Driscoll’s Sued for Deceiving Shoppers—Its Strawberries Contain “Forever Chemicals,” Lawsuit Claims

Here’s what you need to know.

A class action lawsuit filed in California alleges that “forever chemicals” were found in Driscoll’s strawberries and that the company misled consumers about the health and safety of its fruit. The suit contends that when shoppers bought Driscoll’s strawberries, they didn’t expect the fruit to be contaminated with PFAS, chemicals that may lead to an increased risk of cancer.

Here’s everything you need to know about this class action suit.

What Are “Forever Chemicals”?

This term refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic compounds added to products to make them nonstick, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The name “forever chemicals” is used because PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.

The Environmental Protection Agency notes that PFAS “may lead to adverse health outcomes,” including fertility issues, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of cancer.

The Complaint Against Driscoll’s

The suit alleges that independent testing of Driscoll’s strawberries detected “residues of 12 different pesticides, eight of which are considered PFAS.” It also claims that Driscoll’s should have known consumers wanted to avoid PFAS, and that the company should’ve disclosed its use of pesticides containing PFAS. The lawsuit argues that Driscoll’s intentionally misled consumers about the health and safety of its strawberries by touting them as “Only the Finest Berries,” among other allegations of false advertising.

What the Lawsuit Seeks To Accomplish

The lawsuit against Driscoll’s was filed as a class action suit, meaning the plaintiff hopes to represent all consumers with concerns about PFAS who bought Driscoll’s strawberries. The suit asks Driscoll’s to refund anyone in California who bought its strawberries and start disclosing that its fruit contains PFAS. Driscoll’s did not respond to a request for comment.