June 6 (Reuters) - Litigation claiming that Abbott

Laboratories ( ABT ) is marketing Glucerna shakes and nutritional

powders with harmful ingredients can move forward, a California

federal judge said Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Jose largely

rejected Abbott's motion to dismiss the proposed class action,

ruling that the consumers had provided enough evidence at this

stage to support their claims that Glucerna, which says on its

label that it is "scientifically designed for people with

diabetes," contains sucralose and other additives that some

studies show have dangerous health effects.

Pitts granted Abbott's motion to dismiss the consumers'

request for an injunction requiring Abbott to amend the labeling

on the Glucerna products, saying customers concerned about the

additives can check the ingredients list to see if the products

contain sucralose going forward.

Representatives for Abbott Laboratories ( ABT ) did not immediately

respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Bahar Sodaify, an attorney for the consumers, said in a

statement that now Abbott "will have to answer why it elected to

center Glucerna's brand identity and product labeling on

diabetes care while using ingredients that are known to

deregulate blood sugar and are just not suitable for diabetics."

California resident Steven Prescott sued Abbott in August,

alleging that the labels on the Glucerna products said they

could help regulate blood sugar in diabetics and people with

similar conditions. The lawsuit claims that the products are

sweetened with sugar replacement sucralose, which is approved by

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food but can

deregulate blood sugar, kill cells in the pancreas that release

insulin and cause cells to become resistant to insulin.

Prescott, who sued under California consumer protection

laws, said he would not have purchased the products had he known

they wouldn't work as advertised. Prescott is seeking to

represent a class of California consumers who purchased the

products.

Abbott has argued that the labeling on the Glucerna products

is not misleading and that the products are meant to be a snack

or meal replacement that helps with blood sugar regulation as

compared with high glycemic carbohydrates. The company has also

criticized the studies on sucralose Prescott relies on, saying

they do not support a link between the sweetener and the health

problems he alleges.

In its motion to dismiss, Abbott pointed to the shakes' side

label, which says the product is designed to "help minimize

blood sugar spikes" in diabetics as compared with high glycemic

carbohydrates.

But Pitts said at this stage that he couldn't conclude that

a consumer would understand that the side label limits the

labeling on the front of the bottle as much as Abbott suggests.

The case is Prescott et al v. Abbott Laboratories ( ABT ), case number

5:23-cv-04348 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California

For plaintiffs: Shireen Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify and Alan Gudino

of Clarkson Law Firm

For Abbott: Matthew Powers of O'Melveny & Myers, William

Cavanaugh Jr and Jane Metcalf of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler