Consumer Protection

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a crackdown on rampant prescription drug fraud in California, including the top fifty abusers who average more than 100 doctor and pharmacy visits to collect massive quantities of addictive drugs like Valium, Vicodin, and Oxycontin.

“These prescription drug addicts are abusing the system, draining time and money from hundreds of doctors and pharmacies who are there to help real sick people, not con artists,” said Attorney General Brown. “On my order, California Department of Justice special agents launched a statewide search for the most aggressive prescription drug addicts. We want to end these dangerous cycles of fraud and abuse.”

Launched in June this year, the new crackdown has already led to the arrest of dozens of suspects, including Frankie Greer, 53, who visited 183 doctors and 47 pharmacies to feed a prescription drug habit that included some of the most dangerous painkillers in lethal combinations. In a one-year period, Greer sought out multiple doctors at hospital emergency rooms to prescribe her over 4,830 hydrocodone tablets, 2,210 oxycodone tablets, 156 Oxycotin, along with a variety of additional addictive painkillers.

Greer is not alone. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that 20 to 30% of the state’s drug abusers primarily use prescription drugs. In addition, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has estimated that 48 million Americans have used prescription drugs for non-medical reasons. A 2005 survey by the Drug Abuse Warning Network estimates the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals accounted for more than 500,000 emergency room visits in California, an enormous drain on the state’s healthcare system.

In addition to costing the state millions each year, prescription drug abuse can have serious public safety consequences, as many of the top abusers hold down regular jobs including truck drivers, transit operators and medical practitioners. The Attorney General has been working in cooperation with the Troy and Alana Pack Foundation, founded by Bob Pack, whose 7 and 10-year old children were killed by a driver who was under the influence of prescription drugs obtained from multiple doctors.

This initiative is part of the Attorney General’s comprehensive plan to address prescription drug abuse in the state and make it easier for doctors to keep track of prescription drug records. Earlier this year, Attorney General Brown unveiled a plan to provide doctors and pharmacies with real-time Internet access to patient prescription drug histories. Under Brown’s proposal, health professionals would have computer access to the drug histories of patients, replacing the current outdated system that required mailing or faxing written requests for information. Each year, more than 60,000 such requests are made to the California Department of Justice.

The state’s database, known as the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, contains 86 million entries for prescription drugs dispensed in California, giving healthcare professionals the technology they need to fight the prescription drug abuse currently burdening California’s healthcare system.

“Doctors and insurance companies should be on the alert,” added Attorney General Brown. “We are aggressively pursuing the top prescription drug abusers, and we’re also making it easier for doctors to verify health history information provided by new patients. We encourage insurance companies to develop a similar system for protecting themselves against prescription drug fraud.”

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. yesterday sued five baby furniture manufacturers for failing to warn consumers about the dangerous levels of formaldehyde gas emitted by their products, including cribs and changing tables.

“We’re suing these companies because parents deserve to know if there’s a dangerous chemical in products for children,” Attorney General Brown said. “Over the past two years, we’ve brought other actions to ensure the safety of children’s products, such as lead in toys and phthalates in baby bibs. Increasingly, the wood and other materials in consumer products are produced globally, and the lack of tough safeguards and strict enforcement can lead to dangerous levels of exposure.”

Passed by voters in 1986, Proposition 65 requires manufacturers to provide “clear and reasonable warnings” of chemicals in their products that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The state’s lawsuit alleges that Child Craft, Delta Enterprise Corp., Stork Craft, South Shore Industries and Jardine Enterprises manufactured baby furniture, such as cribs and changing tables, that emit formaldehyde—a chemical known to cause cancer—and failed to provide any warning about this risk.

In addition to being a carcinogen, formaldehyde has been shown to contribute to respiratory problems like asthma. The levels of formaldehyde gas emitted from the baby furniture, when combined with other potential sources of formaldehyde in the home, are high enough to cause respiratory irritation to children sleeping in the cribs.

