1 Corey Page (Cal. Bar No.

218789)
cpage@evansandpage.com
2 Geneva Page (Cal. Bar No. 235633)
gpage@evansandpage.com
3
EVANS & PAGE
4 2912 Diamond Street #346
San Francisco CA 94131
5 ph: (415) 896-5072
fax: (415) 358-5855
6
Attorneys for Petitioners / Plaintiffs
7

8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR
11 RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE, a 501(c)(3) non- CASE NO.:
profit corporation; TRACY CHILDS, an
12 individual parent and taxpayer; STEVEN VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
SARNOFF, an individual and taxpayer; MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
13 INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
JENNIFER MACK, an individual teacher and RELIEF
14 taxpayer;

15 Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

16 v.

17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
18 SCHOOL DISTRICT; and POWAY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT;
19
Respondents/Defendants.
20

21
I. INTRODUCTION
22
This lawsuit seeks to prevent the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the
23
Poway Unified School District (PUSD) from serving processed meats to children due to the
24
recognized association between eating processed meats (e.g., hotdogs, sausages, luncheon meat,
25
bacon, and turkey bacon) and developing cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. For
26
example, a 2015 report by the World Health Organization announced that processed meats are
27
carcinogenic to humans. A review published the following year found that consuming 50 grams
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 1
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 of processed meatsabout the size of one hot dogper day increases the risk for colorectal cancer,
2 pancreatic cancer, death from heart disease, and diabetes by 18, 19, 24, and 32 percent,
3 respectively.
4 This lawsuit also seeks to compel the California Department of Education (CDE) to
5 comply with Californias Education Code and ensure that childrens food served at schools in
6 California is of the highest quality and greatest nutritional value possible. Medical research
7 and various health organizations advise Americans to reduce or eliminate processed meats from
8 their diets. Because processed meats are known to increase the risk of developing serious and life
9 threatening health problems, schools that serve processed meats to children fail to meet Californias
10 mandate to provide food of the highest quality and greatest nutritional value possible. School
11 districts should no longer provide these unhealthful products to children.
12 Despite undisputed evidence that processed meats are unhealthful, LAUSD and PUSD have
13 not identified these foods in their Local Wellness Policies as areas of concern for elimination or
14 reduction.
15 II. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION
16 1. Plaintiff and Petitioner Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Physicians
17 Committee) is a non-profit corporation headquartered at 5100 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 400,
18 Washington, D.C. 20016. Established in 1985, the Physicians Committee advocates for
19 preventive medicine, supports higher ethical standards in research, and conducts clinical
20 research, some of which is federally funded. The Physicians Committees membership includes
21 approximately 170,000 health care professionals and concerned citizens, including more than
22 25,000 members in California. The Physicians Committees staff includes physicians,
23 dietitians, and scientists.
24 2. The Physicians Committee has monitored national nutrition policies and trends since 1991,
25 when it issued its first recommendations on the food diagram accompanying federal dietary
26 guidelines. The Physicians Committee has actively participated in all subsequent Dietary
27 Guideline hearings.
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 2
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 3. Since 2001, the Physicians Committee has issued a periodic School Lunch Report Card,
2 analyzing the nutritional quality of the menus offered by the largest school districts participating
3 in USDAs National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which operates in more than 100,000
4 schools and residential childcare institutions and serves meals to more than 30 million children
5 per day. California school districts appear in all editions of the School Lunch Report Card. The
6 Physicians Committee also operates a related Golden Carrot Awards program, created in
7 2004 to recognize food service professionals who make an exceptional effort to improve the
8 healthfulness of school lunches. Over the years, the Golden Carrot Awards program has
9 recognized improvements in various California school districts.
10 4. In 2001, the Physicians Committee launched Food for Life, a community-based nutrition
11 education program that teaches laypersons how certain foods and nutrients work to promote
12 health and fight disease. Each Food for Life class features a nutrition lecture and live cooking
13 demonstration in a group setting. The program offers a Kids Health curriculum and operates
14 in 46 states, including California, where it has its largest representation.
15 5. On behalf of its membership, the Physicians Committee also submits rulemaking petitions and
16 proposes legislation regarding administration of the NSLP.
17 6. Many of the Physicians Committees members joined the organization to obtain adequate
