Tootsie Roll Class Action Says Candy Contained Trans Fat

A recent Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit claims that the candy products contained undisclosed trans fat in the form of partially hydrogenated oil.

Plaintiff Maxine Beasley argues that Tootsie Industries, which manufacturers Tootsie Rolls and Tootsie Pops, failed to disclose that they used partially hydrogenated oil in the making of their chocolate candy products between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2016.

In June 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly declared partially hydrogenated oil to be unsafe for the use in food.

This declaration was allegedly based on the fact that partially hydrogenated oil “causes cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and accelerates memory damage and cognitive decline.”

Scientific evidence has allegedly been available for years. In 1999, the New England Journal of Medicine allegedly estimated that the removal of partially hydrogenated oil from the American diet “would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually.”

As early as 2005, the National Academy of Medicine issued a report that there was “no safe level” of partially hydrogenated oil or other artificial trans fats. Over the next several years, more evidence was reportedly published backing up these claims.

The Tootsie Roll class action states that despite the amount of scientific evidence available, Tootsie Industries continued to use partially hydrogenated oil in their Tootsie Roll and Tootsie Pop products.

“Tootsie Industries’ use of PHO in the Tootsie Products was always unnecessary,” the Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit claims. “There are several safe substitutes for PHO and artificial trans fat. Indeed, Tootsie Industries now uses ‘Palm Oil,’ which does not contain trans fat, as a substitute for PHO in the current formulation.”

During the period that Tootsie Industries allegedly used partially hydrogenated oil, several of their competitors did not use the unsafe ingredient. The Tootsie Roll class action claims that competitors which did not use the additive include Hershey’s, Mars, and Reese’s.

Beasley argues that this shows Tootsie Industries did not need to use partially hydrogenated oil in order to make successful products, and instead used the additive to cut costs.

Although using partially hydrogenated oil would have benefited Tootsie Industries by reducing costs, Beasley argues that this benefit was “small and far outweighed by the gravity of the serious health harm they inflicted on consumers.”

The Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit claims that Tootsie Industries’ actions were in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and constituted breach of implied warranty.

Beasley seeks to represent a Class of consumers from California who purchased Tootsie Roll products containing partially hydrogenated oil between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2016.

The Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit seeks restitution, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Beasley and the proposed Class are represented by Gregory S. Weston and Andrew C. Hamilton of The Weston Firm.

The Tootsie Roll Trans Fat Class Action Lawsuit is Beasley v. Tootsie Roll Industries Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-07724-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.