The Environmental California Research and Policy Center, an organization that evaluates products for carcinogens, tested the companies’ baby furniture. Based on that testing and on his own test results, the Attorney General calculated that the furniture exposes children to formaldehyde gas at levels well above the Proposition 65 limit of 40 micrograms per day.

In addition to violating Proposition 65 standards for emission levels, the baby products exceed the recommendations for formaldehyde emission set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Department of Public Health. Formaldehyde is present in plywood, particle board (generally in the glues), fiberglass, paint and insulation. Concentrations can reach especially dangerous levels in rooms that are not well-ventilated.

Businesses that violate Proposition 65 are subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, courts may order businesses to stop manufacturing products that are in violation of the standards. Today’s lawsuit seeks to remedy past violations and to prompt manufacturers and retailers to prevent baby furniture containing formaldehyde from being sold without warning consumers about the risks of exposure.

The state is also suing the companies for violating the Unfair Competition Law, which prevents businesses from undertaking any action that gives them an advantage over other businesses. In this case, by not posting warnings about carcinogens on their products like other companies must do under the law, the five companies unfairly profited. The state is seeking $2,500 for each violation.

Proposition 65 is enforced through lawsuits brought by the attorney general, district attorneys and some city attorneys. Lawsuits may also be brought by private parties after notifying the attorney general of the alleged violation. Last November, Attorney General Brown and Los Angeles City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo sued twenty toy companies for manufacturing or selling toys with unlawful quantities of lead.

Although Proposition 65 only requires companies to post hazard warnings, many businesses choose to eliminate the toxic chemicals altogether. For more information about Prop 65, please visit http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/index.php.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit is attached.

SACRAMENTO-California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a $7.5million settlement with financial-services firm Edward Jones & Co. for the company's failure to inform its customers of its revenue-sharing agreements with various mutual-fund companies. In these revenue-sharing agreements, Edward Jones obtained payments from mutual fund companies in exchange for promoting their mutual funds to its clients.

"Since we brought suit in 2004, Edward Jones has agreed to change its disclosure policies,' Attorney General Brown said. 'That settlement requires Edward Jones to notify each of its customers of any payments it receives from mutual funds that Edward Jones recommends. This will make for better-informed customer decisions.'

In 2004, Edward Jones made an agreement with federal, state and self-regulatory authorities to pay $75 million in refunds and civil penalties to its customers. Edward Jones also agreed to disclose all its revenue-sharing payments on its public website and to hire independent consultants to review and make recommendations regarding the company's disclosures.

The California Attorney General filed his own lawsuit against the company to enforce the state's consumer protection laws. In settlement of this case, Edward Jones will pay $7.5 million in civil penalties, fees and costs.

The settlement agreement is attached.

LOS ANGELES—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a crackdown on trucking companies operating at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles that abuse their workers by denying them protections under state workers’ compensation, disability and minimum wage laws. These companies engage in cost-cutting schemes that take advantage of their workers and avoid California taxes. They unlawfully classify their workers as “independent contractors,” circumventing state employment taxes and labor laws that guarantee workers compensation and disability benefit and the right to a minimum wage.

“We are cracking down on these two companies and investigating several others that are taking advantage of their workers and cheating the state out of payroll taxes,” Attorney General Brown said. “These are low-paid truck drivers working long hours under onerous conditions who are not getting the benefits they deserve.”

Beginning in February 2008, the Attorney General’s office authorized a task force to investigate trucking companies at Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports. The investigation uncovered numerous state labor law violations committed by several trucking companies operating at the ports. Two of the lawsuits were filed in Los Angeles Superior Court today and several more will be filed in the coming weeks.

The lawsuits allege that the trucking companies named in the suits have an unfair advantage over their competitors in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200 by depriving employees of benefits and protections entitled to them under California law. These companies are also cheating the State of California out of thousands of dollars in state payroll taxes.

