Product Liability

Oakland-San Francisco Attorney Comments on Antibiotics in Our Food

April 21, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

The growing presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major challenge today. According to one study published in the Journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with multidrug-resistant staph, which means consumers across the U.S. are at risk-and what those risks are is still unclear. Antibiotics are the most important drugs we have to treat Staph infections. But when Staph is resistant to several different antibiotics, patients have few options for treatment, leaving them sick and vulnerable to dying. According to warning issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), overuse and misuse of antibiotics, including in the general overuse at the therapeutic level, is creating a global war against infections and diseases as they render existing antibiotics useless. The fact that the drug-resistant pathogen was so prevalent, and likely came from the food animals themselves, is troubling and demands attention to how antibiotics are used in food-animal production today. However, lowering or halting the use of antibiotic use in animal production could have serious effects on the meat and poultry industry. At the same time, there is a growing movement to reduce the use of antibiotics, but there is still controversy over whether or not low-dose usage of antibiotics in food animals can be directly linked to drug-resistant illness in people.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe no food production company should be allowed to add antibiotics, or any drugs or chemicals, to our food until they can prove doing so does not put consumers’ health at risk. But the sad fact is that stopping the use of it now could lead to increased animal disease and a further reduction in food safety. Our current food production system is so enmeshed in the practice of using antibiotics– ever since ranchers and farmers discovered decades ago that it would make animals gain weight, which would lead to higher yields and ultimately raise industry profits-that that same system could crumble if things were to change. But maybe that is a good thing.
If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to the consumption of a tainted food product, please contact our firm for a free consultation.

San Francisco-Oakland Product Liability Attorney Comments on Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Cleaning Products

April 12, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Exposure to toxins in cleaning products is pervasive throughout homes in the United States and children are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of chemicals. An infant’s exposure can be particularly high due to the fact that they crawl on the ground and put their hands in their mouths, which causes them to ingest chemicals from the floor such as hardwood or tile cleaners and carpet finishes. Frequent use of hazardous cleaning chemicals is associated with persistent wheezing among pre-school children, and increases the likelihood of asthma attacks among children. Even the cleaning products that are labeled “green” emit hazardous compounds not listed on labels.

A study at the University of Washington, has shown that there are hundreds of chemicals hiding in popular products such as, laundry detergents, deodorants, shampoos, and air fresheners. All such products emit at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous, according to the study, and some even emit at least one chemical considered a probable carcinogen by the U. S. Environmental Protection agency. The study established the presence of various chemicals but made no claims about possible health effects. However, the researchers have found from surveying the public that 20 percent of the population have had adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors, especially among asthmatics.

The Household Product Labeling Act, which is currently under review by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry suppliers and other consumer products. Consumers can avoid such chemicals by cleaning natural ingredients, such as with vinegar , lemon and baking soda. For more information on volatile organic compounds, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website at and the National Library of Medicine. If you or loved on suffered an injury due to the use of a hazardous product and would like to know if you have a claim, please contact our office. We have over 10 years experience handling product liabity claims and know how to help victims win the compensation they deserve.

Bay Area Personal Injury Attorney Comments on Product Recall and Liability

April 7, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Williams-Sonoma is recalling hot chocolate pots, which were sold nationwide, online at www.williams-sonoma.com, and through Williams –Sonoma catalogs from October 2010 through January 2011, for about $30-$40. The recalled product was manufactured in China and imported by ICI USA, LLC of Seattle, Washington. There have been 28 reported incidents of handles breaking off the posts, in addition to eight reported incidents of injuries involving minor cuts or burns. Around 28,000 hot chocolate pots were recalled in the United States and 700 have been recalled in Canada. Specifically, the product involved is the Whirly Whip hot chocolate pots, item number 2981454 or 4986535. They were also sold as part of gift set, item number 3021714. The item number is located on the box in which the product is sold, just below the bar code. The pot is white porcelain, has a red handle and red knob, and comes with a frother attached under the knob’s lid. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled hot chocolate pots, immediately, and they are advised to return the product to any Williams-Sonoma store for a full refund.