18 representation of their interest in a safe and healthful diet free from risks, including risks to their
19 children in schools. The Physicians Committee has a broad interest in ensuring that the health
20 of its members and their children are preserved by Respondents proper application of state
21 laws intended to protect childrens health. The Physicians Committee brings this action on
22 behalf of its members and to safeguard its own organizational interest in procuring the most
23 healthful and safest possible diet. The interests of the Physicians Committee and its members in
24 eating a healthful, safe diet are harmed by Respondents failure to comply with the mandates of
25 state and federal law.
26 7. Plaintiff and Petitioner Tracy Childs is a parent, resident, and property taxpayer in the County
27 of San Diego. Prior to filing this complaint, Childs paid property taxes to the County of San
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 3
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 Diego and taxes to the State of California. Childs has two children who were students in a
2 California public school in PUSD and whose school was and is impacted by policies set by
3 CDE and PUSD concerning school food content. Childs is a homeowner and resident in PUSD.
4 As a citizen of California, Childs has an interest in having California laws duly executed and the
5 obligations on public administrators enforced.
6 8. Plaintiff and Petitioner Steven Sarnoff is a parent, resident, and property taxpayer in the County
7 of San Diego. Prior to filing this complaint, Sarnoff paid property taxes to the County of San
8 Diego and taxes to the State of California. Sarnoff has two children who were students in a
9 California public school in PUSD and whose school was and is impacted by policies set by
10 CDE and PUSD concerning school food content. Sarnoff is a homeowner and resident in
11 PUSD. As a citizen of California, Sarnoff has an interest in having California laws duly
12 executed and the obligations on public administrators enforced.
13 9. Plaintiff and Petitioner Jennifer Mack is a LAUSD teacher and a resident in the County of Los
14 Angeles. Petitioner Mack spends all day instructing and caring for children in a California
15 public school in LAUSD. Petitioner Mack is impacted by policies set by CDE and LAUSD
16 concerning school food content. As a citizen of California, Mack has an interest in having
17 California laws duly executed and the obligations on public administrators enforced.
18 10. Defendant and Respondent LAUSD is a school district duly formed in accordance with law and
19 possessing those powers set forth in articles IX and XVI of the California Constitution and the
20 laws of the State of California. LAUSD receives funding from the State of California as
21 reimbursements for providing students with meals that satisfy the NSLP.
22 11. Defendant and Respondent PUSD is a school district duly formed in accordance with law and
23 possessing those powers set forth in articles IX and XVI of the California Constitution and the
24 laws of the State of California. PUSD receives funding from the State of California as
25 reimbursements for providing students with meals that satisfy the NSLP.
26 12. Defendant and Respondent CDE is the department of state government responsible for
27 administering and enforcing laws related to education pursuant to California Education Code
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 4
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 section 33308.
2 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3 13. This Court has jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure sections 525, 526, and 1085.
4 Petitioners are beneficially interested in the construction and enforcement of California
5 Education Code sections 49431.1, 49590, and 49531 and respondents legal duties arising from
6 those provisions. Petitioners have no other adequate remedy at law to enforce those duties.
7 14. Venue is proper in San Diego County Superior Court because Petitioners Childs and Sarnoff
8 reside in San Diego County and because respondent CDEs improper conduct causes Petitioners
9 Childs and Sarnoff injuries in San Diego County. (Code Civ. Proc., 393 subd. (b).)
10 IV. COMPLAINTS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
11 Poway Unified School District
12 15. By letter dated March 28, 2016, Physicians Committee, on behalf of Childs and Sarnoff,
13 submitted an administrative complaint notifying PUSD that consuming processed meats
14 increases risks for cancer and other life threatening health problems and that by serving
15 processed meats to children PUSD fails to meet Californias mandate to provide food of the
16 highest quality and greatest nutritional value possible.
17 16. By letter dated June 8, 2016, PUSD denied the complaint filed on behalf of Childs and Sarnoff.
18 17. On June 23, 2016, Physicians Committee, on behalf of Childs and Sarnoff, initiated an appeal
19 with Respondent CDE regarding PUSDs denial of the complaint.
20 18. On October 19, 2016, Respondent CDE upheld PUSDs denial of the complaint.
21 19. Further presentation of the issues to PUSD would be futile because the outcome would be the
22 same due to PUSDs consistent position regarding meals served in its schools.
23 Los Angeles Unified School District
24 20. By letter dated March 28, 2016, Physicians Committee, on behalf of Mack, submitted an
25 administrative complaint notifying LAUSD that consuming processed meats increases risks for
