Class Action Over “Pure” Honey? Inside the Honey Lawsuit Allegations

Key Points:

• Research suggests that several class action lawsuits have targeted honey brands for misleading “pure” or “100% pure” labels, often alleging adulteration with cheaper sweeteners like corn syrup or contaminants like glyphosate. These claims highlight potential deception in a market where consumers pay premiums for authenticity.
• Evidence leans toward mixed outcomes: some cases, like those involving glyphosate in Sue Bee honey, resulted in class certification but later dismissals due to insufficient proof of consumer harm. Others, alleging syrup adulteration, have led to settlements without admissions of guilt.
• It seems likely that “pure” honey disputes involve controversy over what constitutes purity, with labs detecting foreign sugars or chemicals, but courts often require concrete evidence of misleading reasonable consumers. Beekeepers and buyers on all sides emphasize the need for better testing and transparency to protect industry integrity.
• The evidence points to impacts on both consumers (overpaying for inferior products) and honest producers (unfair competition), though absolute certainty is elusive given ongoing debates over natural variations in honey composition.

Overview of Common Allegations: Class actions often claim that honey labeled as “pure” contains additives or has been processed in ways that undermine its authenticity. For instance, lawsuits have pointed to lab tests revealing corn syrup or rice syrup in products marketed as 100% honey, potentially violating consumer protection statutes like state unfair trade practices laws. These cases typically seek refunds, injunctions against misleading labels, and sometimes punitive damages. See Top Class Actions for details on similar filings.

Why Consumers Care: Shoppers seek “pure” honey for its perceived health benefits, like antioxidants and enzymes, but allegations suggest some products may be diluted, reducing value. This can affect anyone buying grocery-store honey, especially at premium prices. For guidance, check FDA resources on honey standards at fda.gov.

Implications for the Industry: These lawsuits underscore the complexity of honey supply chains, where imported products may be adulterated to cut costs. While some dismissals reflect challenges in proving deception, settlements indicate brands’ willingness to resolve claims to avoid prolonged litigation.

In recent years, class action lawsuits have spotlighted allegations that some honey products labeled as “pure” or “100% pure” may not live up to those claims, potentially misleading consumers and harming honest producers. This article explores the honey lawsuit landscape, drawing on court records, regulatory frameworks, and industry analyses to provide a comprehensive overview. From historical precedents like the “Honeygate” scandal to recent dismissals in federal courts, these cases reveal ongoing tensions in the $2 billion U.S. honey market. We examine the legal principles at play, key developments, and broader implications, while maintaining a neutral stance grounded in verifiable facts. This piece is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Background & Legal Context

Honey labeling has long been regulated under federal statutes like the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA defines honey as a “thick, sweet, syrupy substance that bees produce from floral nectar,” but it lacks a binding standard of identity for “pure” honey, relying instead on guidance that prohibits adulteration—adding substances like sugars or syrups—or misbranding, where labels imply purity but the product contains impurities. State consumer protection laws, often modeled on the Federal Trade Commission Act, supplement this by prohibiting deceptive trade practices.

Historically, honey fraud gained notoriety in the early 2010s with “Honeygate,” a federal investigation uncovering illegal imports of adulterated Chinese honey. In 2013, U.S. honey producers like Adee Honey Farms filed a class action against Groeb Farms and Honey Solutions, alleging they imported and sold Chinese honey tainted with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other additives, mislabeled as pure. The suit claimed violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act through transshipping—routing honey via third countries to evade tariffs and detection. Groeb Farms filed for bankruptcy amid the scandal, highlighting how adulteration undercuts domestic producers by flooding the market with cheaper, fake products.

Another foundational case was Brod v. Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (2012), where plaintiff Gregory Brod alleged that Sue Bee honey, with pollen removed through ultra-filtration, could not be called “honey” under FDA guidance, as pollen helps trace origin and authenticity. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the suit in 2013, ruling that federal law preempted state claims, as the FD&C Act occupies the field for food labeling. This precedent has influenced later cases, emphasizing that private litigants must navigate federal preemption when challenging labels.

These early disputes set the stage for modern honey lawsuits, driven by advanced lab testing like nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, which detects foreign sugars more reliably than older methods. In 2023, the European Commission reported 46% of sampled honeys were suspected of adulteration with syrups, while FDA sampling from 2022-2023 found 3% of imported U.S. honey adulterated. Such findings fuel class actions under laws like California’s Unfair Competition Law or Illinois’ Consumer Fraud Act.