Jose Maria Lira, a fleet operator responsible for transporting cargo from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, controlled all aspects of his drivers’ work, yet classified his employees as independent contractors and made them sign documents stating that they were independent. Lira leased his trucks to drivers, requiring them to sign a lease agreement stating that the driver would pay Lira 50% of his gross earnings each month in return for use of the truck, plus an additional 10% for management fees.

In fact, Lira required them to claim independent contractor status contrary to their true status as employees. The drivers worked exclusively for Lira, working 60 hours or more per week, delivering cargo in Lira company trucks. Under these conditions, the drivers should have employee status with its legal protections and benefits under the law.

The second lawsuit filed today is against the Pac Anchor Transportation Inc. (“Pac Anchor”) and Alfredo Barajas. Brown asserted that Pac Anchor and Barajas engaged in a shell game in which Alfredo Barajas supplied Pac Anchor with 38 trucks and drivers. Pac Anchor directly paid Barajas’ truck drivers, providing them with 1099 tax forms at the end of the year. Barajas and Pac Anchor misclassified the drivers as independent contractors in order to keep operating costs down and to avoid paying the mandated taxes and benefits.

The investigation found that the drivers should be classified as employees because they do not own the trucks they drive, do not have a business independent of Pac Anchor or Barajas, have no real opportunity for “profit” other than compensation on a piecework basis delivering loads, and can be terminated at will.

The two complaints are attached.

LOS ANGELES—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs (LADCA), today announced a million-dollar settlement with Wisconsin-based Hy Cite Corporation, which was investigated for using discriminatory business practices and false advertising in the sales of its high-priced Royal Prestige cookware to California consumers. This is the Attorney General’s second settlement agreement with Hy Cite Corporation for similar consumer fraud tactics.

“Hy Cite’s sales approach has been to scare people into buying high-priced pots and pans by telling customers that the cookware in their own home was unsafe,” said Attorney General Brown. “We won’t tolerate this type of predatory consumer marketing in California. This settlement will put an end to Hy Cite’s bogus chemical tests and predatory lending terms and ensure that the company treats its customers fairly and honestly.”

Hy Cite Corporation sells high-priced cookware targeting Latino consumers and neighborhoods through in-home demonstrations. Hy Cite’s salespeople allegedly lied their way into people’s homes by telling consumers that they had won a prize or by asking them to participate in opinion polls. Once in consumers’ homes, the salespeople often used high-pressure sales tactics and deception to convince consumers to buy the expensive cookware. Salespeople scared consumers into believing that cookware made of non-stick materials or aluminum would make them sick, claiming that Royal Prestige’s stainless steel cookware was safer to use.

To convince consumers of their claims, Hy Cite representatives would routinely perform bogus “tests” on the victim’s cookware, heating a mixture of baking soda and water in non-stick or aluminum pans, creating a bad-tasting paste through the resulting chemical reaction. The representatives claimed that toxic chemicals were transferred into the family’s food, making the consumer’s existing cookware unsafe for their families.

In many cases, consumers were convinced to finance their purchases through the company’s financing plan, but were misled to believe that the percentage rate was lower than the 20% or more financing rate they were charged. Many people who were scared into buying the products were unable to afford them, fell behind on their payments, and faced collection calls and damage to their credit rating.

During the investigation, the Attorney General’s office found that the company had developed two separate credit structures for customers, based on the customer’s ethnicity. Hy Cite’s “Anglo” customers were offered 90-day payment deferral, contract cancellation, and the use of post-dated checks. These options were not offered to Hy Cite’s Hispanic customers.

After receiving several consumer complaints about the company’s predatory sales practices, the Attorney General’s office began its investigation in March 2007.

This is California’s second settlement with the Hy Cite Corporation for consumer marketing fraud. In 2000, the California Attorney General’s office reached a settlement agreement with Hy Cite Corporation, in which the company agreed to drastically reform its business practices, pay restitution and civil penalties to victims of its predatory sales tactics, and honor a permanent injunction from engaging in these actions in the future.