26 cancer and other life threatening health problems and that by serving processed meats to
27 children LAUSD fails to meet Californias mandate to provide food of the highest quality and
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 5
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 greatest nutritional value possible.
2 21. On May 23, 2016, LAUSD denied Macks complaint.
3 22. On June 8, 2016, Physicians Committee, on behalf of Mack, initiated an appeal of LAUSDs
4 May 23, 2016 denial of the complaint.
5 23. On August 17, 2016, Respondent CDE upheld LAUSDs denial of the complaint.
6 24. Further presentation of the issues to LAUSD would be futile because the outcome would be the
7 same due to LAUSDs consistent position regarding meals served in its schools.
8 V. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
9 National School Lunch Program
10 25. The NSLP was established pursuant to the National School Lunch Act, signed by President
11 Harry Truman in 1946. The National School Lunch Act requires that school meals reflect the
12 latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Dietary Guidelines). (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4).)
13 26. The NSLP reimburses local educational agencies (LEAs) for the cost of providing nutritious
14 low-cost or free meals to children in public and private schools and residential child care
15 institutions. Participating schools and institutions receive cash reimbursements and USDA-
16 donated food for each meal served.
17 27. The NSLP subsidizes 80 percent of the three million lunches served on average every day in
18 Californias public schools.
19 State of California School Meal Requirements
20 28. In California, the Legislature determined that the proper nutrition of children is a matter of
21 highest state priority and there is a demonstrated relationship between the intake of food and
22 good nutrition and the capacity of children to develop and learn. (Cal. Educ. Code, 49530.)
23 The Legislature also determined that schools must teach children the principles of good
24 nutrition to ensure children develop the proper eating habits essential for lifelong good health
25 and productivity. (Id.)
26 29. The Legislature directed CDE to ensure that the nutrition levels of meals served to school age
27 children pursuant to the National School Lunch Act be of the highest quality and greatest
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 6
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 nutritional value possible. (Cal. Educ. Code, 49590.)
2 30. The Legislature further directed CDE to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school
3 lunches and breakfasts, and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses. (Cal.
4 Educ. Code, 49531.1, subd. (a).)
5 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA)
6 31. The federal Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) directed USDA to establish
7 nutrition standards for all foods and beverages sold to students in school during the school day.
8 The standards apply to all foods sold (a) outside the school meal programs; (b) on the school
9 campus; and (c) at any time during the school day. The HHFKA standards represent minimum
10 standards that LEAs, school food authorities, and schools are required to meet.
11 32. The HHFKA standards must be consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines. The 2010
12 Dietary Guidelines:
13 a. state that evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats
14 (e.g., franks, sausage, and bacon) and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular
15 disease;
16 b. outline Dietary Approaches to Stopping Hypertension (DASH) to prevent high blood
17 pressure and other risk factors for heart disease, and one of the key features of the
18 recommended DASH meal plan is the reduction of processed meats;
19 c. advise that one of the Key Consumer Behaviors modifications for healthier eating is to eat
20 fewer processed meats.
21 33. Building off these standards, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, which are currently in force, state
22 that: (1) lower intakes of processed meats is a characteristic of healthy eating patterns; (2) there
23 is strong evidence that the lower intake of processed meats is associated with reduced risk of
24 cardiovascular disease; and (3) there is moderate evidence that the lower intake of processed
25 meats is associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer.
26 Local Wellness Policy
27 34. The federal Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 established, and the HHFKA
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 7
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 strengthened, a requirement under which each LEA, such as a school district, participating in
2 the NSLP must develop a local school wellness policy that promotes the health of students and
3 addresses the growing problem of childhood obesity. The responsibility for developing a local
4 school wellness policy is placed at the local level so the unique needs of each school under a
5 particular LEAs jurisdiction can be addressed. Local wellness policies must include specific
6 goals for nutrition promotion and education. LEAs are required to review and consider
7 evidence-based strategies in determining these goals.
8 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526a: Taxpayer Standing
9 35. California Code of Civil Procedure section 526a (Section 526a) provides, in relevant part:
