Danone faced a lawsuit over claims that Evian water’s ‘natural’ label misleads consumers.
- A US judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing regulatory definitions.
- The regulation focuses on the water’s harvest source, not its content.
- Microplastics in bottled water are an emerging concern, but not deemed harmful.
- Research showed microplastics in multiple brands, including Evian.
Recently, Danone was taken to court over allegations of misleading consumers by labeling its Evian spring water as ‘natural,’ despite containing microplastic particles. The lawsuit, which aimed to form a class action, was based on the argument that the presence of microplastics contradicted the ‘natural’ labeling. However, US District Judge Thomas Durkin dismissed the case, affirming that existing regulations permit the labeling based on the water’s source, rather than its content.
Judge Durkin clarified that according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, spring water’s definition partially depends on the water being harvested from a natural spring. This legal interpretation supports the use of terms like ‘natural’ and ‘spring water’ as long as the water is sourced accordingly. Despite growing consumer concerns over microplastics in bottled products, these regulations do not take microplastic content into account.
The debate around microplastics in consumer products, especially bottled water, is intensifying. Research conducted by the Unity of New York has identified microplastic particles in brands including Evian, San Pellegrino, and Highland Spring. These particles are often attributed to plastic packaging, which can shed microplastics over time. While this issue gathers attention, regulatory bodies such as the UK’s Food Standards Agency have stated that the present levels of microplastics are not considered harmful.
Danone has refrained from commenting on the matter following the court’s decision. The dismissal of this lawsuit highlights a significant gap between current consumer expectations of product purity and the legal definitions that govern labeling practices. As environmental and health concerns evolve, the dialogue around microplastics and accurate labeling is likely to continue.
The court’s decision underscores the complexities in aligning legal definitions with consumer expectations regarding product labeling.
