Class action targets makers of Goldfish for use of citric acid

MANHATTAN (CN) — Pepperidge Farm, the maker of Goldfish, was slapped with a class action on Friday for its use of citric acid in some varieties of the beloved snack.

Veronika Ward is the named plaintiff in the 16-page lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York. She claims that Goldfish’s “Flavor Blasted Snack Crackers” boast a misleading claim of containing “no artificial flavors or preservatives” in the snack.

“This representation is false and/or misleading because the products contain citric acid — a known artificial preservative commonly used in food products,” Ward claims in the suit. “Defendant’s ‘No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives’ representation is featured on the products’ labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from artificial preservatives.”

Goldfish, perhaps one of America’s most iconic snacks, were invented by a Swiss biscuit manufacturer in the late 1950’s before being introduced to the U.S. by Pepperidge Farm in 1962. Today, there are more than a dozen flavors of the cheesy cracker that has turned into a nearly billion-dollar brand.

According to the complaint, Friday’s class action stems from Ward’s 2023 purchase of Goldfish “Xtra Cheddar Flavor Blasted Snack Crackers” from a New York City Walgreens. It was after that buy that Ward claims she realized that she had been duped.

“Had plaintiff Ward known the ‘No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives’ representation was false and misleading, she would not have purchased the product, or, at the very least, would have only been willing to purchase the product at a lesser price,” Ward claims.

Citric acid, an organic chemical compound found naturally in some citrus fruits, is used by many commercial food manufacturers to “prevent food spoilage from bacteria, molds, fungi or yeast,” according to the FDA, which is cited in Ward’s suit. It’s also used to delay changes in color, flavor and texture.

Because citric acid also exhibits antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, Ward claims that it should be considered a preservative, contrary to the claims on Goldfish’s packaging. 

Additionally, Ward argues that the citric acid in Goldfish is, in fact, artificial, dealing another blow to the promises on the snack’s packaging. 

“Citric acid occurs naturally when derived from certain citrus fruits,” Ward claims. “That is not true of the citric acid contained in the products. The citric acid contained in the products is commercially manufactured and the result of extensive chemical processing and is therefore artificial.”

According to the National Institutes of Health, around 99% of the world’s production of citric acid is carried out using a processed derivative of black mold. Ward claims that this process could cause “allergic reactions and diseases” thanks to its use of the black mold fungus.

“Negative side effects of consuming manufactured citric acid include: swelling and stiffness resulting in joint pain; muscle pain;stomach pain; and shortness of breath,” Ward continues. 

Ward adds that Pepperidge Farm’s decision to include the “no artificial flavors or preservatives” label wasn’t just negligent oversight — it was a deliberate attempt to “capitalize on consumers’ preference for products with no preservatives.”

She claims that consumers are willing to “pay a premium” for healthy foods with less preservatives. Thus, Pepperidge Farm took advantage of a massive portion of health-conscious customers when applying the misleading label, Ward argues.

Representatives for Pepperidge Farm did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Ward’s lawsuit is hardly original. Dozens of cases like Friday’s have peppered the processed food industry for more than a decade, with many of them pointing to citric acid as causes of inaccurate food packaging labels.

In 2018, a similar federal class action was filed in Illinois. Plaintiffs in that case claimed that Kraft Heinz falsely labeled its Capri Sun beverages as to contain “no artificial coloring, flavors or preservatives,” despite the fact that they contained citric acid. 

The court granted Kraft Heinz’s motion to dismiss, however, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Kraft Heinz was using “artificial” citric acid in its drinks.

Follow @Uebey

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit