Almond Breeze, a popular almond milk brand owned by Blue Diamond Growers, faced a class action lawsuit in 2018 over allegations that its vanilla almond milk product was misleadingly labeled and marketed. The lawsuit claimed that Almond Breeze’s vanilla almond milk did not actually contain real vanilla and was flavored artificially instead. This article will examine the details behind the lawsuit and why Almond Breeze was sued over its vanilla almond milk.
The Lawsuit Against Almond Breeze
In July 2018, a consumer named Evan Gehl filed a class action lawsuit against Blue Diamond Growers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleged that Blue Diamond Growers misled consumers by labeling and marketing its Almond Breeze vanilla almond milk as being flavored with real vanilla when it actually contained artificial flavors.
Specifically, the lawsuit took issue with the prominent labeling and imagery used on Almond Breeze’s vanilla almond milk cartons. The front of the cartons stated the milk was “All Natural” and contained “No Artificial Flavors.” The cartons also featured images of vanilla beans and flowers, implying the milk’s vanilla flavor came from real vanilla. However, the lawsuit alleged the primary flavoring agent was in fact malic acid, which is not derived from vanilla beans.
The lawsuit asserted that by presenting its product as real vanilla almond milk when it actually contained artificial vanilla flavors, Almond Breeze was misleading consumers and violating federal and state laws regarding false advertising and unfair competition. The lawsuit sought monetary damages for Almond Breeze customers under claims of fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty.
Almond Breeze’s Response
In response to the 2018 lawsuit, Almond Breeze strongly denied any wrongdoing. The company stated that its vanilla almond milk contains real vanilla and meets all federal guidelines for product labeling. However, Almond Breeze did not specifically confirm or deny whether the product contained any artificial flavors in addition to real vanilla.
Almond Breeze specifically cited the “Natural Flavor” listed in its vanilla almond milk’s ingredients as evidence that the product contained real vanilla. They stated that under FDA guidelines, a “natural flavor” must be derived from natural sources like spices, fruits, or vegetables rather than artificially created in a lab.
The company also noted that Almond Breeze’s vanilla almond milk met all federal standards to be labeled as containing “No Artificial Flavors.” They argued the product’s labeling was not misleading to consumers in any way.
The FDA’s Definition of Natural Flavors
A key point of contention in the Almond Breeze lawsuit had to do with the FDA’s definition of “natural flavors.” Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA defines natural flavors as:
The essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.
This broad definition allows ingredients like malic acid, which is commonly derived from apples, to be classified as “natural flavors” on food labels. The plaintiffs in the Almond Breeze lawsuit alleged this definition creates a loophole allowing artificially created flavor chemicals to be concealed behind the “natural flavor” label.
However, Almond Breeze argued in response that its specific “Natural Flavor” did indeed come from real vanilla and thus was not misleading. This disagreement over interpretations of the FDA’s natural flavor definition was central to the lawsuit against Almond Breeze.
Past Lawsuits Over “Natural” Labeling
The Almond Breeze lawsuit was not the first time a food company faced allegations of misleading “natural” labeling. Some other notable examples include:
- In 2013, consumers sued PepsiCo alleging that its Naked Juice brand carried misleading “All Natural” labeling when the products contained synthetic ingredients like zinc oxide and ascorbic acid.
- In 2015, a $9 million settlement required Kellogg’s to discontinue “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” labeling on products like Kashi cereals and Bear Naked granola which contained synthetic ingredients.
- In 2016, the FDA sent warning letters to companies manufacturing and selling “Natural Source Vitamin E” from synthetic alpha-tocopherol, saying such labeling violates federal law.
The proliferation of these types of lawsuits demonstrates that there is ongoing ambiguity and debate around how terms like “natural” should be defined and applied to food marketing.
Implications for the Food Industry
The Almond Breeze lawsuit highlighted the risks for food companies wishing to promote their products as “natural.” While the FDA provides a definition for natural flavors, critics argue this definition contains too many loopholes that allow artificial ingredients to be concealed from consumers.
To minimize risk, food companies using “natural” claims should ensure they can provide full transparency about the origins and chemical makeup of any ingredients, flavors, colorings, or preservatives in their products. Any synthetically created additive risks contradicting a “natural” marketing campaign.
The lawsuit also highlighted the need for careful review of food labeling and marketing material to ensure messaging aligns accurately with the true contents of a product. Even if a natural claim is technically defensible, it may still mislead consumers relying on assumptions and interpretations of what “natural” means.
Ultimately, the Almond Breeze lawsuit demonstrated that consumers are increasingly skeptical of “natural” claims on packaged foods. Food companies face growing pressure to provide greater clarity and transparency about ingredients and production methods rather than simply making broad natural claims.
How Was the Lawsuit Resolved?
Despite Almond Breeze’s vigorous defenses against the lawsuit, its parent company Blue Diamond Growers ultimately chose to settle the class action in July 2019 rather than risk a prolonged legal battle.
As part of the settlement, Blue Diamond agreed to pay $8.5 million into a fund to reimburse Almond Breeze customers, while also agreeing to make changes to Almond Breeze labeling and marketing:
- Almond Breeze vanilla flavors will now be labeled as “vanilla with other natural flavors” rather than just “vanilla.”
- Text will be added to the vanilla Almond Breeze label clarifying that the milk does not contain extracts from the vanilla bean.
- The settlement bars Almond Breeze from using images related to vanilla, such as vanilla bean flowers or pods, on the vanilla almond milk varietals.
While Blue Diamond did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement, they agreed to make these labeling changes to resolve the class action.
Conclusion
The Almond Breeze class action lawsuit demonstrates the legal risks food brands face when making natural and flavor claims that could potentially mislead consumers. While Almond Breeze insisted it did nothing wrong and made truthful claims about using real vanilla, the company ultimately decided settling the lawsuit was preferable to continuing an expensive court battle.
Going forward, food companies should closely examine any marketing language, labeling, and imagery used on products marketed as “natural” flavored. Without specific transparency about ingredients and their origins, companies leave themselves vulnerable to allegations of misrepresentation in a time of increasing consumer skepticism.