Nutrition group seeks warning labels for olestra

A nutrition group yesterday threatened a lawsuit in Massachusetts against Frito-Lay for not printing warning labels about olestra on its reduced-fat Lay's, Ruffles, Doritos, and Tostitos chips, but a provision in the state's consumer protection law may undercut the case.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, based in Washington, said in a letter to Frito-Lay and its corporate parent, PepsiCo Inc., that it decided to pursue litigation after failing to persuade the companies to voluntarily disclose on product packaging that olestra may cause abdominal cramping or loose stools.

Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Frito-Lay, said the company is complying with all federal laws and regulations and sees no need to change its product labeling.

A health warning for olestra was required by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1996 when olestra was first approved for use, but the agency dropped the labeling requirement in 2003, saying ''real-life consumption studies" showed olestra caused only ''a minor increase in bowel movement frequency compared to those people who consumed only full-fat chips."

The FDA said studies also indicated that consumers were aware of olestra and its potential gastrointestinal effects.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said in yesterday's letter that Frito-Lay has tried to mislead consumers about the dangers of olestra by first eliminating the health warning, then renaming the products in which olestra was used.

Wordings in the reduced-fat products with olestra were changed from WOW! to Light in June 2004. Stephen Gardner, director of litigation for the nutrition group, said Frito-Lay changed the name on purpose ''to deceive people," but Gonzalez of Frito-Lay said the change was made because the WOW! name told consumers nothing about the product. A one-ounce serving of Tostitos Light chips, for example, has one gram of fat compared with seven grams in regular Tostitos.

Gonzalez said the Frito-Lay Light products list olestra among their ingredients and also feature a small Olean logo on the front of the packaging. Olean is the trade name for olestra. Olean was originally developed by Procter & Gamble, the Cincinnati-based consumer products giant.

The plaintiff in the nutrition group's planned lawsuit is Lori Perlow of Braintree, who said she had always avoided olestra in the past but inadvertently consumed some last June when she bought some Ruffles Light chips. Perlow said the Light name sounded slightly more healthful, and she didn't notice olestra on the ingredients label until hours later, after she became ill.

''As a consumer, I feel like this is something that other people need to know about," she said.

Gardner said the Center for Science in the Public Interest has received complaints about olestra from consumers across the country, but chose to pursue legal action in Massachusetts because of the wide protections included in the state's consumer protection act.

But that act itself may snuff out the center's lawsuit, since a provision in the law says it would not apply to ''transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth or of the United States."

Edgar Dworsky, the editor of Consumerworld.org and a former consumer attorney with the Massachusetts attorney general's office, said the FDA's decision in 2003 to do away with the olestra health warning would seem to protect Frito-Lay from any legal action. ''I think the case is sunk," he said.

Bruce Mohl can be reached at mohl@globe.com.