Nestle Purina class action alleges pet food packaging contains PFAS

Nestle Purina class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiffs Fred Kueck and Jasen Silver filed a class action lawsuit against Nestle Purina Petcare Company.
• Why: Purina allegedly markets its pet food products as being healthy and safe for consumption even though the packaging contains harmful PFAS, according to the lawsuit.
• Where: The Purina PFAS lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

Nestle Purina Petcare Company labels its pet food products as being healthy even though the packaging allegedly contains harmful forever chemicals, a Purina lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs Fred Kueck and Jasen Silver say they purchased Purina Cat Chow pet food because they believed the company’s representations that Purina products were safe and healthy for their pets to consume.

At the time they purchased Purina products, the plaintiffs say they were not aware that the packaging contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS.

The Purina lawsuit explains that PFAS are synthetic chemicals that have been linked to a number of health issues, including cancer, liver damage and immunotoxicity effects.

PFAS are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down over time and can build up in the environment and bodies exposed to PFAS, the Purina lawsuit notes.

Even low levels of PFAS exposure can pose health risks, the Nestle Purina class action lawsuit says.

The Environmental Working Group reportedly commissioned independent testing of various pet food products, including Purina pet food products. The laboratory results reportedly showed that Purina packaging contained PFAS in the highest concentration of all of the products tested.

“Indeed, no other pet food bag had more than 15 ppb [parts per billion] of total PFAS, whereas Defendant’s Cat Chow Complete Chicken Product had 244.7 ppb of total PFAS, an amount that the EWG termed ‘alarming,’” the Purina lawsuit says.

The high levels of the PFAS fluorine in the product packaging shows that the packaging was intentionally manufactured with PFAS because fluorine only occurs naturally in trace amounts in the environment, the Nestle Purina class action explains.

The plaintiffs say they would not have purchased Purina Cat Chow, or would not have purchased the pet food on the same terms, had they known the packaging contained high concentrations of PFAS.

The Purina PFAS lawsuit asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, fraudulent concealment or omission, fraud and unjust enrichment.

Earlier this year, Nestle Purina recalled some of its prescription dog food products because they potentially contained elevated levels of vitamin D.

What do you think about the Purina PFAS packaging allegations? Join the discussion in the comments!

Kueck and Silver are represented by L. Timothy Fisher and Emily A. Horne of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Purina PFAS class action lawsuit is Fred Kueck, et al. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-05962, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Recall announced for dry dog, cat, catfish food due to potential salmonella contamination
• Mid America dog food recall expanded to include additional products
• Nestle Purina class action lawsuit claims ‘natural’ pet foods contain synthetic ingredients
• Victor dog food recall initiated due to potential salmonella contamination