Under the current settlement, Hy Cite and several of its top executives agreed to pay $1 million as restitution to consumer victims, plus penalties and costs to the Attorney General and LADCA. In addition to these penalties, Hy Cite has agreed to hire an independent monitor for three years to conduct in-depth interviews with future consumers of Hy Cite products. The judgment also sets forth strict requirements on what its salespeople can say to convince consumers to listen to a sales presentation and what can be said during the sales presentation itself.

SAN FRANCISCO- California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has reached a settlement with Citibank after a three-year investigation into the company’s use of an illegal “account sweeping” program. Nationally, the company took more than $14 million from its customers, including $1.6 million from California residents, through the use of a computer program that wrongfully swept positive account balances from credit-card customer accounts into Citibank’s general fund.

“The company knowingly stole from its customers, mostly poor people and the recently deceased, when it designed and implemented the sweeps,” Attorney General Brown said. “When a whistleblower uncovered the scam and brought it to his superiors, they buried the information and continued the illegal practice.”

Between 1992 and 2003, Citibank employed a computerized “credit sweep” process to automatically remove positive or credit balances from credit-card customer accounts. An account could show a credit balance if a customer double-paid a bill or returned a purchase for credit. The credit sweeps were done without notifying the customer and without regard for whether the customer had any unpaid balances or other charges owed to Citibank.

The credit sweeps targeted more than 53,000 customers nationwide. All of the affected accounts were in a recovery status, which includes accounts of customers who have died, sought bankruptcy protection, or been the target of litigation or other collection efforts by Citibank.

In July of 2001, a Citibank employee uncovered the practice and brought it to the attention of his superiors. The employee was later fired for discussing the credit sweeps with an internal audit team. In the words of a Citibank executive, “Stealing from our customers is a business decision, not a legal decision.” The same executive later said that the sweep program could not be stopped because it would reduce the executive bonus pool.

The Attorney General launched its investigation of Citibank in 2005 to determine whether the company violated the California False Claims Act by filing false holder reports with the California State Controller that omitted any reference to the swept funds. The 3-year investigation led to today’s settlement.

The settlement includes:
• Permanent injunction – Citibank will be permanently prevented from re-initiating the credit sweeps.
• Refunds to victims – Citibank will refund all improperly swept funds to customers who were victimized by the sweeps. Citibank will also pay California customers 10% interest on the amount taken.
• Penalties – Citibank will pay $3.5 million in damages and civil penalties to the State of California.
• Compliance audit – After Citibank’s refund process is complete, an independent auditor will review Citibank’s work to ensure that it has lived up to its obligations.

Citibank has affirmed that it can identify most of the victims of the credit sweeps and has begun the process of reviewing archived account data and refunding the improperly swept funds going back to 1992.

A copy of the settlement is attached

From The Wall Street Journal
August 11, 2008
Opinion Journal

Two weeks ago The Wall Street Journal kicked off a debate on how best to allocate scarce resources to solve the world's problems. Bjorn Lomborg offered a summary of the latest findings from his Copenhagen Consensus project, where he has enlisted some of the world's top economists to address the issue. Now we're offering views on the subject from top political and business leaders. How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?

Saving $10 Billion With Efficiency
By Jerry Brown
August 11, 2008

The cost of energy in the United States, on an annual basis, has now soared beyond $1 trillion. Our massive purchases of foreign oil represent perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from one people to another in all human history. And, paradoxically, this wealth transfer is from a far more technologically advanced nation to poorer countries -- some unstable and hostile -- whose only claim is the oil that lies under their ground. Wake up America! We must stop the hemorrhaging of our national treasure, and we need to do it now.

I propose that we take the $10 billion and invest it in curbing our energy appetite through efficiency programs and incentives. The efficiency I envision would allow us to enhance our quality of life, but do so in ways that reduce the huge quantities of oil, gas and coal that we now consume.