10 An action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of,
11 or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county of the
12 state, may be maintained against any officer thereof, or any agent, or other person, acting in its
13 behalf, either by a citizen resident therein . . . who is assessed for and is liable to pay, or, within
14 one year before the commencement of the action, has paid, a tax therein.
15 36. The primary purpose of Section 526a is to allow a large body of the citizenry to challenge
16 governmental action that would otherwise go unchallenged in the courts because of the standing
17 requirement. California courts have consistently construed Section 526a liberally to achieve
18 this remedial purpose.
19 Writ of Mandate: Beneficial Interest & Public Interest Standing
20 37. Any person who is beneficially interested in the action or inaction of the government may seek
21 a writ of mandate. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 1086.)
22 38. Notwithstanding the aforementioned taxpayer standing and beneficial interest standing
23 principles, any person who seeks the enforcement of a public duty need not demonstrate that
24 she or he has any legal or special interest in the result.
25 VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
26 39. Processed meat products include bacon, deli slices, sausage, hot dogs, and any other meat
27 products that have been preserved with additives or otherwise manipulated to alter color, taste,
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 8
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 and durability. For example, as presented in Appendix E-5: Glossary of Terms in the 2015
2 Dietary Guidelines, processed meat is [m]eat, poultry, or seafood products preserved by
3 smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives. Processed meat includes
4 bacon, sausage, hot dogs, sandwich [or luncheon] meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, and salami.
5 Processed meat also includes smoked turkey products.1
6 Processed Meats Increase Risk of Cancer
7 40. Processed meat products can increase risk for various cancers, including pancreatic, stomach,
8 bladder, colon, and, most significantly, colorectal cancer.2
9 41. The World Cancer Research Fund, in conjunction with the American Institute for Cancer
10 Research (AICR), found in a comprehensive and ongoing analysis of research that processed
11 meat products are convincing as risk factors for colorectal cancer. The combination of
12 evidence indicates a 30 to 50 percent increased risk for colorectal cancer when consumption of
13 these meat products is highest.3
14 42. Investigators in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC),
15 which followed 448,568 men and women, discovered an 11 percent increased risk of dying
16
1
17 The American Meat Institute defines processed meats as meats that have been altered
from their original state and have additional ingredients included. The American Meat Institutes
18 examples of processed meats include sliced turkey lunch meats. (Available at
https://www.meatinstitute.org/ht/display/ShowPage/id/102310/pid/102310.) The University of
19 Californias Agriculture and Natural Resource Divisions publication on selling meat and meat
20 products in California specifies that processed meat includes anything other than the carcass
itself. (Available at http://ucfoodsafety.ucdavis.edu/files/26481.pdf.)
21 2
Nthlings U, Wilkens, LR, Murphy, SP, et al. Meat and fat intake as risk factors for
22 pancreatic cancer: the multiethnic cohort study. J of the Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97(19):1458-1465;
Wang X, Terry PD, Yan H. Review of salt consumption and stomach cancer risk: Epidemiological
23 and biological evidence. World J Gastroenterol. 2009, 15(18):22042213; Ferrucci LM, Sinha R,
Ward MH, et al. Meat and components of meat and the risk of bladder cancer in the NIH-AARP
24 Diet and Health Study. Cancer. 2010, 116(18):4345-4353; World Cancer Research Fund /
American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of
25 Cancer: A Global Perspective. Continuous Update Project. Washington, DC: AICR; 2011.
3
26 World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition,
Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Continuous Update Project.
27 Washington, DC: AICR; 2011; Vargas AJ, Thompson PA. Diet and Nutrient Factors in Colorectal
28 Cancer Risk. Nutr Clin Pract. 2012, 27(5):613-23.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 9
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 from cancer with the consumption of 50 grams of processed meat products per day.4
2 43. Researchers also investigated the dose-response nature of processed meat product consumption
3 and colorectal cancer risk and found that risk increased by 21 percent for every 50 grams per
4 day of processed meat product consumed.5
5 44. Substitution studies have found that replacing one serving of processed meat products per day
6 with nuts decreased risk for disease by 19 percent and replacement with legumes decreased risk
7 by 10 percent.6
8 45. The World Health Organization released a 2015 report announcing that processed meat
9 products clearly cause cancer. Researchers from around the world examined more than 800
10 studies looking at the cancer-causing properties of red and processed meat. The authors
11 highlighted a meta-analysis that found an 18 percent increased cancer risk per 50 grams of
12 processed meat consumed and ultimately that processed meat products are carcinogenic to