Key Legal Issues Explained

At the heart of honey lawsuits are claims of mislabeling and adulteration. “Pure” honey typically means free from additives, but natural variations—like trace mannose sugars—complicate proofs. Adulteration occurs directly (adding syrups post-harvest) or indirectly (overfeeding bees syrup during production). Common additives include C4 sugars (from corn or cane) or C3 sugars (from rice or beets), which mimic honey’s profile but dilute its nutritional value, such as enzymes and antioxidants.

In plain English, if a label says “100% pure,” consumers expect only bee-made honey, not a syrup blend. Lawsuits invoke the “reasonable consumer” standard: Would an average buyer be deceived? Plaintiffs must plead fraud with particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), detailing the “who, what, when, where, and how” of deception. Defenses often cite natural contaminants or argue claims are speculative.

For example, in cases involving glyphosate (a herbicide), purity is questioned if residues exceed trace levels, though courts have ruled that minimal amounts don’t necessarily mislead if not harmful. Precedent from POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014) allows private enforcement of FD&C Act via the Lanham Act for competitors, but consumer suits rely on state laws.

This table illustrates the pattern: Many cases hinge on lab evidence but face hurdles in proving deception.

Latest Developments or Case Status

Recent honey lawsuits continue to challenge “pure” claims. In 2023, aggregated class actions alleged brands like Sue Bee, Nature Nate’s, and GloryBee sold honey adulterated with corn or rice syrup, based on lab tests showing foreign sugars. Sue Bee and GloryBee settled without admitting guilt, offering refunds up to $15 and $10 respectively for purchases from 2020-2023. Nature Nate’s remains ongoing. Claims can be filed online without receipts, emphasizing “reasonable belief” of purchase.

In Wertymer v. Walmart (2023), the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal in July 2025, finding allegations of high hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and mannose as heat/processing indicators too speculative, as sources acknowledged natural factors. Similarly, Greer v. Strange Honey Farm (2023) was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit in 2024 for lacking Rule 9(b) specificity on fraud details.

Henry’s Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading (2021) saw a federal judge in February 2024 question the complaint’s vagueness on “fake” honey claims involving immature harvesting and syrup addition. The case remains active, potentially setting precedent for producer-vs-producer suits under the Lanham Act.

As of 2026, no major new filings appear, but FDA reports low adulteration rates (3%) contrast with EU findings (46%), suggesting continued scrutiny.

Who Is Affected & Potential Impact

Consumers who buy “pure” honey at premiums (often 20-50% higher than processed alternatives) may overpay for diluted products, losing nutritional benefits. Honest beekeepers face unfair competition, with U.S. production declining amid cheap imports. Businesses like retailers (e.g., Walmart) risk reputational damage and legal costs.

Possible outcomes include settlements providing small refunds ($5-15 per claimant) or injunctions requiring label changes. In extreme cases, like Honeygate, companies faced bankruptcy. Broader consequences: Eroded trust in food labels, pushing regulators toward stricter testing standards.

What This Means Going Forward

These lawsuits signal growing legal significance for food authenticity, potentially leading to FDA adopting a formal honey standard. Industry impacts include enhanced supply chain audits and certifications like True Source Honey, which verifies origins. Readers should monitor FDA updates and support local beekeepers to ensure purity. If involved in a class, watch for notices via sites like Top Class Actions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a honey lawsuit typically about?

Honey lawsuits often allege mislabeling, where products claimed as “pure” contain additives like syrups or contaminants, violating consumer laws.

How can I tell if my honey is pure?

Look for crystallization (pure honey solidifies), check labels for certifications, and buy local. Lab tests can detect adulterants, but consult experts.

Am I eligible for a refund in a honey class action?

If you bought affected brands (e.g., Sue Bee) from 2020-2023, you may claim up to $15 without receipts via settlement sites.

Why do courts dismiss these cases?

Dismissals occur due to speculative allegations, federal preemption, or failure to meet pleading standards like Rule 9(b).

What role does the FDA play?

The FDA enforces against adulteration but relies on guidance, not strict rules, leaving room for private lawsuits.

Can producers sue each other over honey claims?

Yes, under the Lanham Act for false advertising harming competitors.

Conclusion

Honey lawsuits underscore the challenges of ensuring food purity in a global market, balancing consumer rights with industry realities. While some claims have led to settlements and reforms, others highlight evidentiary hurdles. Staying informed through reliable sources like court dockets and FDA reports is key. This public interest issue affects everyday shoppers and the agricultural economy—encouraging transparency benefits all.

You May Also Like: Life360 Class Action Lawsuit: What You Need to Know