Berry Giant Driscoll’s Facing Lawsuit Over “Deceptive” Sustainability Claims

California-based berry giant Driscoll’s Inc. is currently the subject of a consumer protection lawsuit filed in its home state, as advocacy groups challenge the company’s environmental and sustainability marketing claims.

The legal action, brought forward by non-profit organizations Toxin Free USA (TFUSA), the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), and Beyond Pesticides (BP), alleges that the company’s branding is misleading. Specifically, the groups are targeting marketing slogans that describe the company’s growing practices as being “in harmony with the environment,” “good for you and the planet,” and produced in a “dynamic biological environment” rather than a factory.

Allegations of Health Risks and Pesticide Use

The plaintiffs have raised grave concerns regarding the proximity of Driscoll’s production fields to schools in Watsonville, California. According to the lawsuit, the region faces childhood cancer rates that are 36% higher than the California state average. The advocacy groups claim this disparity is linked to the use of at least 12 different carcinogenic pesticides in close proximity to elementary and middle schools.

“Driscoll’s is not ‘in harmony with the communities’ where its farms operate,” said Diana Reeves, Executive Director of Toxin Free USA. “A company cannot claim to respect its neighbors while applying carcinogenic pesticides beside schools and defending the practice simply because it is legal. Legal does not mean right. Exposing children to toxic pesticides may be permitted by law, but it is profoundly wrong—and morally indefensible.”

Beyond the “Lush Farm” Imagery

The lawsuit also disputes the idyllic imagery used in the company’s advertising. While consumers may envision traditional soil-based farming, the plaintiffs argue that a significant portion of Driscoll’s operations relies heavily on industrial plastic infrastructure.

The filing alleges that these growing systems involve compacting soil, laying down plastic liners, and utilizing plastic pots and coconut husk substrates. Furthermore, the crops are often encased in plastic tunnels, with some facilities operating entirely without natural soil or sunlight. The groups contend that this intensive use of plastic leads to the presence of harmful microplastics, such as polyethylene and polycarbonate particles, within the berries.

A Call for Transparency

The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages; instead, their goal is to force an immediate end to the company’s current advertising practices.

“Driscoll’s can easily do the right thing,” said Alexis Baden-Mayer, Research Director of the Organic Consumers Association. “They’re already selling organic berries at a premium to customers who buy them with the expectation that this benefits human health and the environment.”

As the case proceeds, it highlights the growing tension between corporate branding and the realities of modern industrial agriculture. For more details on the proceedings, you can read the full report on the sustainability claims made by the company.

Driscoll’s has yet to issue a detailed public response to the specific allegations, but the lawsuit serves as a significant challenge to the company’s public-facing environmental narrative.