Nonprofit Cries Foul on Whole Foods’ ‘No Antibiotics, Ever’ Claim for Beef Products
Safari et al. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Filed: August 23, 2022 ◆§ 8:22-cv-01562
A proposed class action alleges Whole Foods’ promise that its beef products contain “no antibiotics, ever” is false.
California Business and Professions Code California Unfair Competition Law California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
California
A proposed class action alleges Whole Foods’ promise that its beef products contain “no antibiotics, ever” is false considering more than 40 items were found to contain antibiotic and other pharmaceutical residue.
The plaintiffs, who include Farm Forward, a nonprofit that seeks to end factory farming, argue in the 43-page case that the presence of this residue in the Whole Foods beef products is proof that the cattle from which the items were sourced were treated with antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals while being raised.
Be sure to scroll down to see which Whole Foods beef products are mentioned in the lawsuit.
According to the suit, consumers have overpaid for a slew of Whole Foods beef items that were falsely and misleadingly advertised—and marked up in connection with the claim that they were antibiotic-free.
“For instance, Whole Foods charges $31.99 per pound for beef tenderloin steak filet mignon. A traditional retailer charges only $24.99 per pound for the same cut of beef. Thus, Whole Foods marks up the price of this Beef Product by 28% in connection with its antibiotic-free representations.”
The filing relays that the use of antibiotics in animal farming contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can be harmful to humans. This bacteria can pass to humans through ingestion, and many resulting infections cannot be effectively treated with existing antibiotics because the bacteria are already resistant, the suit says.
The case also claims that the use of antibiotics is an indicator of animal mistreatment, as animals with poor genetic health and who are raised in crowded, confined conditions are often given drugs in “subtherapeutic doses” to promote growth and keep them alive.
In the light of the foregoing, consumers have come to increasingly prefer, and shown a willingness to pay more for, beef sourced from cattle that was raised without antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, the complaint relays.
The lawsuit alleges that although Whole Foods has promoted its beef as containing “no antibiotics, ever” for roughly two decades, “[t]he reality is starkly different.” Per the case, both the grocer and Global Animal Partnership (GAP), a group formed in 2007 by Whole Foods’ CEO to set standards for farmed animals, have failed to take effective measures to ensure the beef comes from cattle raised without antibiotics.
In 2021 and 2022, Farm Forward tested samples of meat products purchased at six different Whole Foods locations nationwide and found residue from monesin sodium, an antibiotic, and fenbendazole, an antiparasitic, the lawsuit says. Per the complaint, Farm Forward’s findings were consistent with the results of Food In-Depth tests performed on other “antibiotic-free” cattle touted as Global Animal Partnership (GAP) certified, which revealed that at least one out of every five cows had been treated with antibiotics.
According to the lawsuit, the Whole Foods beef products falsely advertised as containing “no antibiotics, ever” include, but are not limited to:
- Beef Ribeye Steak;
- Boneless Beef New York Strip Steak;
- Beef Tenderloin Steak (Filet Mignon);
- Ground Beef 90% Lean / 10% Fat;
- Boneless Beef Chuck Roast;
- Ground Beef 80% Lean / 20% Fat;
- Beef Top Sirloin Steak;
- Lean Beef Chuck Stew Meat;
- Bone-In Beef Short Ribs;
- Boneless Ribeye Steak;
- Organic Ground Beef 85% Lean / 15% Fat;
- Beef Flank Steak;
- Organic Boneless Beef Ribeye Steak;
- Beef Sirloin Flap Steak;
- Beef Tri Tip Roast;
- Bone In Flanken Style Beef Short Ribs;
- Beef Porterhouse Steak;
- Packaged Sliced Lunchmeat, Bologna – Beef Uncured;
- Plain Roast Beef;
- Bone-In Beef Ribeye Steak;
- Organic Beef Bones;
- Boneless Beef Chuck Steak;
- Eel River Organic Ground Beef 85% Lean/15% Fat;
- Country Natural Beef Ground Beef;
- Eel River Organic Beef Organic Grass-fed Ground Beef 93/7;
- Country Natural Beef Ground Beef 80% Lean/ 20% Fat;
- Honest Dogs with Pasture-Raised Beef;
- Herb Crusted Roast Beef;
- Rao’s Meatballs & Sauce;
- Eel River Organic Beef Ribeye Steak Bnls Retail Grs Organic S4;
- 365 by Whole Foods Market Packaged Sliced Lunchmeat, Bologna – Beef Uncured;
- Beef Oxtail;
- 365 by Whole Foods Market Sliced Roast Beef;
- Diestel Turkey Ranch Beef Pastrami;
- Diestel Turkey Ranch Seasoned Uncured Beef Pastrami;
- Wellshire Farms Beef Bologna;
- Diestel Turkey Ranch Roast Beef;
- Wild Planet Organic No Salt Added Shredded Beef Pouch;
- Organic Meat Co. Organic Burgers;
- Country Natural Beef Ground Beef 90% Lean / 10% Fat;
- Applegate Organics the Great Organic Uncured Beef Hot Dog; and
- Panorama Organic Grass-Fed & Finished Ground Beef.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Farm Forward claims to have informed Whole Foods that its study found antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue in the grocer’s beef products, yet when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey was notified of the plaintiff’s and Food In-Depth’s investigations, he did not respond and instead unsubscribed from Farm Forward’s email list, despite being a board member of the nonprofit for more than a decade.
The suit says that Whole Foods knew it was not properly monitoring its beef suppliers to keep an eye out for antibiotic use well before the Food In-Depth study was published in April 2022.
“Whole Foods officers have now been informed that its Beef Products tested positive for pharmaceutical residue. Moreover, as early as 2017, Whole Foods had ready access to testing that could verify whether its Beef Products suppliers administered antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals. Despite its actual and constructive knowledge that cattle used in its Beef Products were raised with antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, Whole Foods has continued its ‘antibiotic-free’ promotional messaging.”
Farm Forward goes on to allege that Whole Foods’ “misleading advertising” caused the nonprofit to direct considerable money and resources “in support of the very forms of farming that Farm Forward seeks to end,” and later toward addressing and rectifying the grocer’s alleged misinformation. In the decade during which Farm Forward served on GAP’s board, the group provided guidance to the public on meat marketing claims, and consequently promoted Whole Foods’ meat as “better” choices, the filing says.
More recently, Farm Forward has taken to understanding the impact of Whole Foods’ allegedly deceptive “no-antibiotics” advertising and marketing on the public and invested time and money into a new campaign “designed to expose Whole Foods’ (and other companies’) false advertising of meat,” the complaint shares.
The lawsuit relays that Farm Forward, over time, began to suspect that Whole Foods was selling meat from producers who used antibiotics on their animals and acted on this suspicion by proposing to GAP and Whole Foods leadership that the latter’s meat should be tested to verify the no-antibiotics marketing claims. This never occurred, the case says, and Farm Forward resigned from GAP’s board of directors in 2020.
“But the GAP-Whole Foods representative dismissed the proposal, noting that the concept had been raised before but that ‘risk management’ had not been well thought out and all the risk would be assumed by the retailer (i.e., Whole Foods). Farm Forward understood from this response that Whole Foods was neither receptive to nor interested in investigating verification options. No one in the GAP-Whole Foods leadership suggested to Farm Forward an alternative means of testing or otherwise verifying Whole Foods’ claims.”
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who bought any of the beef products listed on this page from Whole Foods between 2017 and the present.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?
Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.