Smucker's Class Action Lawsuit: "Natural" Fruit Spreads Contain Citric Acid

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit claims Smucker's misled consumers with its "natural" labeling for fruit spreads, which allegedly contain synthetic citric acid.

Consumers Affected: Consumers who purchased Smucker's Natural Fruit Spreads.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

A new lawsuit questions whether JM Smucker’s line of Natural Fruit Spreads is as natural as advertised.

Adina Ringler has taken legal steps against The JM Smucker Company, alleging that its fruit spreads are falsely marketed as “natural” despite containing artificial ingredients. The lawsuit claims the company misrepresents its products, leading consumers to believe they are purchasing spreads made entirely from natural sources when they actually contain citric acid, a synthetic additive.

Fruit Spreads Advertised as Natural

The lawsuit targets multiple varieties of Smucker’s Natural Fruit Spreads, including flavors such as strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, and apricot. Each jar and squeezable package prominently displays words like “natural” and “made with ingredients from natural sources,” alongside images of fresh fruit.

According to the complaint, these labels create an impression that the products contain only naturally derived ingredients. Consumers seeking a natural option may rely on these claims when deciding to purchase the spreads over alternatives.

Citric Acid Raises Concerns

Ringler argues that Smucker’s labeling is deceptive because the spreads contain citric acid, a substance that is not sourced from fruit but is instead commercially produced using chemical processing.

While citric acid does occur naturally in fruits like lemons and limes, the version used in mass-produced food products is typically manufactured through fermentation using Aspergillus niger, a type of black mold. The lawsuit cites studies showing that synthetic citric acid has been linked to adverse reactions, including joint discomfort and digestive issues.

Consumers Say They Would Have Chosen Differently

Ringler, who purchased a jar of Smucker’s Natural Triple Berry Fruit Spread from a Smart & Final store in Northridge, California, says she would not have bought the product—or would have paid less—had she known it contained an artificial ingredient.

The lawsuit asserts that Smucker’s branding leads consumers to pay a premium price for what they believe to be a fully natural product. Many shoppers, the lawsuit states, actively avoid synthetic additives and select products based on the belief that they are free from such ingredients.

FDA Classifies Citric Acid as a Preservative

The lawsuit points to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which lists citric acid as a preservative under its guidelines. Under federal regulations, a preservative is defined as a chemical added to food to prevent spoilage. The FDA’s classification raises concerns about whether Smucker’s claims of being free from artificial ingredients align with regulatory definitions.

In addition to the “natural” branding, Smucker’s labels also highlight what the products do not contain, boasting that they are “Non-GMO,” free from high-fructose corn syrup, and made without artificial flavors or colors. Ringler argues that this marketing strategy reinforces the perception that the spreads are completely free from synthetic additives.

Other Companies Face Similar Lawsuits Over "Natural" Claims

Smucker’s is not the only brand facing legal action over product labeling. In January, Kraft Heinz was accused of misleading consumers with its Capri Sun juice pouches, which claim to contain “All Natural Ingredients” despite including synthetic citric acid.

Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid Fruit Punch has also been called into question for its “No Preservatives Added” label, even though it contains citric acid. Other brands, including Dole and energy drink company Oca, have been sued over similar concerns regarding artificial ingredients in products marketed as natural.

The J.M. Smucker class action lawsuit, Ringler seeks monetary compensation for consumers who purchased the fruit spreads under what it calls misleading advertising. Additionally, she wants Smucker’s to revise its labeling to reflect the true nature of its ingredients. The case also requests a court order preventing the company from marketing its spreads as natural unless changes are made to the formula.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Ringler v. The J.M. Smucker Company
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-01138
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Lilach H. Klein, Michael T. Houchin, and Zachary M. Crosner (Crosner Legal, P.C.)

Do you buy Smucker's Natural Fruit Spreads? What are your thoughts on this lawsuit? Share your opinion in the comments below.