Every year thousands of people are injured from using defective products. Often, defective products are the cause of serious or deadly injuries. Many products are recalled because they pose dangerous burn related risks for consumers. When a person is burned by a dangerous product, he or she may be able to pursue a product liability action against the seller or manufacturer of the product. If a person did not buy the dangerous product and was injured by it, such as an innocent bystander or a person who borrowed the dangerous product from a friend and used it, they may also be able to file a claim. A product liability claim can be filed against the manufacturer of the product, as well as the supplier, distributor or retailer of the product. Manufacturers and sellers of dangerous goods can be sued for negligence, and sometimes proof of negligence is not necessary under the rule of strict liability. If you have questions regarding a potential claim and whether or not you may be able to recover damages, please contact our firm.

San Francisco-Oakland Food Safety Attorney Comments on Latest Food Recall

March 28, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that two different companies issued food product recalls after epidemiologic investigations linked Salmonella Panama infections to specific cantaloupe shipments from Del Monte Fresh Produce and E coli O157;H7 infections to Lebanon bologna manufactured by Palmyra Bologna Company. They received reports that 12 patients in four states-Oregon (5 cases), Washington (4 cases), California (2 cases), and Maryland (1 case)–fell ill as a result of Salmonella Panama. According to investigations, all but one of the ill patients ate cantaloupe in the week prior to falling ill and all 10 ate cantaloupe purchased at seven separate Costco locations. The other 14 infections connected to the E. coli outbreak involved patients from five states-Maryland (3 cases), New Jersey (2 cases), North Carolina (1 case), Ohio (2 cases), and Pennsylvania (6 cases)-as of March 22, 20011. The bologna recall was categorized as a Class I, which means it represents a health hazard situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of the defective product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.

Both Salmonella and E coli cause abdominal cramps and diarrhea-in some cases the symptoms may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. The elderly, infirm, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to develope a severe illness from these infections. Anyone who thinks they may have become ill from eating possibly contaminated food should consult their health care provider. If you or a loved one became ill due to eating tainted food, contact our food safety attorney today. We have over 10 experience helping victims of defective or contaminated products win the compensation they deserve.

San Francisco-Oakland Product Liability Attorney Comments on Not So Healthy Organics

March 18, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Two recent organic food recalls prove that organic does not mean pathogen free. According to theUSDA, First Class Foods, of Hawthorne, California issued a recall of 34,373 pounds of organic beef over potential contamination with E. coli bacteria on December 30th of last year. That beef was distributed in California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Washington State, and Wisconsin, and was sold under the Organic Harvest and Nature’s Harvest label. At that time, according to the FDA, Tiny Greens Organic Farm also recalled alfalfa and spicy sprouts over concerns of potential contamination with the Salmonella pathogen. Those sprouts were distributed in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. July of last year, a recall was initiated by Specialty Farms regarding a possible Listeria contamination of their sprouts. Organicgirls also issued a recall over concerns of Salmonella contamination last year.

Organics is big business, generating billions in sales every year. However, the agency that oversees the certifying process is underfunded and understaffed, and agents have an incentive to approve companies that are paying them. Before, organic labeling didn’t mean much when it came to processed food in packages (many packaged foods have a few orgainic are not 100% organic), but now fresh organic food is just as suspect. The truth is that we take a risk every time we eat something, organic or not, as pathogens can enter the food chain at time. Consumers should remember that pesticide free does not mean pathogen free. At the same time, we should be able to expect stricter adherence to cleanliness and quality when we pay the higher price for organics. Yet, as the recalls prove, it is folly to expect–and believe– the people and companies that sell such products are of the same philosophy. Also, funnily enough, we tend believe, on some unconscious level, that the higher price of organics should keep us safe and healthy. But the truth is it does not ensure safety. So, the real issues and concerns are over who inspects, processes, and handles our food, and those standards are coming under pressure from the public as big companies cash in on the growing demand for organic foods. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we encourage consumers to update their understanding the hierarchy of organic labeling and become proactive about their purchases by asking where their products come from and how fresh they are, etc.etc. If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to ingesting a contaminated product, contact our office for a free consultation.

