Newsletters

Get Well+Being delivered to your inbox every Monday Morning.

Naked Juice Admits It’s Not So Natural
The PepsiCo brand joins several others involved in lawsuits concerning deceptive health claims. By Melissa Romero
PepsiCo recently settled on a $9 million class action lawsuit involving its Naked juice brand, which made false "all natural" claims despite its use of GMO and synthetic ingredients. Photograph via Flickr user JeffBedford.
Comments () | Published July 24, 2013

It’s settled: Those “all-natural” Naked juices that line the shelves in grocery stores’ health-food sections and cost you $4 a pop aren’t actually natural.

PepsiCo recently settled a lawsuit involving its brand Naked Juice for $9 million, admitting that its products weren’t “all natural,” despite being advertised as such on each bottle. Labels also include the phrase, “Only the freshest, purest stuff in the world.” As part of the settlement, PepsiCo announced it will removed those claims from its packaging.

The Natalie Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora class-action lawsuit emerged in the fall of 2011. The plaintiff alleged that Naked Juices were hiding GMO and synthetic ingredients, including zinc oxide, ascorbic acid, and calcium pantothenate, which is produced from formaldehyde. 

It’s not the first lawsuit against a brand that advertises its all-natural ingredients. In 2011, a lawsuit was filed against Kashi for its use of synthentically produced ingredients despite its “natural” claims. It was slapped with another lawsuit in April 2013 for masking its use of sugar with the term “evaporated cane juice.” The FDA's current policy on the use of the term states that sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup should not be declared as 'evaporated cane juice' because that term falsely suggests that the sweeteners are juice.”

And Trader Joe’s is currently involved in two separate lawsuits. The first concerns deceptive labeling, which plaintiffs argue hide the actual quantity of sugar, preservatives, and food coloring; the second states that the grocery chain, along with Whole Foods, Target, and other supermarkets, has been selling candy and snacks that contain high levels of lead.

Categories:

Healthy Eating News
Subscribe to Washingtonian

Discuss this story

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. The Washingtonian reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.
  • Kelley

    It's not actual FORMALDEHYDE! Stating it's derived from it means nothing-- the molecular structure is completely different.

    The ‘calcium pantothenate’, which they describe as a ‘synthetically produced from formaldehyde’, is actually a more stable form of vitamin B5 and has no relation to formaldehyde.

    People go overboard-- this is even in infant formula. Sure they probably shouldn't label as ALL natural-- but it's an added VITAMIN, not formaldehyde!
    I would THINK if it actually contained such a deadly ingredient, millions would have been affected.

  • Mike

    I almost laughed when I read this. Ascorbic acid and calcium pantothenate? You mean the things that are commonly known as vitamin C and vitamin B5? Just because it is produced from formaldehyde doesn't mean that it is formaldehyde... It's not even close. And zinc oxide Is not toxic by any means either, it is in many foods as a source of necessary zinc. People need to get their facts right before they say something is bad for you. And don't believe everything you hear .

  • That guy

    People don't seem to understand this at all. They are being sued for deceptive labeling not because their product is hazardous to your help. Calcium Pantothenate is synthetic Vitamin B5, which is in fact synthesized from Formaldehyde, retains none of it's chemical qualities.

  • That guy

    Health*

  • sderax456 .

    march 25 2014 naked juice labels still say non-gmo have been buying them all winter:( just found out about the lawsuit. as a stricktly non-gmo eater, I feel raped, and have no legal recourse. how is this o.k.?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Posted at 02:30 PM/ET, 07/24/2013 RSS | Print | Permalink | Comments () | Washingtonian.com Blogs