13 humans. Researchers also observed associations between red and processed meat products and
14 stomach, pancreatic, and prostate cancers.7
15 46. Colorectal cancer rates are on the rise for young people, according to a recently published study
16 in which researchers tracked cancer incidence rates for 490,305 individuals. For those within
17 the 20 to 39 year age range, cancer rates increased as much as 2.4 percent each year since the
18 1980s and through the 1990s. When compared to those born in the 1950s, those born around
19 1990 have double and quadruple the risks of colon and rectal cancers, respectively, due to low-
20 fiber diets, high consumption of processed meats, and lack of physical activity.8
21 4
Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, et al. Meat consumption and mortality-
22 results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine.
2013, 11:63-75.
23 5
Chan DSM, Lau R, Aune D, et al. Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence:
24 meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS ONE. 2011, 6(6):e20456.
6
Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, et al. Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2
25
prospective cohort studies. Arch Intern Med. 2012, 172(7):555-563.
7
26 Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and
processed meat. Lancet Oncology. Published online October 26, 2015.
27 8
Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the
28 United States, 1974-2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. Published online February 28, 2017.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 10
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 Processed Meats Increase Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
2 47. The sodium content and fat content of processed meat products contribute to the risk of heart
3 disease. In the EPIC study, researchers found a strong correlation between processed meat
4 product consumption and risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Those consuming more
5 than 160 grams per day of processed meat products had a 30 percent increased risk of death
6 from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed only 10 to 20 grams per day.9
7 48. Results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Nurses Health Study
8 (NHS) indicate that eating just one serving of a processed meat product per day increases risk
9 of death from diseases such as cancer and heart disease. These studies tracked the diets of
10 37,698 men from the HPFS and 83,644 women from the NHS for up to 28 years. All
11 participants were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the start of the study. Risk of
12 death increased by 20 percent for those consuming processed meat products.10
13 Processed Meats Increase Risk of Diabetes
14 49. Fat accumulation within muscle cells can lead to insulin resistance, which then contributes to
15 the development of type 2 diabetes.11
16 50. The high-fat content, particularly saturated fat, in processed meat products is a potential risk
17 factor for type 2 diabetes.
18 51. In a 17-year follow-up study conducted with 8,401 Seventh-day Adventists, researchers found
19 those who ate meat products at least once a week were 29 percent more likely to develop
20
9
21 Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, et al. Meat consumption and mortality-
results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine.
22 2013, 11:63-75.
10
23 Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, et al. Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2
prospective cohort studies. Arch Intern Med. 2012, 172(7):555-563.
24 11
Petersen KF, Dufour S, Befroy D, Garcia R, Shulman GI. Impaired mitochondrial activity in
25 the insulin-resistant offspring of patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2004, 350:664-671;
Krssak M, Petersen KF, Dresner A, et al. Intramyocellular lipid concentrations are correlated with
26 insulin sensitivity in humans: a 1H NMR spectroscopy study. Diabetologia. 1999, 42:113-116;
Perseghin G, Scifo P De Cobelli F, et al. Intramyocellular triglyceride content is a determinant of in
27 vivo insulin resistance in humans: a 1H-13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy assessment
28 in offspring of type 2 diabetic parents. Diabetes. 1999, 48:1600-1606.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 11
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 diabetes, compared to those who reported no meat product consumption. Processed meat
2 product consumption alone caused a 27 percent increased risk for diabetes.12
3 52. In a 2011 meta-analysis of 442,101 participants, consumption of processed meat products was
4 associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. There was a 51 percent increase in the risk of
5 developing diabetes if 50 grams per day of processed meat products were consumed.13
6 53. A study following over 2,000 Native Americans living in the Southwestern United States for a
7 five-year period found those who ate processed meat products were more likely to develop
8 diabetes.14
9 Processed Meats Increase Other Health Risks
10 54. Processed meat products are extremely high in sodium, which is used as a preservative. Studies
11 show a direct link between high-sodium diets and high blood pressure.15
12 55. High blood pressure can lead to kidney failure, heart failure, heart attack, and stroke.16
13 56. Processed meat products are also high in saturated fat, which can lead to increased risk of
14