California has kept its per capita electrical consumption flat for the past 25 years -- in significant part through appliance and buildings standards and incentives to adopt ways that get more work out of less energy. I am not talking about some collective hair shirt, but rather about a wide variety of new technologies and designs.

The world is facing a triple threat of unprecedented dimensions: First, the loss of cheap and easily discovered oil; second, explosive energy demand from China, India and other emerging countries as they rapidly improve their standard of living; and third, the climate disruptions caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. None of the three will go away. In fact, each will get progressively worse unless we take decisive action, without delay. America must take the lead in dealing with global energy and climate challenges, and at the same time vastly strengthen its own economy and security.

For too long, the federal government has been slow and unimaginative in setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, and in many cases it has set no standard at all. We know from the example of California's energy commission that huge financial savings can be generated through efficiency standards consistent with the best available technology. Billions of dollars and large quantities of fossil fuel could be saved if the federal government would set tough but practical standards for lighting, refrigerators, stoves, computers and other products and pieces of equipment.

Congress provided the legal authority to do so in the 2007 energy bill, but the Department of Energy currently lacks the trained personnel and engineers needed to create such a sophisticated regulatory framework. This will require additional funding -- perhaps as much as several hundred million a year. The next president should engage the appliance and equipment manufacturers and provide the kind of leadership that has so far been totally lacking.

Next, the federal government should establish a financial grant program, encouraging the states to craft efficiency standards for new buildings. Again, the example of California is instructive. Its detailed and regional building standards have saved Californians tens of billions of dollars in lower energy bills. A significant part of the proposed $10 billion could be spent on this type of effort. Each state would be asked to craft their own rules in response to the differing conditions found in various regions of the country.

A third type of program could be modeled on California's current system of rebates, tax credits and other incentives that encourage businesses and consumers to adopt efficiency measures that exceed the mandatory standards. This program is financed through the investor-owned utilities and established under the authority of the state utilities commission.

The federal government could provide a matching program for each state's efforts consistent with standards that are technically feasible, and that provide an economic return on the investment. In California, all the electric and gas utilities have added conservation investments to their historic practice of dealing with energy shortages only though building new plants.

Just as new sources of energy require vast sums spent on R&D, so do new efficiency technologies. They will emerge only if there is adequate investment in research and development. Some of the $10 billion should go for this. Needless to say, overall investment in both energy and efficiency R&D is pathetically and dangerously underfunded.

While military, medical and pharmaceutical research has steadily grown over the past two decades, R&D to increase our national energy efficiency and provide the full gamut of new fuels and power sources has fallen by 50% in real terms. In the early 1980s, energy companies invested more in R&D than drug companies; today, drug companies invest 10 times as much in R&D as do energy firms. To secure our energy and economic future, America must reverse this shameful neglect. Physicist and University of California professor Dan Kammen estimates that we must increase our level of energy and energy efficiency R&D five to tenfold, spending $15 billion to $30 billion per year to develop new fuels, new sources of energy and more efficient technologies.

America is at a crossroads. Total U.S. financial and nonfinancial debt rose to $44.7 trillion in 2006, from $2.4 trillion in 1974. This does not even count longer-term liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. Oil and gas are consuming more and more of our national wealth. It is time for our political and business leaders to tap into America's unspent creativity and entrepreneurial genius. Many times $10 billion will be needed. But it can be done. It must be done.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat, is attorney general of California.

Contact: Abraham Arredondo: (916) 324-5500 or Ed Weil (510) 622-2149

Atty. Gen. Brown Settles Potato Chip Lawsuit With Heinz, Frito-Lay & Kettle Foods

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today settled lawsuits against Heinz, Frito-Lay, Kettle Foods and Lance Inc. after the companies agreed to slash levels of the cancer-causing chemical acrylamide in their potato chips and french fries.

“The companies agreed to reduce this carcinogenic chemical in fried potatoes--a victory for public health and safety in California,” Attorney General Brown said. “Other companies should follow this lead and take steps to reduce acrylamide in french fries and potato chips,” Brown added.

