Driscoll’s Strawberry PFAS Lawsuits, What Shoppers Need to Know in 2026

Two new lawsuits filed against Driscoll's, the California company that controls roughly a third of the world's fresh berry market, allege the grower's strawberries have been contaminated with PFAS, the "forever chemicals" linked to cancer, immune suppression and reproductive harm, while the company markets its fruit as sustainably grown, according to SFGATE. The cases, filed in California courts, accuse Driscoll's of "greenwashing" by promoting environmental responsibility while failing to disclose chemical contamination risks to consumers.

If you buy Driscoll's berries, or any packaged produce, you're probably wondering what this means for your grocery cart. Here's a plain-English breakdown.

What exactly happened?

According to SFGATE's reporting, the lawsuits allege that testing has found PFAS compounds associated with Driscoll's strawberries, and that the company's marketing materials, which emphasize sustainability and environmental stewardship, omit any mention of this contamination. The plaintiffs argue this omission amounts to consumer deception, since shoppers paying a premium for "responsibly grown" berries would reasonably expect that promise to extend to chemical safety.

Driscoll's has not been reported as confirming the specific contamination findings cited in the suits, and litigation of this kind typically takes months or years to resolve through discovery, expert testimony and potential settlement. It's also worth noting that an allegation in a lawsuit is not the same as a scientific or regulatory finding, the claims will need to be tested in court.

Who and what is affected?

Because Driscoll's is the largest berry company in the world, supplying strawberries, blueberries, raspberries and blackberries to major grocery chains across North America and beyond, the lawsuits potentially touch a huge swath of the produce aisle. PFAS in agriculture typically enters the food chain through contaminated irrigation water, pesticide formulations, or soil previously treated with PFAS-laden sewage sludge (biosolids), not necessarily through anything a grower adds intentionally. That distinction matters for understanding how fruit could become contaminated even when a company isn't using PFAS-based packaging or treatments directly.

Why does this matter for consumers?

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that resist grease, water and heat. They don't break down naturally, which is why they're nicknamed "forever chemicals," and they've been associated, in various peer-reviewed studies, with increased cholesterol, altered immune response, developmental effects and certain cancers. These are associations observed in population studies, not proof that any single product causes a specific illness in a specific person.

The bigger consumer issue highlighted by this case is transparency. Shoppers generally have no easy way to know whether PFAS are present in fresh produce, since routine grocery labeling doesn't cover it. That's part of why PFAS Authority built scoring based on publicly available ingredient lists, materials disclosures and certifications rather than relying on companies to voluntarily flag a problem. Our own scoring of 11,198 consumer products found that 41% fail our PFAS and toxin screen, a reminder that nondisclosure and hidden chemical risk are common across categories, not isolated to one brand or one berry patch. You can see how that screening works at our methodology page.

It's important to be clear about what that screening does and doesn't do, PFAS Authority scores products using published ingredients, materials, and certification data, we do not run laboratory tests ourselves. Lawsuits like the ones against Driscoll's typically rely on independent lab testing of samples, which is a different, more direct method of detection.

What should shoppers do right now?

There's no need for panic-buying substitutions, but a few practical steps can lower uncertainty.

• Wash produce thoroughly. This won't remove PFAS absorbed into plant tissue, but it reduces surface residues from soil and water.
• Diversify sourcing. Buying from multiple growers, including local farmers' markets where you can ask about water and soil sourcing, spreads out exposure risk.
• Watch for updates. If the lawsuits proceed to discovery, more specific testing data may become public. Follow coverage from outlets like SFGATE and regulatory statements from the FDA or California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.
• Check other categories in your home. PFAS exposure is cumulative, and household items, cookware, rain jackets, tents, are often bigger and more consistent sources than food. You can check specific products using our product finder.

That household angle is worth underscoring. Some product categories show near-universal PFAS presence in our scoring, camping tents and tarps, rain jackets, cycling rain jackets, sleeping bags and softshell jackets all come back 100% failing in PFAS Authority's own scoring, and brands including Cuisinart, The North Face, MAC, Calphalon, T-fal, Nike, Columbia and Estée Lauder currently disclose nothing about PFAS in their products. Produce contamination is one slice of a much larger transparency problem.

Bottom Line

The Driscoll's lawsuits allege a gap between sustainability marketing and chemical disclosure, not a confirmed, regulator-verified contamination crisis. Until the litigation plays out, shoppers can treat strawberries as a lower-concern purchase rather than a confirmed hazard, while recognizing that PFAS transparency gaps are widespread across food and consumer goods alike.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it still okay to eat Driscoll's strawberries?

Nothing in the current lawsuits has been independently verified by a regulatory agency, and the claims are allegations, not findings. Most food-safety experts would classify fresh produce, including Driscoll's berries, as a lower-concern item while litigation proceeds, rather than something to avoid outright.

How would PFAS even get into strawberries?

Possible routes include irrigation water drawn from PFAS-contaminated sources, soil previously treated with biosolids containing PFAS, or residue from certain pesticide formulations, not necessarily anything added directly by the grower, per industry and environmental research cited in similar cases.

How can I check other products for PFAS risk?

You can search specific brands and categories using PFAS Authority's product finder, which scores items based on disclosed ingredients, materials and certifications as explained in our methodology.