15 12
Vang A, Singh PN, Lee JW, Haddad EH, Brinegar CH. Meats, processed meats, obesity,
16 weight gain and occurrence of diabetes among adults: findings from Adventist Health Studies. Ann
Nutr Metab. 2008, 52:96-104.
17 13
Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, et al. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3
18 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011, 94:1088-1096; Aune D,
Ursin G, Veierod MB. Meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and
19 meta-analysis of cohort studies; Diabetologia. 2009, 52:2277-2287; Micha R, Wallace SK,
Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease,
20 stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010, 121:2271-
2283.
21
14
Fretts AM, Howard BV, McKnight B, et al. Associations of processed meat and
22 unprocessed red meat intake with incident diabetes: the Strong Heart Family Study. Am J Clin Nutr.
2012, 95:752-8.
23
15
He, F.J.; MacGregor, G.A. Effect of modest salt reduction on blood pressure: A meta-
24 analysis of randomized trials: Implications for public health. J. Hum. Hypertens. 2002, 16:761770;
Johnson AG, Nguyen TV, Davis D; Blood pressure is linked to salt intake and modulated by the
25 angiotensinogen gene in normotensive and hypertensive elderly subjects. J Hypertens. 2001,
26 19:10531060.
16
Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM. Dietary approaches to
27 prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
28 Hypertens. 2006, 47:296-308.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 12
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes.17
2 57. A review published in 2016 found that consuming 50 grams of processed meat per day
3 increases the risk for colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, death from heart disease, and diabetes
4 by 18, 19, 24, and 32 percent, respectively.18
5 School Children Should Never Consume Processed Meats; At a Minimum, it Should be an
6 Important Goal of School Districts to Eliminate Processed Meats As Soon As Possible
7 58. USDAs former Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, has stated, Nothing is more
8 important than the health and well-being of our children.19
9 59. The federal government has stated that [n]early one third of children in America are at risk for
10 preventable diseases like diabetes and heart disease due to being overweight or obese. If left
11 unaddressed, health experts tell us that this generation may be the first to live shorter lives than
12 their parents.20
13 60. Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity among U.S. children and adolescents has tripled, and
14 today 19.6% of children aged 611 years and 18.1% of adolescents aged 1219 years are
15 categorized as obese. Because youth spend a significant amount of their day in school, it is an
16 ideal venue to promote obesity prevention efforts. A growing body of research has found that
17 the school food environment is associated with youth dietary behaviors and obesity.21
18 61. It is well-established that the mere exposure to certain unhealthful products can create an unsafe
19 environment for children. For this reason, school districts nationwide have universally
20 prohibited smoking and the distribution of tobacco products in school environments. As they
21 have for tobacco products, school districts must take meaningful steps to avoid exposing
22 17
Phillips CM, Kesse-Guyot E, McManus R, et al. High dietary saturated fat intake
23 accentuates obesity risk associated with the fat mass and obesity-associated gene in adults. J. Nutr.
2012, 142:824-31; van de Laar F, van de Lisdonk E, Lucassen P, et al. Fat intake in patients newly
24 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: a 4-year follow-up study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2004,
25 54:177182.
18
Wolk A. Potential health hazards of eating red meat. J Intern Med. 2017, 281:106-122.
26 19
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/06/0134.xml
20
27 http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/qas_nutrition_standards_0.pdf
21
28 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/nutrition/pdf/compfoodsbooklet.pdf
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 13
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 children to processed meats in meals provided by schools.
2 62. As shown above, consumption of processed meat products leads to increased risk of obesity,
3 cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer.
4 63. The current Dietary Guidelines state that (1) lower intakes of processed meats is a characteristic
5 of healthy eating patterns; (2) there is strong evidence that lower intake of processed meats is
6 associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease; and (3) there is moderate evidence that
7 lower intake of processed meats is associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and
8 some types of cancer.
9 64. The American Institute for Cancer Research advises Americans to avoid processed meat such
10 as ham, bacon, salami, hot dogs and sausages.22
11 65. The Prevent Cancer Foundation recommends that children should [a]void processed meats
12 (bacon, sausage, bologna, etc.).23
13 VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
14 First Cause of Action: Writ of Mandate (Traditional and/or Statutory)
15 Against the California Department of Education
16 66. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if fully set
17 forth herein.
18 67. Respondent CDE is the department of state government with the clear and present ministerial
19 duty to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for all food served on public school campuses.
20 (Cal. Educ. Code, 49531.1 subd. (a).)
21 68. Respondent CDE did not develop and/or maintain nutrition guidelines, despite the laws
22 mandate to do so.
23 69. The nutrition guidelinesif they existedmust include specific guidelines for fat, saturated
