apple and other publishers allegedly conspired in price fixing as a counter measure to Amazon's highly successful $9.99 E-book campaign.

Judge Cote found that "the evidence is overwhelming that Apple knew of the unlawful aims of the conspiracy and joined the conspiracy with specific intent to help it succeed."  The court will set down a future hearing to determine injunctive relief and damages in the case.  Apple has vehemently denied all claims of price fixing and conspiracy and plans to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals.  

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In 2003, Claude Williams suffered permanent brain damage after being struck by a NYC Transit Authority bus.  In 2009, after the long awaited trial of his case, a jury awarded plaintiff Williams $1.8 million dollars finding the defendants 100% liable. 

In 2011, after defendants' long awaited appeal, the court ordered a re-trial on liability, refusing to accept the jury's finding of 100% liability against defendants.  After a second trial as to liability, the jury again found in favor of plaintiif but this time held defendants only 40% liable.  Once again, the defendants appealed.

In yesterday's decision, the court for a second time vacated the jury's verdict and ordered a third trial as to liability.  The court apparently was not satisfied with the inclusion of testimony from one of defendant's witnesses.  The Transit Authority's investigator handling the case, essentially testified that Transit Authority policy was to keep a significant distance between the bus and the curb while approaching a stop.  The court reasoned that the Transit Authority policy as testified to, created a higher duty upon defendants than that imposed by common law.  Accordingly, the court ruled that said testimony was inadmissible and vacated the verdict in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff Williams, who is now in his 70's and still trying to manage with permanent brain damage, is now faced with the daunting task of enduring a third trial in order to try to receive compensation in his case.  In the first trial, plaintiff argued that the bus driver passed a red light thereby causing the accident.  If a jury was to believe that as true, certainly it is not beyond reason to find the defendants 100% liable.  Further, testimony as to policy does not re-write common law and accordingly inclusion of such testimony, should not be a basis for vacating a second jury verdict in favor of plaintiff.  Perhaps the court should focus more on allowing the jury to do its job and less on trying to re-write justice already served.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.