Late October 2024 saw the filing of a consolidated class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, targeting The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) over allegedly heightened levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the packaging of its most iconic chocolate bars and confectionery products. Dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment and human body, PFAS have in recent years become a major focus of consumer-safety advocates, environmental scientists, and increasingly, the courts. According to this newly filed lawsuit, Hershey’s beloved candies—Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Hershey’s Kisses, KitKat bars, and other confections—are sold in wrappers allegedly containing “alarming” concentrations of PFAS. Plaintiffs claim they paid a premium for what they believed were safe, high-quality sweets, unaware that their chocolate treats might be enveloped in toxic chemicals.

At the heart of the complaint is the accusation that Hershey concealed its knowledge of (or was willfully ignorant to) the presence of dangerous PFAS in the wrappers. The plaintiffs allege that the packaging is “essential and integral” to the delivery of these confections, and that exposure to PFAS can be harmful. Over the last decade, PFAS have garnered intense regulatory scrutiny due to their established links to cancer, thyroid disorders, and other serious health problems. Regulatory agencies, including the FDA, have begun restricting or banning their use in food packaging. Hershey allegedly failed to disclose any PFAS or organic fluorine on its labels, marketing materials, or disclaimers.

This story offers more than a cautionary tale about what might be lurking in candy wrappers. It reveals the staggering power large corporations wield under a system of neoliberal capitalism, where profit maximization can overshadow issues of corporate social responsibility. It is also an example of corporate corruption and corporate greed, plaintiffs argue, because these chemicals—known for their high durability and toxicity—provide no functional benefit in candy wrappers, yet are apparently present in testable amounts. Such corporate behavior deepens wealth disparity by shifting the economic, health, and social burden onto unwitting consumers and local communities.

In the following sections, we will explore the allegations against Hershey—based on the details from the complaint—while examining how they mirror broader systemic crises plaguing major brands. This article will be divided into eleven parts, each focusing on a key dimension of the PFAS controversy, from alleged “safety” marketing to the economic fallout for communities. We also draw parallels to other industries facing toxic-chemical scandals, highlighting how corporations often respond with a “deny and deflect” strategy. Ultimately, this Hershey PFAS lawsuit is not merely about a handful of chocolate wrappers. It is a window into a larger, recurring pattern under late-stage capitalism, where corporations are incentivized to cut corners, externalize risks, and maintain a veneer of “quality and safety” until forced to do otherwise.

---

1. Corporate Intent Exposed

For well over a century, The Hershey Company has built its reputation on sweet treats that evoke family tradition, holiday nostalgia, and the comforting idea of “happy childhood.” A major selling point is the brand’s storied history and consistent quality, often symbolized by its iconic wrapper designs. The new lawsuit, however, alleges that behind Hershey’s carefully cultivated image lies a more troubling reality.

Allegations of Concealment

The complaint states that Hershey “omits that the Confectionery Products’ wrappers contain dangerous levels of PFAS and/or organic fluorine, and pose a substantial health risk to unsuspecting consumers.” Although PFAS have become a hot topic in regulatory circles, especially around food packaging, the plaintiffs claim Hershey never disclosed the presence of these chemicals in wrappers for Hershey’s Kisses, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Almond Joy, Mounds, or KitKat. The complaint references laboratory tests with recorded measurements (ranging from around 10 mg/kg to over 80 mg/kg of total fluorine), painting a picture of unexpected chemical exposure.

Marketing of ‘Safety’ and Premium Quality

Hershey’s branding strategy heavily emphasizes premium packaging and a consistent, high-quality product. The plaintiffs argue this approach shaped a consumer perception that Hershey’s confections are safe and well-tested. The irony, they note, is that the packaging is now allegedly proven to contain “forever chemicals.” The presence of PFAS in wrappers would undercut the very premise of Hershey’s marketing, say the plaintiffs, because the brand “spends extra effort to optimize the value impression of its packaging.”

A Pattern of Omission

In recent years, major corporations have come under fire for failing to disclose environmental or health risks linked to their products. The Hershey PFAS lawsuit fits into this broader narrative. The complaint suggests that Hershey was “undoubtably aware of the seriousness of PFAS” but continued to tout the safety of its candy. That stands in direct opposition to typical consumer expectations—if there is even a minimal chance that something so dangerous might be lurking in the wrappers, many consumers would either pay less or avoid the product altogether.

