Can a product be “unfit for human consumption” because of its container? The complaint for this class action claims that McDonald’s Corporation’s star product, the Big Mac, is exactly that, because its packaging contains per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).
The Class for this action is all persons in the US who bought the product for use and not for resale. A California Subclass has also been defined, for those who bought the product in California.
The complaint alleges, “According to a recent survey, chemicals in food … represents the most important food safety issue to consumers. Consumers ranked this concern more highly than any other concern, including foodborne illness from bacteria and use of pesticides.”
The complaint quotes a number of statements that it claims come from McDonald’s website:
- “Packaging helps us serve food quickly and safely to our customers.”
- “Providing safe food is out number one priority and a responsibility that we take seriously.”
- “To do this, McDonald’s renewed and refreshed our Global Food Safety Strategy in 2019, which ensures we integrate food safety into the design of food [and] packaging[.]”
- “We believe food safety should be a key consideration for every company in our industry.”
The Big Mac packaging bears a box with the seal of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the words, “Packaging from responsible sources.”
Unfortunately, the complaint alleges that the Big Mac cannot be safely bought and consumed as it is currently sold.
PFAS are synthetic chemicals that persist and accumulate, in the environment and in the human body, so that the complaint alleges that even small amounts can be harmful. The complaint quotes a scientific paper as saying, “PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers in epidemiology studies.”
According to the complaint, “independent research conducted by Consumer Reports determined that the Product packaging … contains 195.3 parts per million (ppm) of total organic fluorine.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a limit for safe consumption of 70 nanograms per liter, the complaint says: “To put this in perspective, 1 part per million is the equivalent of 1,000,000 nanograms per liter. Accordingly, the Product would expose a consumer to PFAS at levels that are several orders of magnitude higher than one would receive from drinking a liter of water that contains PFAS at the level considered safe by the EPA.”
The complaint therefore claims that “the Product is not safe, posing a significant health risk to unsuspecting consumers” and faults McDonald’s for never warning consumers “that their Product is unsafe and harmful to the environment, contains heightened levels of PFAS, or should otherwise be approached with caution.”
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Consumer
Most Recent Case Event
McDonald’s Big Mac Packaging Contains PFAS Complaint
March 31, 2022
Can a product be “unfit for human consumption” because of its container? The complaint for this class action claims that McDonald’s Corporation’s star product, the Big Mac, is exactly that, because its packaging contains per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).
McDonald’s Big Mac Packaging Contains PFAS ComplaintCase Event History
McDonald’s Big Mac Packaging Contains PFAS Complaint
March 31, 2022
Can a product be “unfit for human consumption” because of its container? The complaint for this class action claims that McDonald’s Corporation’s star product, the Big Mac, is exactly that, because its packaging contains per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).
McDonald’s Big Mac Packaging Contains PFAS Complaint