Orchard Apple Nantucket Nectar PFAS in Packaging Class Action

This class action, like a number of others recently, has taken up the topic of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) in packaging. Specifically, it brings suit against Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. for its Orchard Apple Nantucket Nectars drink, claiming that the drink’s packaging, which “is essential and integral to delivering the Product to the consuming public” is unsafe because it contains PFAS.

The National Class for this action is all persons who, during the fullest period allowed by law, bought the product in the US, for personal use and not for resale. A New York Subclass has also been defined, for those in the above class who bought the product in New York.

PFAS are human-made chemicals that the complaint alleges are termed “forever” chemicals because they break down only very slowly, accumulating over time in humans and the environment.

The complaint claims a 2019 study from the Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program found “that PFAS have adverse effects on human organ systems, with the greatest impact seen in the liver and thyroid hormone.” And, according to the complaint, the Centers for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry “has also recognized that exposure to high levels of PFAS may impact the immune system and reduce antibody responses to vaccines.”

Further negative effects alleged by the complaint include decreased fertility, developmental delays, increased risks of some kinds of cancers, reduced immune system ability, interference with hormones, and increased cholesterol levels or risks of obesity.

Page 6 of the complaint shows an image of the Nantucket Nectars product, with the words “All Natural Ingredients” written prominently across the front of the product label. But the complaint alleges that the drink’s packaging contains 123 ng/L of 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, which it says is a kind of PFOA which is a kind of PFAS.

The complaint claims, “Until June 2022, the EPA health advisor limit for safe consumption … was just 70 nanograms per liter—almost half the levels found in the Product. Since then, the limit has been drastically lowered.” The complaint alleges that the product is therefore not safe and does not contain “all natural ingredients” and presents a health risk to consumers.

Why would a company use this kind of material for packaging? The complaint alleges that the coating acts as a barrier to grease between the product and the consumers’ hands. But the complaint alleges that PFAS is not necessary to this function.

What the complaint is not entirely clear on is the difference between packaging containing PFAS and a product (the juice) containing PFAS. It alleges, “Indeed, numerous food and beverage products on the market contain no detectable levels of PFAS. Accordingly, Defendant would have had knowledge that it could product the Product packaging without the heightened levels of PFAS inherent in its current composition.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Contaminated with Harmful Substances, Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, PFAS