San Francisco Bay Area Product Liability Attorney Comments on Big Tobacco Legislation

March 7, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

According to newsinferno.com, Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds have sued the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services over the composition of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. The two big cigarette makers allege that conflicts of interest and bias existed on an FDA advisory panel that wants to recommend menthol, or mint flavored, cigarettes be banned. Specifically, they claim the panel have a financial interest in seeing tobacco products fail. Even though the FDA panel recommendations are not legally binding, the FDA does generally follow the advice of its panels, and the panel will likely make its recommendations by March 23rd. The legislation has called on the FDA to seek advice from a panel of outside experts before determining whether menthol cigarettes should also be taken off the US market.

In 2009, legislation passed enabling the FDA to make decisions concerning tobacco products, including cigarettes. The agency banned flavored cigarettes, such as fruit and chocolate, which were specifically marketed towards children. Matthew Myers president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says that what the tobacco companies fear is that the committee, after examining all the evidence, will recommend effective actions that reduce or eliminate the lucrative market for menthol cigarettes. This is yet another example of how big tobacco places profits ahead of lives and health. Health advocates denounce the lawsuit as a frivolous attempt to keep the FDA panel’s recommendation from coming to light. Just as an aside, it is interesting that RJ Reynolds openly admits in a public health statement on their website that cigarettes are harmful: Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. Needless to say, we wonder how these people sleep at night. If you or a loved suffered injuries due to the use of a dangerous product, contact our firm to find out if you a product liability lawsuit.

Oakland-San Francisco Attorney Comments on Another Toyota Recall

February 25, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Toyota is recalling another 2.17 million vehicles to fix problems that could cause their accelerator pedals to become stuck, yet another setback in its efforts to gain ground from the bad press that surrounded them last year. Toyota initiated two new recalls covering about 769,000 sport utility vehicles and 20,000 Lexus sedans, and added almost 1.4 million more vehicles to its November 2009 recall related to what Toyota called “floor mat entrapment.” Since 2009, Toyota has recalled more than 14 million vehicles globally, a majority of which are connected to the floor-mat issue or a defect in the design of the accelerator pedal. The affected models are the 2004-6 Toyota highlander ;the 2004-7 Lexus RX; the 2006-7 Lexus GS; the 2003-9 Toyota 4Runner; the 2008-11 Lexus LX 570; and the 2006-10 Toyota Rav4.

According to The New York Times, Federal regulators said the announcement concluded their investigation into whether Toyota had recalled enough vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reviewed more than 400,000 pages of Toyota documents to determine whether the scope of it recalls for pedal entrapment was sufficient. After the review, Toyota was asked to recall the addition vehicles. The news came a few weeks after the agency concluded that it could not find flaws in the electronics system to explain reports of sudden acceleration, as some critics and lawyers suing the company have asserted. The safety agency forced Toyota to pay $48.8 million in three separate fines for waiting too long to announce the sudden-acceleration recalls and an unrelated 2005 recall. Each of the fines was the maximum allowed by law. Owners of recalled vehicles will receive notice both informing them of the problems and inviting them to have a dealer perform an inspection. Detailed information and answers to questions are available to consumers at www.toyota.com/recall or www.lexus.com/recall .
If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to the use of a defective product, or if you have questions regarding a potential claim, please contact our firm.

Oakland-San Francisco Product Liability Attorney Comments on Risks from Energy Drinks

February 22, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the associated press, a recent report written by a group of doctors warns that popular energy drinks are being overused and have not been adequately studied. The report has established that the beverages are considered dangerous to children and teenagers because the caffeine and other energy ingredients can lead to adverse affects the body, such as heart palpitations, seizures, strokes or even death. The drinks can also lead to shaky feelings and cause diarrhea and nausea. This information has lead doctors to conclude that safe limits need to be established for children, adolescents, and young adults and that the drinks should be regulated in the same way that tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol are regulated. The report coincides with a current crackdown on energy drinks, as the FDA has issued warning letters to manufacturers and the drinks have been banned in several states due to alcohol overdoses.