In short, the allegations in the complaint depict a corporate intent that prioritizes outward marketing claims over thorough chemical safety. Whether Hershey explicitly concealed PFAS data or merely failed in due diligence remains to be established in court. Yet from the complaint’s perspective, Hershey’s corporate posture is starkly at odds with its brand identity: a historically family-friendly corporation that supposedly goes “beyond regulatory safety and quality standards” for its consumers.

---

2. The Corporations Get Away With It

The second question naturally follows: if PFAS are so harmful, how did a massive company like Hershey avoid blowback for so long? The complaint offers several answers.

Regulatory Lag and Loopholes

Though the FDA has begun prohibiting PFAS in food packaging, the agency’s enforcement can be slow and reactive. The complaint states that “the FDA … does not allow the intended use of PFAS in food packaging.” But agencies often rely on companies to self-report problems—particularly in the short term—and Hershey, the lawsuit claims, did not report or disclose any PFAS presence. That leaves a window where the product continues to be sold without meaningful regulatory barriers.

Knowledge Held by the Corporation

As the complaint notes, the average person buying a chocolate bar has no reason to suspect a “forever chemical” in the wrapper—especially in a brand as mainstream as Hershey’s. Because detection requires specific lab testing for PFAS or fluorine, everyday consumers remain in the dark. Plaintiffs argue that “facts pertinent to same were within Hershey’s possession and control,” and that Hershey took steps to obfuscate or downplay any potential risk.

‘Safe’ Image Perpetuated

The brand has historically banked on a squeaky-clean reputation, deriving trust from decades of consumer loyalty. A brand’s power can overshadow smaller voices raising alarms. Even as PFAS concerns grew internationally, Hershey reportedly carried on as though it had little to worry about. Meanwhile, competitor brands under scrutiny in other industries—like fast-food wrappers or certain water-repellent clothing lines—did not always translate into suspicion about Hershey’s foil or paper packaging.

Economic Viability Over Transparency

From the vantage of neoliberal capitalism, companies often weigh the cost of potential litigation or reputational damage against the immediate profit. If a brand can keep a “clean” public face while selling billions of dollars’ worth of chocolate, the risk might appear worth it—particularly if detection is unlikely. For the time being, the corporations get away with it because it can be more profitable to market the product as squeaky clean and defend lawsuits after the fact than to preemptively address the underlying issue.

The question is whether the Hershey PFAS lawsuit will force a public reckoning—and whether regulators will crack down more aggressively on the usage or unintentional presence of PFAS in food-related packaging. If the allegations prove accurate, the default approach that “we don’t ask, so we don’t have to tell” may no longer be sufficient in the face of intensifying consumer activism.

---

3. The Cost of Doing Business

The complaint underscores that PFAS is “unnecessary for the products or their packaging,” suggesting Hershey could have done without them. So why use PFAS-laden wrappers or materials that inadvertently include PFAS? One possibility is cost. Certain fluorinated packaging may be cheaper or come from suppliers who do not separate PFAS from their manufacturing processes. The lawsuit posits that by continuing to use these materials, Hershey exposes consumers to invisible dangers without any tangible consumer benefit.

Financial Gains, Societal Losses

When large corporations leverage cheaper or more readily available packaging, they can keep overheads low and revenues high. But the externalities—in this case, the potential health hazards from PFAS—are offloaded onto consumers. This dynamic is a hallmark of corporate greed: shifting the burden to everyday people in the pursuit of greater margins and share prices. Even if the cost saved is small per wrapper, scaling it across millions of chocolate bars significantly boosts Hershey’s bottom line. The complaint calls this a prime example of “profit over safety.”

Legal and Reputational Exposure

Yet, ironically, the quest for profit could lead to significant legal entanglements. The plaintiffs seek class-action status, representing thousands (or millions) of Hershey consumers. If they succeed in proving that the presence of PFAS in Hershey’s candy wrappers violates consumer-protection laws, Hershey might be on the hook for substantial damages, restitution, or product recalls. In that scenario, the relatively minor cost-savings from PFAS-laden wrappers might pale next to the legal penalties and tarnished brand image.

Impact on Confectionery Workers

Another underexplored angle is the effect on workers throughout the supply chain. If the wrappers themselves contain PFAS, are Hershey’s factory workers or packaging-plant employees regularly handling these chemicals in higher concentrations? The complaint focuses on consumer-level exposure, but PFAS is also an occupational hazard. If Hershey has not addressed the root cause, employees might face even more intense contact with PFAS than the final consumer. This raises concerns about public health within manufacturing communities.

