Berry Giant Faces a Sticky PFAS Question

The world’s largest berry company, Driscoll’s, is headed deeper into a class-action lawsuit over alleged greenwashing connected to the possible risk or use of pesticides containing PFAS, the chemicals often nicknamed “forever chemicals.” That phrase alone has become enough to make consumers, regulators, retailers, and insurers sit up straighter than a fence post.

The lawsuit reportedly claims the company failed to disclose risks tied to certain pesticide inputs while presenting a greener image to shoppers. Whether the allegations ultimately hold up is for the courts to decide. But the farming lesson is already clear: sustainability claims are no longer soft marketing fluff. They are becoming legal, financial, and supply-chain obligations.

PFAS concerns are spreading across food systems because these chemicals can persist in soil, water, packaging, and equipment. For growers, that raises tricky questions. Did an input contain a PFAS compound? Was it disclosed clearly? Is there testing data? What does the buyer require? And who carries liability if a branded product is challenged in court?

The practical implication is documentation, documentation, documentation. Keep pesticide records clean, save labels and safety data sheets, ask suppliers direct questions, and make sure any regenerative, organic-adjacent, climate-smart, or low-chemical claims can be backed with proof. A good record book may not be glamorous, but neither is a raincoat until the storm hits.

This case also shows how much pressure is landing on growers through brands and retailers. Consumers want berries that are sweet, affordable, available year-round, and grown with minimal environmental impact. That is a tall order. Farmers can meet high standards, but they need transparent input supply chains and fair compensation for the extra work. Otherwise, the field crew ends up carrying a marketing promise they did not write.