They Sold Orange Soda Containing Toxic Oils | The GIANT Company

Imagine sipping your favorite citrus soda, unaware that each gulp contains a chemical banned for its toxic effects. For years, consumers trusted The GIANT Company’s products, only to learn that their orange soda included BVO—a substance linked to severe health risks. Now, The GIANT Company is being sued for this.

Below is an overview and discussion of the class action complaint recently filed against The GIANT Company, LLC, alleging that its store-brand orange soda contains Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO) in violation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and consumer expectations of safety. Note that I am not a lawyer, and this summary is provided for informational purposes only; it is not legal advice.

1. Factual Background

• Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO):
  • BVO is an additive used to keep citrus flavorings in suspension (so the flavor oil does not separate).
  • Historically, BVO was on the FDA’s Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) list in the 1950s–60s, but was later restricted and, eventually, removed from the GRAS list in 1970.
  • BVO is banned for use in food products in places like the European Union, Japan, California, Missouri, Washington, New York, and Illinois due to concerns about adverse health effects.
• Recent Regulatory Developments:
  • In July 2024, the FDA officially revoked the federal food additive regulation that had once authorized BVO’s use in certain beverages. The agency cited collaborative studies with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that found high exposure levels of BVO may negatively affect the central nervous system and the thyroid gland.
• Health Concerns:
  • High levels of bromine—an element in BVO—can accumulate in body tissues and have been linked to thyroid damage (potentially causing hypothyroidism, depression, and weight gain), as well as neurological symptoms such as persistent headaches, numbness, weakness, double vision, memory loss, and coordination problems.
• Allegations Against GIANT Orange Soda:
  • The complaint points out that, while many major soda brands (including PepsiCo and Coca-Cola) removed BVO from all products by 2014, the GIANT brand orange soda allegedly still contains it.
  • The plaintiffs claim they (and similarly situated consumers) would not have purchased or consumed GIANT orange soda if they had known it contained a toxic additive.

2. Causes of Action

The complaint lays out several legal claims, all centered on the theory that GIANT’s inclusion of BVO makes the soda unsafe for its intended use (repeated consumption) and that consumers were either never warned or were misled about the risks. Highlights of the claims:

1. Unjust Enrichment
   • Plaintiffs allege GIANT knew of BVO’s dangers but still profited from selling the soda without disclosing its health risks, thus being unjustly enriched at consumers’ expense.
2. Negligence and Negligent Failure to Warn
   • GIANT, as the manufacturer and seller, allegedly owed a duty of care to consumers to ensure the soda was safe and to warn them of known harms.
   • The complaint claims GIANT breached this duty by failing to remove BVO or properly warn consumers.
3. Fraudulent Concealment
   • The plaintiffs argue GIANT knowingly omitted facts about BVO’s toxicity in order to increase or maintain sales.
4. Breach of Implied and Express Warranties
   • By default, a product sold for regular consumption is expected to be fit for that purpose. The plaintiffs say BVO-laden soda is “unfit” for its ordinary use because of known health hazards.
   • GIANT’s advertising and labeling allegedly created express warranties that the product would be safe and free from harmful substances—warranties the plaintiffs say were breached.
5. Strict Products Liability
   • GIANT is accused of placing a “defectively designed” or “inherently unsafe” product into the marketplace.
   • Since BVO has been banned elsewhere (and big soda makers have removed it), GIANT purportedly should have foreseen it posed unacceptable risks.

3. Remedies Sought

The plaintiffs (people doing the suing) are requesting:

• Certifying the Action as a Class Action so all similarly affected consumers are represented.
• Compensatory and Punitive Damages: Refunds for purchase costs, plus punitive damages for GIANT’s alleged conduct and failure to disclose.
• Medical Monitoring: Because the alleged toxicity of BVO may lead to latent conditions (thyroid or neurological problems), plaintiffs seek coverage of ongoing medical testing costs.
• Injunctive Relief: An order to prevent GIANT from continuing to sell the BVO-containing soda or, at minimum, to force corrective labeling and disclaimers.

4. Potential Impacts on Local Communities, Workers, and Beyond

From a broader perspective, cases like this can carry wide-ranging implications:

1. Public Health & Consumer Advocacy
   • Consumer Health Risks: If BVO is as dangerous as the lawsuit alleges, individuals in communities who regularly drink this soda may face elevated risk of thyroid dysfunction and neurological issues.
   • Corporate Responsibility: A central question is whether grocery chains and manufacturers have adequately safeguarded public health or quietly adhered to outdated regulatory loopholes.
2. Economic Fallout and Corporate Accountability
   • Health Costs: Widespread consumption of BVO-containing beverages could translate to increased healthcare expenses for affected individuals and communities, perpetuating health inequality.
   • Product Reformulation: In an era of heightened scrutiny over additives, GIANT could be forced to reformulate or remove BVO, especially if consumer backlash grows or if new regulations strengthen. That change typically involves R&D costs, supply chain adjustments, and possible changes to distribution channels.
   • Corporate Image and Consumer Trust: Negative publicity from such lawsuits can damage brand reputation. If GIANT is deemed to have prioritized profit over safety (an argument often linked to “corporate greed”), communities might lose trust in the chain’s private-label offerings across the board.
3. Social Justice and Worker Well-Being
   • Store Employees’ Awareness: Workers at GIANT or similar chains may be unaware of the product’s alleged dangers and face concerns about promoting or stocking an unsafe product.
   • Local Community Purchasing Options: In many places, regional chains like GIANT are main grocery providers. Low-income consumers, in particular, can be disproportionately affected if a widely available and cheaper brand is discovered to be harmful. This dynamic ties into wealth disparity issues, because the most affordable products are sometimes also the ones with questionable ingredients.
4. Corporate Ethics, Corruption, and Pollution
   • Ethical Supply Chain Practices: Cases like this highlight whether companies are proactively self-regulating or waiting for state or federal agencies to ban harmful additives outright.
   • Global Bans, U.S. Deregulation, and Neoliberal Capitalism: BVO has long been barred in the EU and Japan. U.S. corporate lobbying or “pro-business” regulatory stances can lead to laxer safety standards, where corporations stay with cheaper or more “convenient” formulations, despite known health hazards.
   • Future Precedents: This lawsuit’s outcome could encourage more enforcement against questionable additives. If the plaintiffs succeed, other grocery store chains could face pressure to pull or reformulate any products still containing BVO.