Conagra Class Action Lawsuit: Are Your Fish Sticks 100% Fish?

Conagra Brands, the company behind popular frozen seafood brands Van de Kamp and Mrs. Paul's, is facing a class action lawsuit alleging deceptive advertising practices. 

Consumers William Martin, Cindy Pappert, and Catherine Foster are leading the charge, claiming that Conagra's "100% Whole Fish" label on a variety of their products is misleading. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday June 11 in Illinois federal court, contends that the following products, despite being marketed as "100% Whole Fish," actually contain industrial fillers and added water:

• Van de Kamp's: Crispy Battered Fillets, Crispy Haddock Fillets, Crunchy Breaded Fillets, Beer Battered Fillets, Fish Sticks
  
  
• Mrs. Paul's: Crispy Battered Fillets, Crunchy Breaded Fillets, Beer Battered Fillets, Lightly Breaded Haddock Fillets, Fish Sticks

This alleged mislabeling has led consumers to believe they are purchasing pure fish products when, in reality, they may be getting less fish than advertised.

Sodium Tripolyphosphate: A Hidden Filler in Your Fish Sticks?

Central to the allegations is the use of an industrial filler called sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) and extra water in Conagra's fish products. This compound, primarily used in detergents and other industrial applications, is a suspected neurotoxin and a known air contaminant. Its presence in food products raises concerns about potential health risks for consumers.

Fish that have been treated with STPP often ooze a milky white substance when cooked, which is not fish but a mixture of STPP and added water.

The plaintiffs argue that the only mention of STPP on the product labels is buried in fine print, making it difficult for consumers to notice.

“A reasonable consumer has no reason to check what a product is “composed” of when the product labeling is replete with representations that it is “100% Whole Fish,” healthy, and caught in the wild. Any consumer would reasonably assume without having to check parentheticals in the ingredient list that the products contain 100% Whole Fish, and not some fish and STPP and water pumped into the products in a processing plant,” the lawsuit argues.

The lawsuit also highlights the prevalence of "short weighting" in the seafood industry, where processors artificially inflate the weight of seafood products using additives like STPP. 

STPP treated fish is stored in an STPP soaking solution, which encourages cells to soak up water. This water retention makes the fish heavier when it is weighed. This not only deceives consumers but also results in them paying more for less actual fish.

According to the complaint, “Not only do consumers end up paying more money for STPP- treated seafood because of the added water weight, but the seafood decreases in size and changes in texture when the water is cooked out. Excessive STPP treatment destroys the quality of the protein during the cooking process and can create a “soapy” flavor and mushy texture.”

The plaintiffs assert that Conagra's use of STPP constitutes short weighting and violates consumer protection laws. 

Conagra's History of Legal Battles: A Pattern of Deception?

This is not the first time Conagra Brands has faced legal trouble. In recent years, the company has been involved in several lawsuits, including a class action lawsuit alleging that their Wesson Oil was falsely advertised as "100% natural" when it contained genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Conagra settled this case for $3 million.

Additionally, Conagra is also facing a separate class action lawsuit alleging that the company misled consumers about the sustainability of their fish products, claiming they were "Good for the Environment" despite sourcing pollock from Russian fisheries using large, unethical nets that harm endangered species.

In the Conagra frozen fish class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Conagra's Van de Kamp or Mrs. Paul's frozen fish products during the last four years. 

They are asking for a declaration that Conagra's conduct violates various consumer protection laws, along with actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive damages, and restitution for consumers who were misled by the company's labeling.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Pappert et al v. Conagra Brands Inc.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-04835
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Joel D. Smith and Yeremy O. Krivoshey (Smith Krivoshey PLLC)
• Carl Malmstrom (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP)