Today’s column is about women’s underwear. Specifically, whether Rael’s “organic cotton cover period underwear”, … “made with certified Texas organic cotton” and “100% Certified Organic Cotton Cover Sheet” violates California’s 1979 Organic Foods Act. The California non-profit Environmental Democracy Project sued Rael’s claiming the underwear was not organic or was not organic enough. Rael’s defended claiming the Organic Foods Act only applies to agricultural products, cosmetics and pet food, but not personal care products like Rael’s underwear.

Porter’s Law School Project and Organic Apple Juice

Bear with me. We are going back to 1973 when I was in my last year of law school at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco now University of California School of Law, San Francisco. We were assigned a senior class project about making new law. Although a wide-open topic, it was daunting to suggest that law students could change the law.

As it turns out, Mike Milich, my best friend at Hastings, and I learned that Sebastopol Apple Growers Cooperative, a reputable business, was selling apple juice called “Organic Apple Juice”. Their apple juice was unfiltered, but it wasn’t organic as we understood the term. The dictionary definition of organic is generally “anything derived from plant or animal life”, i.e. everything from rocks to trees to apples. That presented a dilemma for us because technically the co-op’s apple juice was organic, but it wasn’t organic as most people used the term.

Consumer Legal Remedies Act

How do we prove Organic Apple Juice wasn’t organic when the dictionary said it was. Turns out California had recently adopted the Consumer Legal Remedies Act which prohibited misrepresentation in advertising. We wrote Sebastopol Apple Growers Co-op trying to make the case that marketing their Organic Apple Juice that wasn’t organic as the term was commonly known was false advertising. They responded essentially suggesting we look up the word organic in the dictionary.

Curiously, we got support for our theory from other mainstream fruit and vegetable growers who were being outsold by growers selling “organic” fruit and vegetables that weren’t really organic. They encouraged us to keep going with our case. We brought the issue to members of the California Legislature. Meanwhile, to our surprise the Co-op changed the name of their Organic Apple Juice to Original Apple Juice.

The Punchline

The punchline is that about five years later California adopted the Organic Food Act of 1979 defining “organic” consistent with how the term is known today. Mike and I played a role in bringing the lack of clarity about “organic” to the attention of the California Legislature. It wasted no time in adopting the California Organic Food Act of 1979.

I learned a few years later that our Hastings professor who was still teaching the “make new law” course, showcases our case in her classes.

That’s a long-winded digression; let’s get back to our case at hand about women’s organic cotton underwear.

Rael’s Organic Underwear

The trial court in the Rael underwear case ruled for Rael. The First District Court of Appeal reversed finding the California Legislature intended to include all products sold as organic under the Act. The appellate court found no legislative intent to exclude personal care products from the Act. Rael loses.

Porter’s Last Column

Thanks for listening. My next column will be my last, ending 40 years of the Law Review.

Jim Porter is a retired attorney from Porter Simon, formerly licensed in California and Nevada. Porter Simon has offices in Truckee California and Reno, Nevada. These are Jim’s personal opinions. He may be reached at jameslporterjr@gmail.com. Like Porter Simon on Facebook. ©2026