24 fat, and cholesterol, and shall specify that where comparable food products of equal nutritional
25 22
AICR, Recommendations for Cancer Prevention (2014), http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-
26 cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_05_red_meat.html.
23
Prevent Cancer Foundation, Feed Your Kids Right (2010),
27 http://preventcancer.org/prevention/reduce-cancer-risk/healthy-habits-for-children-and-
28 families/feed-your-kids-right/.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 14
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 value are available the food product lower in fat, or saturated fat, or cholesterol shall be used.
2 (Id., 49531.1, subd. (b).)
3 70. The guidelines would have enabled CDE to comply with its statutory mandate to ensure that
4 the nutrition levels of meals served to school aged children pursuant to the National School
5 Lunch Act be of the highest quality and greatest nutritional value possible. (Cal. Educ. Code,
6 49590.)
7 71. Petitioners have a beneficial interest in the quality of the food served in public schools. Like
8 the California Legislature, Petitioners recognize the demonstrated relationship between the
9 intake of food and good nutrition and the capacity of children to develop and learn. (Cal.
10 Educ. Code, 49530.) Like the California Legislature, Petitioners understand that unless
11 schools teach children the principles of good nutrition, children will not develop the proper
12 eating habits essential for lifelong good health and productivity. (Id.)
13 72. As a teacher, Petitioner Mack has a particular interest in the quality of the food served in public
14 schools because children who consume a diet free of processed meat products and other
15 unhealthful food items have been shown to have increased IQs and higher mental ages.24
16 73. The school food environment is associated with youth dietary behaviors and obesity,25 an
17 affliction that increases the risk for preventable diseases like diabetes and heart disease.26
18 Guidelines that increase food quality and nutritional value of school meals would benefit the
19 children of the State of California and parents of the children of the State of California by
20 improving the childrens capacity to learn, by preventing disease, and by promoting the
21 childrens lifelong health and productivity.
22 74. Petitioners also have a public interest in securing the enforcement of a public agencys duty to
23 comply with a California statute intended to improve the health and well-being of school
24 children in California. By failing to develop and/or maintain nutrition guidelines, Respondent
25
24
26 See, e.g., Dwyer JT, Miller LG, Arduino NL, et al. Mental age and I.Q. of predominantly
vegetarian children. J Am Diet Assoc. 1980, 76:142147.
25
27 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/nutrition/pdf/compfoodsbooklet.pdf
26
28 http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/qas_nutrition_standards_0.pdf
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 15
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 CDE impairs the learning capacity, health, and future productivity of all school children, many
2 of them future California taxpayers, throughout the entire state. Petitioners have a public
3 interest in protecting Californias children. Petitioner Physicians Committee, a national
4 membership organization, has a longstanding interest in procuring a safe and healthful diet free
5 from risks for all California residents, including its California members children.
6 75. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to correct CDEs failure to develop
7 and/or maintain nutrition guidelines.
8 76. Petitioners are beneficially interested in a peremptory writ of mandate compelling respondents,
9 and those public officers and employees acting by and through their authority, to enact
10 guidelines to comply with the directive from the Legislature under California Education Code
11 section 49590.
12 77. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate directing CDE to enact and maintain guidelines; Petitioners
13 seek this writ of mandate as a traditional writ and/or a statutory writ under California Code
14 of Civil Procedure section 1085.
15 78. Petitioners also seek injunctive and declaratory relief related to this claim under California Code
16 of Civil Procedure sections 526, 526a, and 1060. Petitioners are taxpayers in the State of
17 California and have an interest in ensuring that CDE is not paying LEAs for school lunch
18 reimbursements that do not comply with the Legislatures statutory mandates. Guidelines that
19 mandate the highest quality school lunch food with the greatest nutritional value do not
20 allow for the expenditure of public funds on processed meat products; therefore, Respondents
21 are wasting taxpayer money.
22 79. The current unhealthful school lunch choices cost taxpayers more money in the long term than
23 simply spending school lunch money on healthful choices now. As noted by USDA, there are
24 direct economic costs due to childhood obesity: $237.6 million (in 2005 dollars) in inpatient
25 costs and annual prescription drug, emergency room, and outpatient costs of $14.1 billion.27
26 27
Federal Register, Vol. 78, number 27 (Feb. 8, 2013), citing two studies on the economic
27 costs of obese children: (1) Trasande, L., Y. Liu, G. Fryer, and M. Weitzman. 2009. Trends: Effects
of Childhood Obesity on Hospital Care and Costs, 19992005. Health Affairs, 28:w751-w760; and
28 (2) Cawley, J. 2010. The Economics of Childhood Obesity. Health Affairs, 29:364371. As cited in
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 16
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 Second Cause of Action: Writ of Mandate (Traditional and/or Statutory)
2 Against LAUSD and PUSD
3 80. Petitioners re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if fully set
4 forth herein.
5 81. LAUSD and PUSD are LEAs under the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004,