Consumer Reliance on Tradition

Part of Hershey’s enduring success is that consumers see it as “comfort food.” The brand’s name recognition and generational loyalty keep demand high. Many are willing to pay a stable or slightly premium price for these confections. These consumers have been unknowingly footing the bill for wrappers with “no functional benefit” to them. Indeed, PFAS in a chocolate wrapper is not as direct as an additive in the food itself, but the contact can be enough to migrate trace amounts or raise potential health concerns.

The net result is a scenario in which Hershey reaps the immediate financial benefit, while the public shoulders the intangible but real risk of PFAS contamination.

---

4. Systemic Failures

The Hershey class action exemplifies a systemic failure to protect consumers. It highlights how existing laws—despite the federal ban on certain PFAS uses—can take a long time to implement or enforce. Even though the FDA “does not allow the intended use of PFAS in food packaging,” as the complaint states, the presence of “unintended” PFAS can slip through the cracks if not thoroughly monitored.

Regulatory Limitations

The U.S. consumer-protection framework relies heavily on companies self-policing or responding to consumer complaints. Without frequent inspections or random product testing, questionable packaging or contamination often remains hidden. Moreover, enforcement usually ramps up only after lawsuits or exposés trigger public outrage.

Corporate Evasiveness

Brands like Hershey are no strangers to crisis management. If the allegations hold weight, Hershey may have staved off accountability by practicing “willful ignorance” about PFAS in its wrappers. The complaint even mentions “fraudulent concealment,” implying Hershey intentionally withheld or distorted data. Plaintiffs argue they couldn’t have discovered the PFAS presence on their own, since the brand neither disclosed nor tested for it in a transparent manner.

Consumer Trust as a Shield

Hershey’s long-standing good reputation within communities can hamper immediate scrutiny. It’s much easier for regulators or watch groups to suspect an unknown or maligned brand. Hershey, however, invests heavily in PR, touting philanthropic endeavors and community ties. This fosters a sense of trust among consumers and state officials, further delaying any formal oversight or challenge.

A Precedent of Food-Industry Pollution

We have seen parallels in other industries—most famously, the controversies around Teflon coatings or fast-food hamburger wrappers that historically contained PFAS. These incidents often share a pattern: early denials or disclaimers by corporations, half measures to reform packaging, and only belatedly acknowledging the chemical’s presence. By that time, countless consumers have already been exposed.

In short, the Hershey PFAS claims highlight a breakdown across multiple levels: corporate self-monitoring, regulatory vigilance, and public awareness. That system-wide breakdown ensures that these dangerous chemicals can linger undetected for years.

---

5. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

These controversies aren’t one-off mistakes but rather the predictable result of an economic system geared toward profit maximization. The plaintiffs in this suit state that Hershey’s wrappers contained PFAS even though the chemical is “unnecessary”—in other words, if the company had undertaken the cost, it could easily have used safer alternatives. This scenario seems reminiscent of the old question: “If it’s cheaper to pollute and pay fines than to clean up from the start, why bother altering your processes?”

PFAS’ Perpetual Dangers

By nature, PFAS pose a near-permanent threat. Many PFAS chemicals take centuries or longer to degrade. Their extreme durability is what earned them the nickname “forever chemicals.” So even if Hershey and other confectioners do away with PFAS-laden wrappers tomorrow, the PFAS already released into the environment—and into consumers’ bodies—remains. That irreversibility underscores the potential severity of corporate decisions around toxic chemicals: once the harm is done, there is no easy going back.

Core Incentive Structures

Under late-stage capitalism, the corporation’s primary legal duty is to maximize shareholder returns. The legal complaint posits that Hershey’s corporate leaders knew or should have known about the PFAS infiltration but still let it slide, presumably to avoid the cost of retooling wrappers or verifying PFAS-free packaging across a massive global supply chain. In that logic, paying for a recall or settlement later might be considered less expensive than making proactive changes.

Wealth Disparity and Consumer Harm

The biggest losers in this dynamic are everyday consumers—many living paycheck to paycheck—who unsuspectingly buy Hershey’s bars for family movie nights or as holiday gifts. For them, the hidden chemical risk can result in intangible fear, potential long-term health consequences, and, in the event the class action succeeds, only partial reimbursement at best. Meanwhile, Hershey and its executives may keep any near-term gains they realized by continuing to use that packaging. This cycle of corporate behavior is part of a broader “predatory feature” of the system—where the powerless bear the largest burden.

