As consumers become increasingly vigilant about the claims made on food labels, yet another lawsuit has emerged, targeting a manufacturer for a claim that may not be technically false but could lead to misinterpretation. Nonfat milk, a powdered form derived from skim milk, is undeniably a dairy product. According to the International Dairy Foods Association, it can contain up to 1.5% milkfat by weight. The lawsuit acknowledges that while lowfat milk fits this definition, it cannot be characterized as “real” milk because “real” is defined as the product in its original or authentic state, which would be milk before the fat has been extracted. The labeling leads consumers to assume that the fat content in Snack Pack products originates from whole milk—something parents typically choose for their growing children, the lawsuit contends.
However, how significantly different is this label claim from those on other products, and does it genuinely confuse consumers? Unlike previous legal battles over questionable dairy claims, these pudding cups do not promote health benefits; they merely assert that the dairy cows contributing to the ingredients are not administered artificial growth hormones and that the pudding is free from trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and preservatives.
The labels of the other products mentioned in the lawsuit are also quite similar. For example, the Great Value pudding states it is made with skim milk and features an image of a white pitcher, while the Jell-O pudding label simply claims it is made with “milk,” without detailing the specific milk ingredient used.
Given that this initial lawsuit has been filed, there’s no assurance that Walmart and Kraft Heinz will not face similar claims in the near future. Consumer lawsuits often follow recognizable trends, and multiple lawsuits have been lodged against various food companies—including Mondelez, Post, and General Mills—for stating their products contain “real cocoa.” The products in question are made with alkalized cocoa, which enhances color, improves solubility, and reduces reactions with other baking ingredients. However, the lawsuits argue that this process diminishes the cocoa flavor in the final product. One lawsuit against General Mills contended that a consumer would not perceive the alkalized ingredient as “real cocoa” because “‘real’ is understood to mean the ingredient in its most simplified and reduced form.”
The cocoa-related lawsuits—primarily filed by the law firm Sheehan & Associates, which also initiated this case against Conagra—have mostly been voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The only case still active is the one against Mondelez, which has continued to contest the allegations and sought to have the case dismissed in February.
Regardless of the eventual merits of this case against Conagra, it remains an issue the consumer packaged goods giant must address promptly. Defending against such claims can be both costly and time-consuming, particularly if the company opts to settle with the plaintiffs.
The mere fact that a lawsuit has been filed raises questions about the validity of using nonfat milk as an ingredient in pudding cups. Even if some consumers do not find the label claim misleading, the existence of a lawsuit might cause potential buyers to reconsider purchasing pudding cups—or any other products containing lowfat milk—in the future, especially when they are aware of the importance of calcium content in their diets. The lawsuit indirectly highlights that consumers might expect a minimum calcium level, such as 315 mg in whole milk, rather than the potentially lower calcium levels found in products with lowfat milk, which can be around 200 mg.