Crisco Class Action Says Cooking Sprays Mislabeled as ‘100%’ Oil

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 recent class action says two Crisco cooking sprays are falsely labeled to make consumers think they’re 100 percent oil.

Plaintiff Joshua Joseph of California says defendant The J.M. Smucker Co. has been mislabeling Crisco 100% Extra Virgin Olive Oil No-Stick Spray and Crisco 100% Canola Oil Original No-Stick Spray.

By characterizing these products as 100 percent oil, Joseph says, the defendant fails to account for the presence of other, non-oil ingredients.

According to this Crisco class action lawsuit, both of the Crisco cooking sprays at issue contain soy lecithin, dimethyl silicone, and propellant. These ingredients are disclosed in the Nutrition Facts section of the products’ labeling, and they contrast with prominent labeling on the front of the cans describing the products as “100% Canola Oil” and “100% Extra Virgin Olive Oil.”

“Plaintiff and other consumers did not, and are not expected to, look at the Nutrition Facts to ascertain what other ingredients would be in the Products, especially since Defendant’s 100% Oil representation is undoubtedly clear that the Product contains only oil,” the Crisco lawsuit states.

Joseph says soy lecithin is produced by “degumming crude soy oil extracted from soy flakes with hexane,” according to materials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hexane is a solvent that is classified as an air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he says.

Dimethyl silicone is a chemical used in lubricants and hydraulic fluids, according to the American Chemical Society.

Joseph claims that by characterizing the third additional ingredient only as “propellant,” the defendant violates federal regulations governing how ingredients must be identified.

He says the actual composition of the “propellant” in Crisco cooking spray is disclosed in the defendant’s material safety data sheet from July 2012. According to that document, “propellant” refers to either propane or isobutene, both of which are hydrocarbons classified as “hazardous ingredients” by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

By identifying these ingredients only as “propellant,” Joseph argues, the defendants fail to identify them by their “common or usual name” as required by federal regulations. No provision in those regulations allows either propane or isobutene to be identified merely as “propellant,” he says.

Joseph further argues that the additional ingredients are not necessary. At least one competitor, Winona Pure, offers a similar cooking spray that lists only canola oil as its sole ingredient.

Joseph is proposing a plaintiff Class that would represent all persons in the United States who purchased either of the Crisco cooking spray products at issue during the applicable statutory limitations period.

He also proposes two subclasses, one that would cover all Class Members who are California residents, and another composed of California residents who purchased the products for personal, family or household purposes.

He seeks an award of damages, restitution, injunctive relief, court costs and attorney’s fees, with prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded.

Joseph is represented by attorney Benjamin Heikali of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The Crisco Cooking Spray Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit is Joseph v. The J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-08735, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On March 13, 2019, a federal judge denied J.M. Smucker Co.’s attempt to dismiss the putative Crisco cooking oil spray class action lawsuit.