In 2005, the attorney general sued McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, KFC, Frito-Lay, Kettle Foods, Lance, Procter & Gamble and Heinz, for selling potato chips and french fries containing high levels of acrylamide, a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Acrylamide is a by-product of frying, roasting and baking foods--particularly potatoes--that contain certain amino acids. In 2002, Swedish scientists discovered high levels of cancer-causing acrylamide in fried potato products.

The attorney general sued french fry and potato chip companies under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which requires companies to post warnings of any cancer-causing chemicals in their products unless they can prove that the levels do not pose a significant health risk.

Last year, restaurant chains including KFC, McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King agreed to post acrylamide warnings at their restaurants and to pay civil penalties and costs. In January, Procter & Gamble agreed to reduce acrylamide in Pringles potato chips by 50 percent so that no warning would be required.

Under today’s settlements, Frito-Lay, Inc., which sells most of the potato chips sold in California, Kettle Foods, Inc., maker of “Kettle Chips,” and Lance, Inc., maker of Cape Cod Chips will reduce acrylamide over a period of three years to 275 parts per billion. For Frito Lay, this is about a 20% reduction, while for Kettle Chips, which contain far more acrylamide; this is an 87% reduction in acrylamide. Most Cape Cod chips are already near the compliance level, but one product, “Cape Cod Robust Russets,” contains over 7,000 parts per billion of acrylamide, and immediately will either carry a warning label on the package or will be removed from the market. Frito-Lay will pay $1.5 million in penalties and costs, $550,000 will be forgiven if it can reduce acrylamide in its products in half the time required by the settlement. It will pay an additional $2 million if it fails to reduce acrylamide in the required time. Kettle Foods will pay $350,000 in penalties and costs, while the much smaller Lance, Inc., will pay $95,000 in fees and costs.

Last week the Attorney General reached agreement with Heinz, Inc., the manufacturer of Ore-Ida frozen french fries and tater tots, will pay $600,000 in penalties and costs and will change its fried potatoes to contain 50 percent less acrylamide.

The settlements were approved today by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger. A trial had been scheduled before Judge Highberger on July 28, but today’s settlement marks the end of the state’s litigation. Had the lawsuit gone to trial it would have been a legal battle with scientific experts debating the extent of the cancer risk posed by acrylamide.

The U.S. FDA is studying the problem of acrylamide in fried potatoes but has not taken formal action. The FDA’s website advises consumers that acrylamide can be reduced by not over-browning potatoes during cooking. For more information visit: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acryfaq.html

Brown said he will work with the companies to find a way to effectively give consumers information about the acrylamide in their products, while at the same time preventing undue public alarm and unnecessary warning signs concerning foods that contain insignificant amounts of the chemical.

For more information on acrylamide and Proposition 65 please visit:
http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/

SISKIYOU--Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today warned Nestle that California will challenge the environmental plan for a bottled water plant in Siskiyou county if the company does not revise its contract to pump water from the McCloud River.

“It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States,” Attorney General Brown said. “Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles,” Brown added.

Although Nestle publicly offered to reduce its annual water take to 195 million gallons of spring water per year--enough to fill 3.1 billion 8-ounce plastic bottles--the company has not yet agreed to change the terms of its contract with the McCloud Community Service District. The current fifty-year contract permits the company to draw 520 million gallons of spring water each year and also to pump unlimited amounts groundwater.

In a letter sent to the Siskiyou County Planning Department, Attorney General Brown said that “the environmental review for the previously proposed project had serious deficiencies,” yet “the proposed changes have not been memorialized in a formal document.” Brown also said “the suggested changes would require significant revision of the contract between Nestle and the McCloud Community Services District, a new, formal project proposal, and circulation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report.”

Brown also said the environmental analysis fails to consider the global warming impacts of producing and transporting millions of gallons of water including:

* Greenhouse gases from producing the plastic bottles
* Electrical demand for the project
* The diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions from truck trips.