---

6. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Should the lawsuit gain more traction, Hershey will likely respond publicly—either by refuting the scientific findings, disclaiming responsibility, or promising incremental reforms. Typically, large brands, when confronted with allegations of health risk, deploy a well-worn PR strategy:

1. Denial or Minimization
   Initial statements often dismiss claims as “unsupported by science” or “inaccurate.” In the PFAS context, Hershey could attempt to argue that any PFAS detected is extremely low and does not pose a risk.
2. Blame-Shifting
   Some companies try to place blame on suppliers or packaging vendors. They might claim that PFAS-laden materials were introduced without their knowledge, an argument the plaintiffs have already countered by accusing Hershey of “willful ignorance.”
3. Deflecting with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
   Hershey invests significantly in philanthropic branding—like community-building in cocoa-farming regions or supporting children’s programs. This brand goodwill can overshadow new controversies in the public eye. “Remember all the good we do,” the public is reminded, diverting attention from the PFAS claims.
4. Promise of Internal Audits
   Expect official statements about “re-evaluating supply chains,” “ensuring best-in-class safety,” or “launching an internal investigation.” This might placate some worried consumers, though the lawsuit suggests such steps should have been standard practice all along.
5. Quiet Settlements
   If the allegations withstand legal scrutiny, the brand may choose to settle out of court. Settlements sometimes require “no admission of wrongdoing,” thus letting Hershey maintain a face-saving posture.

The PR approach typically seeks to reassure consumers quickly to stanch reputational damage. But the class action complaint claims that Hershey’s marketing is inherently at odds with the alleged PFAS presence, so the brand might find it difficult to push a narrative of complete innocence without potentially undermining its own credibility.

---

7. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At its core, the Hershey PFAS lawsuit is a vivid display of corporate power clashing with the public interest. Hershey’s marketing machine, distribution networks, and billions of dollars in revenue dwarf the average consumer’s capacity to evaluate the safety of the packaging. People trust brand assurances—or at least have grown complacent about them. The lawsuit effectively claims Hershey took advantage of that trust.

Short-Term Profits vs. Long-Term Harm

From a purely economic standpoint, packaging that contains PFAS might be slightly cheaper, easier to produce, or more readily available. Over decades, these seemingly negligible cost savings can accumulate into millions of dollars. The public, however, shoulders the indefinite risk of potential PFAS toxicity, which can manifest in health or ecological crises many years down the line. For communities, the presence of “forever chemicals” in landfills or water systems can become a catastrophic burden.

Regulatory Capture and Insufficient Oversight

The complaint implicitly points to the problem of regulatory capture: powerful corporations can influence or outmaneuver regulators, ensuring that effective checks on food packaging are delayed or watered down. If it takes a full-blown lawsuit to reveal PFAS levels in candy wrappers, that suggests the system’s protective measures are not operating proactively.

Social Justice Dimensions

In an economy driven by brand loyalty, many consumers—especially those with limited financial means—buy mainstream or bulk sweets, trusting the brand to deliver on basic safety. They lack the resources or time to test wrappers themselves or to scrutinize supply chains. The reliance on corporate good faith leaves them vulnerable to unknown health risks. This dynamic heightens wealth disparity: the well-off might pivot to more expensive artisan or “organic” chocolates that promise PFAS-free packaging, while everyone else is left with mainstream, possibly contaminated, products.

---

8. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

When we think of a class action over chemicals in candy wrappers, the immediate focus is on consumer harm. But the plaintiffs also highlight the intangible “physical impact” of PFAS exposure, albeit without claiming direct personal injury. PFAS’s toxicity, documented in numerous scientific studies, raises serious questions:

1. Long-Term Health Concerns
   PFAS are linked to various cancers, thyroid disorders, immune disruptions, and fertility issues. Even if the levels in a single candy wrapper are minimal, repeated exposure over years could, in theory, magnify risk. The complaint states that “PFAS persist and accumulate over time” and are “harmful even at very low levels.”
2. Worker Health
   Factory workers who handle enormous volumes of packaging might face heightened contact with PFAS-laden wrappers. This is rarely part of the official lawsuit, but the broader picture of how such chemicals travel through supply chains is worth noting. If Hershey fails to ensure PFAS-free wrappers, employees could be dealing with daily exposure without protective measures.
3. Local Communities
   Hershey is headquartered in Hershey, Pennsylvania—a town named after the candy empire. The brand identity is deeply woven into the local economy, from tourism (Hersheypark) to jobs at the manufacturing plant. A scandal over chemical-laced packaging can sow fear among local populations that might rely on Hershey’s economic output. If Hershey faces large liabilities or shifts to cheaper labor markets to offset costs, local job security could be at stake.
4. Environmental Effects
   PFAS in wrappers can end up in landfills or incinerators, potentially leaching chemicals into soil, groundwater, or the atmosphere. The lawsuit doesn’t explicitly mention environmental damage, but from a consumer-safety vantage, contamination of water supplies is a broader risk. PFAS, once in the environment, remains for generations.