6 and HHFKA, and have a clear public duty to issue local wellness policies that meet the
7 minimum legal standards of promoting health and addressing childhood obesity by including
8 specific goals for nutrition promotion and education and basing said policies on evidence and
9 dietary guidelines.
10 82. The current Dietary Guidelines state that (1) lower intakes of processed meats is a characteristic
11 of healthy eating patterns; (2) there is strong evidence that lower intake of processed meats is
12 associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease; and (3) there is moderate evidence that
13 lower intake of processed meats is associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and
14 some types of cancer.
15 83. LAUSD and PUSD serve processed meats in their schools menus.
16 84. LAUSD and PUSDs local wellness policies fail to identify processed meats as a problem
17 despite the evidence that processed meats are unhealthful. Further, the wellness policies fail to
18 discuss how and when processed meats will be reduced and/or phased out of school meals.
19 85. Respondents:
20 a. Violate the HHFKA by failing to identify processed meats as a problem despite strong
21 evidence that processed meats are unhealthful. Further, the wellness policies fail to discuss
22 how and when processed meats will be reduced and/or phased out of school meals.
23 b. Violate California law by serving food items that are linked to cancer, diabetes,
24 cardiovascular disease, and obesity. These items are not nutritionally adequate under
25 Californias Education Code section 49531.
26 c. Violate their local wellness policies. PUSDs local wellness policy, for example, states that
27 Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines NPRM. 2011.
28 Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Docket No. FDA-2011- F-0171.
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 17
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 food available to children should promote optimal health and its goal and purpose is to
2 support student health and wellness. PUSD serves processed meats that cause negative
3 health effects, and have continued to serve processed meats despite being aware of the
4 negative health effects. PUSD is not providing food that promotes a childs optimum
5 health.
6 86. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to correct that failure.
7 87. Petitioners are beneficially interested in a peremptory writ of mandate compelling respondents,
8 and those public officers and employees acting by and through their authority, to remove
9 processed meats from school lunches; or in the alternative, to modify their local wellness policy
10 to address the recognized problem with serving processed meats to children.
11 88. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate directing LAUSD and PUSD to remove processed meats
12 from school lunches, or in the alternative, to modify their local wellness policies; Petitioners
13 seek this writ of mandate as a traditional writ and/or a statutory writ under California Code
14 of Civil Procedure section 1085.
15 89. Petitioners also seek injunctive and declaratory relief related to this claim under California Code
16 of Civil Procedure sections 526, 526a, and 1060. Petitioners are residents in San Diego County
17 and Los Angeles County and have interests in ensuring that LAUSD and PUSD do not pay for
18 school lunch items that do not comply with California law. California State requirements that
19 call for the highest quality school lunch food with the greatest nutritional value do not
20 allow for the expenditure of public funds on processed meat products; therefore, Respondents
21 are wasting taxpayer money. In addition, and in the alternative, a wellness policy sets a school
22 districts food purchasing decisions for current and future years; therefore, the failures in the
23 local wellness policies cause public funds to be wasted on minimal quality foods that do not
24 comply with the law.
25 VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26 WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray that this Court issue an Order for:
27 a. Injunctive and Declaratory relief, stating that CDE must enact guidelines as directed by the
28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 18
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 Legislature in California Education Code section 49531.1 subdivision (a);
2 b. Injunctive and Declaratory relief, stating that LAUSD and PUSD must stop serving
3 processed meats to children in school meals;
4 c. Injunctive and Declaratory relief, stating that the LAUSD and PUSD must modify their
5 wellness policies to remove processed meats from school lunches;
6 d. Petitioner to be awarded costs of this action and attorneys fees; and
7 e. Other relief as this Court considers just and proper.
8 Respectfully submitted,
9 Dated: April 5, 2017 EVANS & PAGE
10

11 By: _________________
Corey Page
12 Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
E VANS & P AGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 19
S AN F R AN CI S CO
 1 VERIFICATION
2 I, MARK KENNEDY, am the vice president of legal affairs for petitioner/plaintiff

3 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, one of the petitioners herein, and I am authorized

4 to make this verification on its behalf. I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing VERIFIED

5 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

6 DECLARATORY RELIEF and the contents thereof are true and accurate to the best of my

7 knowledge and belief.

8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

9 is true and correct.

IoDated: April 3, 2017

11 Mark Kennedy

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
EVANS & PAGE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT & COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECL. RELIEF Page 20
SAN FRANCISCO