By Prime Law Hub 
The kerry gold butter lawsuit, formally known as Winans v. Ornua Foods North America Inc., centered on claims that the popular “Pure Irish Butter” product contained harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals,” due to contamination from its foil packaging. Filed in 2023, this class action suit highlighted growing concerns over food safety, misleading labeling, and environmental contaminants in consumer products. Although the case was dismissed in 2024, it underscored broader regulatory shifts and potential risks for consumers, prompting recalls and industry scrutiny. This matter affects everyday shoppers who prioritize natural or premium foods, as well as businesses navigating evolving chemical regulations. As a seasoned legal analyst with experience covering consumer protection cases, I’ll break down the facts, legal principles, and implications based on court records and regulatory frameworks.
Background & Legal Context
Kerrygold butter, produced by Ornua Foods North America Inc., a subsidiary of the Irish dairy cooperative Ornua, has long been marketed as a premium product derived from grass-fed cows in Ireland. The brand emphasizes its “pure” and natural qualities, with packaging prominently featuring phrases like “Pure Irish Butter.” This marketing taps into consumer demand for clean-label foods free from artificial additives.
The lawsuit emerged amid heightened awareness of PFAS, synthetic chemicals used in various industrial applications since the 1940s for their resistance to grease, water, and heat. PFAS have been incorporated into food packaging, such as wrappers for butter, fast-food containers, and microwave popcorn bags, to prevent oil seepage. However, these compounds do not break down easily in the environment or human body, earning the “forever chemicals” moniker.
Legally, the case drew on consumer protection statutes, particularly New York’s General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising. These laws require companies to ensure their marketing claims align with product realities, protecting consumers from misleading representations that could influence purchasing decisions. Precedent from similar cases, such as those involving environmental contaminants in food, often hinges on whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the labeling.
Prior to this suit, Kerrygold faced other legal challenges. For instance, a 2018 class action in California alleged misleading claims about the butter being from “grass-fed cows,” when cows were reportedly fed grains like soy and corn. That case was dismissed in 2019, as the court found the labeling did not imply “100% grass-fed,” allowing for some supplemental feed. Additionally, older disputes included a 2017 lawsuit against Wisconsin’s butter grading laws that temporarily banned Kerrygold sales in the state, resolved in favor of allowing imports. These earlier cases set a context of scrutiny over Kerrygold’s marketing and compliance.
The PFAS issue gained traction with state-level bans on these chemicals in food packaging. New York’s law, effective December 31, 2022, prohibits intentionally added PFAS in food contact materials, while California’s ban started January 1, 2023. These regulations reflect a patchwork of state actions amid slower federal progress, influencing the lawsuit’s timing.
Key Legal Issues Explained
At its core, the kerry gold butter lawsuit alleged that Ornua’s “Pure Irish Butter” labeling was deceptive because the product’s foil packaging contained PFAS, which could migrate into the butter itself. In plain English, migration refers to the process where chemicals from packaging materials leach into food over time, especially in fatty products like butter that can absorb substances more readily.
The plaintiff claimed violations of consumer protection laws, including:
- Deceptive Acts and Practices: Under New York GBL § 349, the suit argued that marketing the butter as “pure” misled consumers into believing it was free from synthetic contaminants.
- False Advertising: GBL § 350 prohibited claims that could deceive a reasonable consumer about the product’s safety and composition.
- Breach of Express Warranty: The labeling created an explicit promise of purity that was allegedly breached by PFAS presence.
- Negligent Misrepresentation and Unjust Enrichment: These common-law claims asserted that Ornua profited unfairly by not disclosing potential risks and that it failed to exercise due care in manufacturing.
Evidence requirements in such cases typically involve scientific testing to prove contamination levels. Here, independent tests reportedly detected PFAS in the packaging, with levels like 61 ppm organic fluorine in Kerrygold wrappers. Health risks associated with PFAS include thyroid disorders, immunotoxicity, reproductive issues, and increased cancer risk, as noted by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, proving actual migration and harm is challenging, often relying on expert testimony.
Federal oversight comes from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates food contact substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The FDA has authorized certain PFAS uses but, in February 2024, announced a voluntary phase-out of grease-proofing PFAS in food packaging due to safety concerns. This federal action, while not retroactive, supports state bans and underscores the lawsuit’s relevance.