Energy drinks were introduced over 20 years ago and have been the fasted growing drink on the market. This year’s sales are expected to top $9 billion. About one third of teens and young adults regularly consume energy drinks. Anyone with diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure might want to stop and think before drinking an energy drink. Because the ingredients have not been studied enough and are not regulated, it is unclear which groups of people will experience negative side effects from a particular ingredient in these beverages. When companies market energy drinks to children and young adults but fail to properly address the dangers, they risk placing themselves at the center of a product liability lawsuit. To learn about what you can if you have experienced harm or illness from dangerous or defective products, contact our firm for a free consultation. We are able to explain your legal rights and options and evaluate whether or not you may be able to bring an action for a product liability and recover damages.

Oakland-San Francisco Class Action Attorney Comments on Product Liability and False Advertising

February 8, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

A recent class action against Dial argues that there are no reliable studies showing that Tricloasn–the active ingredient in Dial Complete–provides any of the results allegedlly promised by Dial or that it provides a benefit over washing with regular soap and water. Sadly, it is often the case that a company will use misleading and even illegal marketing claims, such as “kills bacteria,” “fights germs,” protection against mold,” “odor-fighting” or “keeps food fresher, longer” and potentially endanger the health of unsuspecting shoppers in order to make a profit. An extensive report put out by the Environmental Working Grouphas revealed how harmful Triclosan is to humans. In addition, the report found that the addition of Triclosan to home-use products, which is usually added in indiscriminate amounts, is unnecessary, does not appear to provide any additional protection form infection, and may breed Triclosan-resistant super germs. It turns out, people are exposed to the chemical more than they know, as it is in antibacterial soaps, dishwashing detergents, and body care products including toothpaste and deodorant. The American Medical Association recommends against using Triclosan in the home because it may encourage bacterial resistance to antibiotics. An advisory committee to the Federal Food and Drug Administration has found that household use of antibacterial products provides no benefits over plain soap and water
Triclosan has been linked to liver and inhalation toxicity. Low levels of Triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Wastewater treatment does not remove all of the chemical. Triclosan ends up in lakes, rivers and water sources. Studies have linked Triclosan to cancer and developmental defects. Triclosan tends to bioaccumulate, meaning it becomes more concentrated in the fatty tissues of humans and other animals. As a result, this chemical has been detected in human breast milk, and in blood samples as well. Higher levels of Triclosan in blood and breast milk are linked to use of body care products containing Triclosan. A recent lab study found the chemical to exert both estrogenic and androgenic effects on human breast cancer cells. The daily household use of Triclosan may alter a developing body’s natural microbial community following chronic exposure to the chemical and cause immune system abnormalities.

If you have been harmed by a product due to false claims made by the company that manufactured and sold it, please contact our firm today. We have over 10 years experience fighting for victims of unsafe products and will win you the compensation you deserve.

Oakland-San Francisco Defective Products Attorney Comments on Plavix Side effects.

February 3, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Plavix, a popular drug used to prevent blood clots in people at risk for a heart attack, has been linked to some serious side effects, including bleeding. According to its label, Plavix can lead to gastrointestinal and cerebral hemorrhaging, bleeding of the eye (conjunctival, ocular, retinal) bleeding, musculosketal bleeding, fatal intracranial bleeding, respiratory tract bleeding, and skin bleeding. It turns out that bleeding, including life-threatening and fatal bleeding, is the most commonly reported side effect. For some time now, Plavix, prescribed along with asprin, was thought to cause less bleeding than the alternative blood thinner drug Warfarin. However, a recent study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found the risk of hemorrhaging among Plavix-asprin users significantly higher than thought, although still less than Wararfin risks. Yet the number bleeding related emergency room visits were similar for users of both drugs.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that patients and doctors should be aware of the risks involved with the use of Plavix, that doctors should inform their patients that Plavix could cause them to bleed more easily, that it could take longer than usually to stop bleeding, and that patients should report any unanticipated, prolonged or excessive bleeding. Bleeding and other adverse side effects from taking Plavix can have potentially life-threatening consequences. If you have taken or are currently taking Plavix, you may wish to consult with your physician to discuss possible alternatives, especially if you have had a recent surgery or trauma.

If you or a loved on suffered injuries due to the use Plavix or any other medication, please contact our firm. If you have questions regarding your options or have questions regarding defective products/product liability law, we are available to talk with you about your legal rights. We have over 10 years experience helping victims of defective products receive the compensation they deserve.