Barilla Class Action Says Pasta Sauces Aren’t Preservative-Free

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A class action lawsuit claims that Barilla pasta sauces are misleadingly labeled as having “no preservatives” when they contain citric acid, a known preservative.

Lead plaintiff Lynn Bolden alleges that Barilla America Inc. dupes consumers who wish to avoid additives in their food by labeling certain Barilla pasta sauces as being preservative-free.

According to the Barilla class action lawsuit, the following pasta sauces are misleadingly labeled as having “no preservatives”: Barilla Traditional, Barilla Chunky Traditional, Barilla Marinara, Barilla Meat Sauce, Barilla Mushroom, Barilla Roasted Garlic, Barilla Spicy Marinara, Barilla Sweet Peppers, Barilla Tomato and Basil, Barilla Tuscan Herb, and other flavors.

Bolden says that consumers rely on Barilla’s labeling when they decide to make their purchase. The plaintiff claims to have purchased a variety of Barilla pasta sauces from major retailers on multiple occasions.

“Plaintiff has been damaged by his purchase of the Pasta Sauce, because Plaintiff did not receive what he reasonably intended to receive when purchasing the Pasta Sauce and/or because the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it,” the Barilla class action lawsuit states.

Bolden alleges that he would not have purchased or paid as much for the product had he known the sauce contained citric acid.

“By deceptively marketing and labeling the Product as containing ‘No Preservatives,’ Defendant wrongfully capitalized on, and reaped profits from, consumers’ strong preference for food products made free of preservatives,” contends the Barilla pasta sauce class action lawsuit.

The Barilla sauce class action lawsuit points out that the Food and Drug Administration considers citric acid a known preservative. It is used to “prevent food spoilage, delay rancidity and slow changes in color, flavor and texture,” according to FDA guidelines.

“When added to foods, naturally occurring citric acid or manufactured citric acid…acts as a preservative,” notes the Barilla class action lawsuit. “Specifically, it prevents botulism in canned and jarred foods by reducing the PH levels that bacteria need to survive, thereby dramatically increasing the shelf life of such products.”

According to the Barilla pasta sauce class action lawsuit, citric acid can cause heart burn and aggravate acid reflux in some consumers.

Barilla touts itself as a health conscious company “that values transparency and honesty in the marketplace,” notes the Barilla class action lawsuit citing the company’s “Principles On Responsible Food Marketing.”

“However, the Defendant’s advertising and labeling practices, as they pertain to this Product, fail to comport with the company’s stated principles,” contends the Barilla sauce class action lawsuit.

Instead of being transparent about the additives in their products, alleges the plaintiff, Barilla attempts to gain a share of an increasingly health aware consumers who are looking for organic, healthy products. As such, the food industry is bustling with “free-from” labeling.

Most consumers do not have the time or expertise to extensively investigate all of the ingredients in their food, asserts the Barilla pasta sauce class action lawsuit. Barilla has capitalized on consumers’ lack of knowledge by falsely labeling its pasta sauces as containing “no preservatives.”

The Barilla sauce class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased the pasta sauces, as well as a California subclass.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Mila F. Bartos, and Ebonie Branch of Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

The Barilla Pasta Sauce “No Preservatives” Class Action Lawsuit is Bolden v. Barilla America Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00472, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.