Latest Developments or Case Status
The lawsuit, Winans v. Ornua Foods North America Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01198, was filed on February 14, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In April 2024, Judge Frederic Block partially denied Ornua’s motion to dismiss, allowing most claims to proceed, including deceptive marketing and unjust enrichment. This ruling affirmed that the “pure” labeling could plausibly mislead consumers about PFAS absence.
However, the case concluded on August 14, 2024, when parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be refiled. No public settlement details were disclosed, and both sides agreed to bear their own costs. Court documents do not specify a settlement agreement, but such dismissals often indicate a private resolution.
In response to state bans, Ornua recalled Kerrygold butter from shelves in New York and California in early 2023, later reformulating packaging to comply. As of January 2026, no new filings or appeals related to this case have surfaced, though broader PFAS litigation continues. Recent social media discussions, including posts on X (formerly Twitter), highlight ongoing consumer concerns about the brand’s safety.
Who Is Affected & Potential Impact
Consumers who purchased Kerrygold butter between 2020 and 2023, particularly in states like New York, may have been directly impacted if seeking class action benefits, though the dismissal limits recourse. Health-conscious buyers, including those following keto or natural diets, faced potential exposure to PFAS, which bioaccumulate and pose long-term risks.
Businesses in the food industry, from manufacturers to retailers, feel the ripple effects. Recalls disrupt supply chains, as seen with Kerrygold’s temporary removal from stores. Companies must now audit packaging for compliance, potentially increasing costs passed to consumers.
On a broader scale, this case amplifies pressure on the dairy and packaged goods sectors. Table 1 below outlines key impacts:
| Stakeholder | Potential Impact |
|---|---|
| Consumers | Possible health risks from PFAS exposure; eroded trust in “pure” labels; higher prices for compliant products |
| Manufacturers | Reformulation costs; legal fees; reputational damage |
| Regulators | Increased enforcement of bans; push for federal uniformity |
| Retailers | Inventory losses from recalls; need for supplier vetting |
The lawsuit also intersects with environmental justice, as PFAS pollution affects water sources and communities near manufacturing sites.
What This Means Going Forward
The dismissal of the kerry gold butter lawsuit does not end the conversation on PFAS in food. As an expert in regulatory compliance, I note that state regulations are expanding: By 2026, additional bans in states like Colorado, Connecticut, and Minnesota will prohibit PFAS in more consumer products, including food packaging. Federally, the EPA’s designation of certain PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA could lead to cleanup liabilities.
For the industry, this signals a shift toward PFAS-free alternatives, such as bio-based coatings. Consumers should monitor labels and opt for certified organic or PFAS-tested products. Legal precedents from this case may influence future suits, emphasizing the need for transparent supply chains.
Readers should watch for FDA updates on monitoring methods and potential class actions in other sectors, like fast food or beverages. While no predictions can be made with certainty, expert analysis suggests rising litigation as testing technologies improve.
Conclusion
The kerry gold butter lawsuit, while resolved, illuminates critical issues in food labeling and chemical safety. It reminds us of the balance between marketing allure and regulatory compliance, with real-world effects on public health and trust. As states and federal agencies tighten PFAS controls, staying informed through reliable sources like the FDA and EPA is essential. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for personal concerns.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the main allegations in the kerry gold butter lawsuit?
The plaintiff alleged that Kerrygold’s “Pure Irish Butter” was misleadingly labeled because its packaging contained PFAS, potentially contaminating the product and violating consumer protection laws.
Was there evidence of PFAS in Kerrygold butter?
Tests showed PFAS in the foil packaging, with risks of migration into the butter. However, the case was dismissed before full trial evidence was presented.
What happened to the lawsuit?
It was dismissed with prejudice in August 2024, likely due to a private settlement, though no details were public.
Are PFAS still used in food packaging?
Many uses have been phased out voluntarily, but regulations vary by state. Federal sales of certain PFAS for grease-proofing ended in 2024.
How can consumers avoid PFAS in food?
Choose products with PFAS-free certifications, avoid greasy packaged foods, and support brands transparent about testing.
Does this affect other butter brands?
Similar lawsuits have targeted other products, but each case depends on specific labeling and testing.
You May Also Like: Lucas Lagoons Lawsuit: 5 Essential Lessons for High-End Pool Owners