Thus, whether measured in intangible anxiety or potential future medical bills, the alleged presence of PFAS in Hershey’s products extends well beyond a simple “mislabeling” scenario. It threads into the heart of how chemicals and commerce intersect with local communities’ well-being, reinforcing the idea that true corporate accountability must consider the broad human toll.

---

9. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

The Hershey PFAS complaint emerges amid a worldwide awakening to the dangers of hidden chemicals. Over the last few years, PFAS lawsuits and regulatory bans have multiplied across Europe, Asia, and North America. Major developments include:

• EU Regulations
  The European Union is moving toward stricter controls of PFAS, including “group restrictions” that ban entire classes of PFAS chemicals. Food packaging featuring any PFAS is increasingly restricted.
• U.S. State-Level Bans
  Several states—like Maine, Vermont, and Washington—have enacted legislation to phase out PFAS in food packaging. Additional states are drafting similar legislation. If Hershey’s wrappers contain PFAS, these new rules could complicate the brand’s ability to sell in those regions.
• Litigation Surges
  Beyond Hershey, other high-profile PFAS lawsuits target manufacturers of firefighting foam, cookware, cosmetics, and fast-food wrappers. Plaintiffs in these cases claim injury from environmental contamination, personal exposure, or undisclosed chemical use.
• Investor Pressure
  As PFAS controversies grow, some investors have begun demanding better corporate transparency, especially under ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) guidelines. If Hershey faces a backlash, it may need to reassure stakeholders about supply-chain safety.

The Hershey litigation underscores that consumers—and entire communities—are increasingly refusing to accept at face value “we have the best interests of customers in mind” disclaimers. Instead, they demand data-driven proof and accountability, a shift that can push global brands to alter their production methods. Hershey’s case might become a poster child for how big food corporations adapt or falter under these new expectations.

---

10. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, the Hershey PFAS controversy highlights a need for more robust consumer protections. Here are some potential solutions:

1. Mandatory PFAS Testing and Disclosure
   Regulators could require that major food producers regularly test for PFAS in both the food and packaging, publishing results for consumers. Public testing data would incentivize companies to switch to safer, PFAS-free materials.
2. Clear Labeling on Packaging
   Much like allergen warnings, disclaimers about known chemical content—especially when it’s banned or heavily restricted in other regions—should be part of standard labeling. If PFAS are detected, the brand must either fix the supply chain or inform buyers.
3. Stricter Bans and Enforcement
   If the FDA or state governments expand their ban to cover not just the “intended use” of PFAS in wrappers but also “unintended presence,” corporations might face immediate recall obligations. This would push Hershey and others to meticulously vet supplier processes.
4. Consumer Education Initiatives
   Nonprofits, advocacy groups, and forward-thinking companies can all help educate the public about PFAS. When consumers know what these chemicals are and why they matter, they can vote with their wallets, choosing brands that guarantee PFAS-free packaging.
5. Environmental Remediation Programs
   Although the lawsuit focuses on consumer damages, PFAS ultimately threaten ecosystems. Government or class-action settlements could direct funds toward community water testing, waste management, or PFAS extraction techniques. That offers at least partial remediation for long-term contamination.
6. Corporate Governance Reforms
   Investors or board members might advocate for more rigorous oversight of packaging supply chains, integrating compliance officers or third-party audits. If big brands fail to take PFAS seriously, they risk not just lawsuits but potential consumer boycotts.

Looking Ahead

Reform, however, requires both legal impetus and public demand. If the Hershey PFAS litigation garners enough media traction, it could serve as a wake-up call for the entire confectionery industry. Hershey could then step into a leadership role, rebranding itself around a safer, fully PFAS-free supply chain—turning the lawsuit from reputational liability into a launchpad for genuine consumer trust. Alternatively, if Hershey decides to fight doggedly, the case might drag on, with uncertain outcomes for both the brand and the consuming public.

---

For more lawsuits about PFAS found in everyday items, please click on these links below: