Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
×
P. 1
Amended Answer (ADM) Western Sugar Coop v Archer-Daniels Midland

Amended Answer (ADM) Western Sugar Coop v Archer-Daniels Midland

Ratings: (0)|Views: 947|Likes:
Published by Lara Pearson
Sugar v High Fructose Corn (HFCS) Syrup "re-branding" as "corn sugar"
Sugar v High Fructose Corn (HFCS) Syrup "re-branding" as "corn sugar"

More info:

Published by: Lara Pearson on Sep 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
A
RCHER 
-D
ANIELS
-M
IDLAND
C
OMPANY
S
A
MENDED
A
 NSWER 
T
O
P
LAINTIFFS
 
S
ECOND
A
MENDED
C
OMPLAINT
 
   W   i  n  s   t  o  n   &   S   t  r  a  w  n   L   L   P
   3   3   3   S .   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e   L  o  s   A  n  g  e   l  e  s ,   C   A   9   0   0   7   1  -   1   5   4   3
Gail J. Standish (SBN: 166334)gstandish@winston.comErin R. Ranahan (SBN: 235286)eranahan@winston.comWINSTON & STRAWN LLP333 S. Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071-1543Telephone: (213) 615-1700Facsimile: (213) 615-1750Dan K. Webb (admitted
 pro hac vice
)dwebb@winston.comStephen V. D’Amore (admitted
 pro hac vice
)sdamore@winston.comWINSTON & STRAWN LLP35 W. Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60601-9703Telephone: (312) 558-5600Facsimile: (312) 558-5700Attorneys for DefendantsA
RCHER 
-D
ANIELS
-M
IDLAND
C
OMPANY
;
 
C
ARGILL
,
 
I
 NC
.;I
 NGREDION
I
 NCORPORATED
;
 
T
HE
C
ORN
EFINERS
A
SSOCIATION
,
 
I
 NC
.;
AND
T
ATE
&
 
L
YLE
I
 NGREDIENTS
A
MERICAS
,
 
I
 NC
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE,a Colorado cooperative,
et al.
,Plaintiffs,v.ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLANDCOMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
et al.
,Defendants.
Case No. CV11-3473 CBM (MANx)ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLANDCOMPANY’S FIRST AMENDEDANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECONDAMENDED COMPLAINT &COUNTERCLAIM; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Second Amended Complaint Filed: November 18, 2011Defendant Member Company Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (“ADM”)hereby submits the following Answer to the Second Amended Complaint of PlaintiffsWestern Sugar Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Inc., United States Sugar Corporation, American Sugar Refining, Inc., The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC,
Case 2:11-cv-03473-CBM-MAN Document 86 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 53 Page ID #:1565
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 2
A
RCHER 
-D
ANIELS
-M
IDLAND
C
OMPANY
S
A
MENDED
A
 NSWER 
T
O
P
LAINTIFFS
 
S
ECOND
A
MENDED
C
OMPLAINT
 
   W   i  n  s   t  o  n   &   S   t  r  a  w  n   L   L   P
   3   3   3   S .   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e   L  o  s   A  n  g  e   l  e  s ,   C   A   9   0   0   7   1  -   1   5   4   3
Imperial Sugar Corporation, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, The American Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A., Inc., and The Sugar Association, Inc. (collectively,“Plaintiffs”).
1
For its Answer, ADM states as follows:
PROLOGUE
1. ADM is informed and believes that HFCS began to be used in Americanfood (but not beverages) in the late 1960s, and that the extent of its use has variedsince that time. Further answering, ADM is informed and believes that there has beena growth in American obesity, but denies that the trend in American obesity hastracked the extent of reported per capita consumption of HFCS in the United States.ADM admits that some observers initially published a hypothesis of a theoreticalcorrelation (based on partial and incomplete data) between the rise in HFCSconsumption and obesity, but that at least one of these initial observers has recantedthat hypothesis because it was incorrect. ADM denies that there exists a correlation or any causative relationship in the data tracking HFCS consumption and obesity ratesover time. ADM lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of theallegation contained in the last sentence of Paragraph 1. ADM denies any remainingallegations of Paragraph 1.2. ADM admits that some manufacturers have replaced HFCS with sucrose(referred to herein as “refined sugar” or “table sugar”) and have promoted their  products’ absence of HFCS. ADM denies that there is any credible science showing aunique link between consumption of HFCS and obesity or other health problems thatdoes not exist with respect to other sugars, including refined sugar produced fromcane or beet plants. ADM denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2.3. ADM is informed and believes that CRA submitted a citizen’s petitionrequesting,
inter alia
, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to authorize“corn sugar” as an alternate common or usual name for HFCS (the “Citizen’sPetition”), which was denied. ADM is further informed and believes that CRA has
1
Defendant The Corn Refiners Association, Inc. (“CRA”) filed separately its Answer to Plaintiffs’Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2011.
Case 2:11-cv-03473-CBM-MAN Document 86 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 53 Page ID #:1566
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 3
A
RCHER 
-D
ANIELS
-M
IDLAND
C
OMPANY
S
A
MENDED
A
 NSWER 
T
O
P
LAINTIFFS
 
S
ECOND
A
MENDED
C
OMPLAINT
 
   W   i  n  s   t  o  n   &   S   t  r  a  w  n   L   L   P
   3   3   3   S .   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e   L  o  s   A  n  g  e   l  e  s ,   C   A   9   0   0   7   1  -   1   5   4   3
undertaken an educational campaign to explain the merits of HFCS and its Citizen’sPetition. ADM is further informed and believes that, as part of its educationalcampaign, CRA has stated that HFCS is “natural” pursuant to the policy used by theFDA; and that “sugar is sugar” and “your body can’t tell the difference” betweenHFCS and refined sugar because HFCS is “nutritionally the same as table sugar” andmetabolized by the body in the same way. The allegation that “[s]everal have evenrecently referred to it in their own advertising and pricing sheets as ‘corn sugar’” isvague and ambiguous to an extent that it cannot be admitted or denied, and on that basis ADM denies the same. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 3 are directedto the conduct of CRA, no further response from ADM is required. If a response tosuch allegations is required, ADM lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as tothe truth of such allegations and, on that basis, denies the same. ADM denies anyremaining allegations of Paragraph 3.4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 assert conclusions of law to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, ADM denies the allegationsof Paragraph 4.5. ADM admits that “corn sugar” is currently one of multiple FDA-approved names for dextrose only for the purpose of food ingredient labeling. Theremaining allegations of Paragraph 5 assert conclusions of law to which no response isrequired. To the extent a response is required, ADM denies the remaining allegationsof Paragraph 5.6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 assert conclusions of law to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, ADM denies the allegationsof Paragraph 6.7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 assert conclusions of law to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, ADM denies the allegationsof Paragraph 7, including, without limitation, the allegation that sugar made from caneor beet plants is the only “real” sugar.
Case 2:11-cv-03473-CBM-MAN Document 86 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 53 Page ID #:1567

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->