Ninety-six percent of bottled water in the United States is sold in plastic bottles produced from fossil fuels, typically natural gas and petroleum. It took 17 million barrels of oil, not including transportation energy, to produce all the plastic bottles for American consumption in 2006. It took 900,000 tons of the chemical polyetheylene terephathalate and produced 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce all this plastic.

According to data from the Pacific Institute, it would take 1.768 million barrels of oil annually to manufacture 3.1 billion 8-ounce plastic bottles, caps and packaging to hold 195 million gallons of water.

The McCloud River is unique among California’s larger rivers in that most of its water derives from springs and underground lava aquifers rather than from rainfall or snowfall. The river and its associated riparian area provide habitat for over 200 wildlife specifies. The Lower McCloud has been designated a Wild Trout Stream by the state Department of Fish and Game.

Attorney General Brown has asked the County of Siskiyou to revise its environmental impact report and circulate a new draft of the environmental impact report.

The bottling plant is proposed for construction at 909 Mill Street in McCloud California. For a copy of the state's letter please contact the Attorney General's Press Office at 916-324-5500.

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the California Department of Food and Agriculture today announced that Bombino Express Worldwide has been sued for importing unmarked packages of mangos and yams from India that had not been treated to prevent the spread of the destructive Oriental Fruit Fly.

"Bombino Express Worldwide is charged with smuggling untreated and unlabeled fruit that can carry invasive insects like the Oriental Fruit Fly into the United States,' Attorney General Brown said. 'When foreign shipping companies disobey California’s quarantine laws they put the state’s growers at risk. County, state and federal inspectors should be commended for catching this illegal shipment and isolating its contents.'

Attorney General Brown alleges that Bombino Express Worldwide violated the Food and Agriculture Code and engaged in unfair business practices by failing to label and treat packaged mangos to kill any fruit fly larvae before exporting the products to the United States. Female Oriental Fruit Flies lay eggs in groups of 3 to 30 under the skin of host fruits and vegetables like those imported by Bombino Express Worldwide.

A single fruit fly lives approximately 90 days and can travel up to 30 miles in search of food and sites to lay eggs. The threat of agricultural destruction from invasive species like the Oriental Fruit Fly is so great that there was a complete ban on importing Indian mangos and yams until May 2006 when federal law was amended to allow limited importation of Indian mangos. Under the new rules, shipping companies must attach documentation affirming that mangos are treated to kill any fruit fly larvae.

The Department of Food and Agriculture launched an investigation into Bombino Express Worldwide after an inspector at a facility near Ontario International Airport found several unmarked packages of produce being imported to California from India. A parcel inspection dog named C.C., working for the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner’s office, sniffed out the mislabeled box of mangos. Contra Costa County is also using dogs for parcel inspections in the Bay Area and there are plans to assign dogs in San Diego, Sacramento and Fresno counties.

The Attorney General’s Office seeks $10,000 per violation of the Food and Agricultural Code and California’s unfair competition statute. The company could face up to $1.67 million in penalties for its 167 violations of California law.

Oriental fruit flies have wreaked havoc on Hawaiian agriculture since the species was introduced to the island in 1946. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, failure to eradicate Oriental Fruit Flies in California could cost the state up to $176 million in crop losses, pesticide use and quarantine requirements.

Bombino Express Worldwide appears to be part of a large network of companies that import various products including fruit, spices and other products from India and Southeast Asia.

California’s First Amended Complaint was filed on July 9, 2008 and was served on Mohmed Yasin Latiwala July 15, 2008 in New Jersey. Latiwala was served with the lawsuit in his individual capacity as CEO and on behalf of Bombino Express, Inc., Bombino Express (Worldwide) Inc. The lawsuit was also served on the California office of Bombino Express in Hawthorne.

A copy of the state’s lawsuit is available from the attorney general's press office at: 916-324-5500. For more information from the California Department of Food and Agriculture visit: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/Public_Affairs/Index.html