Class Action Claims Driscoll’s Strawberries Contain PFAS Pesticide Residue

A proposed class action alleges conventional Driscoll’s strawberries contained PFAS-linked pesticide residue and misled consumers through sustainability marketing. The company denies the allegations and says its food safety programs comply with regulatory requirements.

Thursday, July 23rd, 2026 — A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that conventional strawberries sold by Driscoll’s, the world’s largest berry distributor, contained pesticide residue from eight PFAS, commonly known as "forever chemicals." The lawsuit relies on independent testing commissioned by consumer advocacy group Mamavation, which reported finding 12 pesticide residues in one sample of conventional Driscoll’s strawberries. According to the report, Driscoll’s USDA organic strawberries tested free of detectable pesticide residue. The plaintiffs, from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois, allege they would not have purchased the strawberries or paid premium prices had they known of the alleged contamination.

Driscoll’s denies the allegations, stating that food safety, product quality, and regulatory compliance remain central to its operations. The lawsuit also accuses the company of misleading consumers by promoting its products as sustainably grown while failing to disclose the alleged presence of PFAS-linked pesticides. The litigation follows a separate wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former food safety compliance manager who claims he was dismissed after raising concerns about pesticide compliance. Driscoll’s also denies those allegations.

For insurers and claims professionals, the case illustrates the growing litigation risks surrounding PFAS exposure beyond traditional environmental contamination claims. Allegations involving food products can trigger product liability, consumer protection, false advertising, directors and officers, employment practices, and environmental coverage issues. If similar lawsuits expand across the agricultural sector, insurers may see increased demand for specialized underwriting, policy language addressing PFAS-related risks, and complex claims involving multiple defendants throughout the food supply chain.

The lawsuit also arrives as federal regulators continue approving certain PFAS-based pesticides for agricultural use, drawing criticism from environmental advocacy groups. The regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS remains fluid, increasing uncertainty for manufacturers, growers, distributors, insurers, and claims professionals evaluating future liability exposures.