Charles C. Foot, Jr., the former attorney general of Louisiana and a partner at the New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.-based law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti has initiated an investigation into Conagra Brands’ claims over the sustainability of its seafood.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Conagra executives breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws as a result of a class-action lawsuit it is facing.
“[Contact us] if you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Conagra shares and would like to discuss your legal rights,” the firm said.
KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn did not respond to a request from SeafoodSource for comment.
In March 2024, a federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit to proceed that claims the Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.-based food firm made false claims about the sustainability of its seafood. Conagra is one of the largest frozen food manufacturers in the U.S. and owns the Mrs. Paul’s and Van de Kamp’s frozen seafood brands, in addition to Bird’s Eye and other non-seafood brands.
The suit, filed in March 2023, claims that Conagra’s display of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification on its seafood packages is deceptive. Mrs. Paul’s and Van de Kamp’s pollock products include MSC’s eco-label, as well as the phrases “Certified Sustainable Seafood MSC” and “Certified Sustainably Sourced,” but the products were sourced from Russian fisheries that employ unsustainable practices, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs are asking for USD 5 million (EUR 4.7 million) in damages.
In her March 2024 decision, U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall said Conagra’s use of the MSC eco-label was not false advertising in narrowing the scope of the lawsuit away from a debate about MSC’s standard and toward the company’s use of the phrase “Good for the Environment,” which she described as “problematic.”
“The line is featured prominently at the top of the back packaging and appears unconnected to the [MSC] Blue Tick or any MSC-related certification or standards. Indeed, a reasonable consumer could read the line as a separate purported commitment by Conagra, not by MSC, that their products are good for the environment,” Kendell said.
“Conagra is not advertising that their products are sustainable but that their products are certified as sustainable by MSC. This is a distinction with a difference,” she wrote.
The suit also did not present enough of a case to suggest that Conagra cannot identify the origin of the pollock or track the history of the sourcing process, Kendall ruled.
“It could be that Conagra is aware of the unsustainable fishing practices and is trying to resolve the problem, or Conagra believes those fishing practices are sustainable. Either scenario can exist with Conagra’s traceability representation,” she said.
Likewise, Conagra’s use of the phrase “certified sustainably sourced” is not deceptive, according to Kendall.
