Class Action Alleges Irwin Naturals Products Deceptively Advertised, Contain Synthetic Ingredients

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A number of Irwin Naturals supplements are misleadingly marketed in that they contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients, a proposed class action claims. 

The 51-page complaint alleges that although the following laundry list of products has been positioned to health-conscious consumers as “natural,” the supplements, in truth, contain a host of synthetic ingredients, including, but not limited to, glycerin, dextrin, maltodextrin, tocopherol, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, riboflavin, niacin and dicalcium phosphate: 

• Irwin Naturals Power to Sleep PM Wake Up Refreshed; 
• Irwin Naturals Global Wellness Immuno-Shield with Mega D3; 
• Irwin Naturals Keto-Karma Burn Fat Red with Nitric Oxide Booster; 
• Irwin Naturals Green Tea Fat Metabolizer; 
• Irwin Naturals Immuno-Shield All Season Wellness; 
• Irwin Naturals Only One Liquid-Gel Multi With Iron; 
• Irwin Naturals Sunny Mood with 5-HTP; 
• Irwin Naturals Only One Liquid-Gel Multi Without Iron; 
• Irwin Naturals Stress-Defy; 
• Irwin Naturals Body Fat Diet System-Six Red with Nitric Oxide Booster; 
• Irwin Naturals 3-in-1 Joint Formula; 
• Irwin Naturals Milk Thistle Liver Detox; 
• Irwin Naturals System-Six; 
• Irwin Naturals Ginkgo Smart Maximum Focus & Memory; 
• Irwin Naturals Mega B-Complex with “Quick Energy” MCT’s; 
• Irwin Naturals Longer, Stronger Hair and Nails; 
• Irwin Naturals Vita-C Plus Urgent Rescue; 
• Irwin Naturals Living Green Liquid-Gel Multi; 
• Irwin Naturals Global Wellness Immuno-Shield with Elderberry; 
• Irwin Naturals Whole-Body Turmeric+ Curcumin C3 Complex; 
• Irwin Naturals Maximum Strength 3-in-1 Carb Blocker; 
• Irwin Naturals High Potency Mega D3 & K2 + Turmeric Extract; and
• Irwin Naturals Stored-Fat Belly Burner.  

According to the lawsuit, other synthetic ingredients found in the above Irwin Naturals products include microcrystalline cellulose, a chemically modified form of naturally occurring cellulose; zinc oxide, which is used for commercial purposes and produced by chemical synthesis or by vaporizing metallic zinc at high heat; and carboxymethyl cellulose, which is synthesized by the alkali-catalyzed reaction of cellulose with chloroacetic acid. 

Per the case, the question of whether Irwin Naturals’ product labeling is deceptive is judged “by whether it would deceive or mislead a reasonable person.” The suit relays that the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued in 2013 a Draft Guidance Decision Tree for Classification of Materials as Synthetic or Nonsynthetic (Natural) as a tool to help ascertain what a reasonable consumer believes the term “natural” means (emphasis added): 

“In accordance with this decision tree, a substance is natural—as opposed to synthetic—if: (a) it is manufactured, produced, or extracted from a natural source (i.e. naturally occurring mineral or biological matter); (b) it has not undergone a chemical change (i.e. a process whereby a substance is transformed into one or more other distinct substances) so that it is chemically or structurally different than how it naturally occurs in the source material; or (c) the chemical change was created by a naturally occurring biological process such as composting, fermentation, or enzymatic digestion or by heating or burning biological matter.” 

Moreover, discovering that the ingredients in a product are not natural requires “a scientific investigation and knowledge of chemistry beyond that of the average consumer,” the suit adds. In the case of Irwin Naturals, consumers would not know the true nature of the supplements’ ingredients by merely reading product labels, according to the complaint. 

The lawsuit alleges Irwin Naturals has run afoul of New York’s General Business Law by placing upon an article of merchandise or bottle, package or label a false description or other indication of the true nature of the product, and offering for sale a product whose label does not accurately describe the contents therein. 

“In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions described herein, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for Products labeled as being ‘Natural’ over comparable products not so labeled,” the filing alleges. 

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who purchased any of the above-listed products in New York. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.