GT's Kombucha hit with false advertising lawsuit over 'powerful antioxidants' claim

By Elaine Watson contact

- Last updated on GMT

GT's Kombucha products are described as containing "a unique blend of proprietary probiotics and powerful antioxidants"
GT's Kombucha products are described as containing "a unique blend of proprietary probiotics and powerful antioxidants"

Related tags: Antioxidant, Nutrition

There are strict rules governing nutrient content claims about antioxidants. However, a new lawsuit challenging claims that GT’s Kombucha drinks contain “powerful antioxidants” suggests there is still room for debate over what you can - and can’t - say about them on pack.

The lawsuit*, filed in California, raises many of the same questions as a recently dismissed case vs Twinings North America​ (which describes its teas as a ‘natural source of antioxidants’​), specifically: Does simply stating that your products contain​ antioxidants amount to a nutrient content claim, even if you don’t state or imply they are a good or excellent source of antioxidants?

And does the word 'powerful' make any difference?

Is ‘powerful antioxidants’ an implied nutrient content claim?

When it comes to antioxidant nutrient content claims, the rules are clear, argue the plaintiffs in their March 11 court filing against GT's brand owner Millennium Products Inc. You can only make them on products containing a meaningful amount of nutrients with recognized antioxidant properties such as vitamin C and E for which a reference daily intake (RDI) has been established.

For example, to be a 'good source of antioxidants’ a product must contain at least 10% of the RDI for the antioxidant in question.

And while each bottle of GT’s Kombucha contains 100mg of EGCG (Epigallocatechin gallate, a polyphenol in tea with recognized antioxidant properties), there is no established RDI for EGCG, so you can’t make nutrient content claims about it, argue the plaintiffs.

In fact, they allege, GT’s brand owner Millennium Products Inc “has plastered misleading antioxidant messaging on every side of its GT’s Kombucha and Synergy beverage labels​”, although they “do not have even a single nutrient that the FDA recognizes and approves of for labeling statements using the term ‘antioxidant’.”

While GT does not explicitly state that its beverages are a good source of antioxidants, its phrase, “With a unique blend of proprietary probiotics and powerful antioxidants” ​implies that they contain a meaningful amount, and therefore strays into the territory of nutrient content claims (which come with strict conditions of use​), allege the plaintiffs.

“Tea antioxidants, like EGCG, are not antioxidant nutrients… Specifically, by law, Millennium must disclose… precisely which nutrients have antioxidant properties. Further, each of these nutrients must have established RDI standards set by the FDA... GT’s Kombucha Beverages claim to contain a ‘unique blend’ of ‘powerful antioxidants’ but do not contain even a single antioxidant nutrient with an established RDI.”

FDA: An antioxidant claim is a nutrient content claim only if the level​ of antioxidants is described

But has GT really strayed into the territory of nutrient content claims?

In a 2008 FDA guidance document, for example, when asked if an antioxidant claim is automatically a nutrient content claim, the agency says yes, but only if the level​ of antioxidants is described:  “A claim that describes the level​ of antioxidant nutrients present in a food is a nutrient content claim and may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food when the conditions of use in the regulation are met.”

Arkansas US district judge Timothy L Brooksalso made this distinction when he recently dismissed a case​ against Twinings North America on the grounds that ‘a natural source of antioxidants​’ was NOT an implied nutrient content claim because it did not state or imply the level​ of antioxidants.

However, in a warning letter​ sent to CAW Industries, Inc in 2012, the FDA noted that the term 'powerful' changed things. It added: "The claim 'very powerful antioxidant' as used in your labeling is an unauthorized nutrient content claim. The term “very powerful” characterizes the level of antioxidant nutrients in your product, and therefore, this claim is a nutrient content claim."​ 

Twinings-cup
US district judge Timothy L Brooks recently dismissed a false advertising case against Twinings North America over its ‘a natural source of antioxidants’ claims

Attorney: Manufacturers need be careful before making any antioxidant claims

So what do legal experts think? Are the rules on antioxidant claims crystal clear or is there room for debate?  

David Biderman, a partner in Perkins Coie’s Consumer Class Action Defense practice, told FoodNavigator-USA:

This lawsuit is now the second which tells us that manufacturers need be careful before making any antioxidant claims.  The allegations are far more specific and detailed than in Twinings case and rely not only on a suggestion that the level of antioxidants is misleading but on a claimed violation of FDA labeling regulations.  

“Here the antioxidant content was apparently listed on the Nutrition Facts panel, which gives the plaintiff a hook for alleging violations of FDA regulations. This is an additional caution light for manufacturers to exercise care in making antioxidant claims.”

Millennium Products: The food and beverage industry is under attack

Millennium Products Inc told FoodNavigator-USA that it would vigorously defend itself against the "meritless​" lawsuit, adding: "More than ever the food and beverage industry is under attack by litigious individuals trying to use the system for their meritless claims.

"This case is no exception which is evident by the series of identical claims directed at other very respected companies. We will address the allegations accordingly and remain committed to making high quality products that our consumers expect and deserve."

*The case is Jonathan Retta, Kirsten Schofield, and Jessica Manire et al vs Millennium Products, Inc 2:15-cv-01801 filed on March 11 in the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq., Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., and New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Law § 349.

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Analysis: Localizing Your Supply Chain

Analysis: Localizing Your Supply Chain

Oracle NetSuite | 14-Jan-2021 | Technical / White Paper

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the lack of visibility many organizations had into their offshore suppliers and manufacturers, leading to a call for greater...

Fortifying Dairy with Probiotic Benefits

Fortifying Dairy with Probiotic Benefits

GanedenBC30 | 03-Dec-2020 | Technical / White Paper

Consumers’ search for added health benefits in everyday products opens up opportunities for manufacturers to add probiotic benefits to the dairy and alternative...

Top Global Trends Driving Growth

Top Global Trends Driving Growth

ADM | 17-Nov-2020 | Insight Guide

You’re looking for insights-driven innovation, and you’ve come to the right place. Discover ADM’s proprietary Global Trends, highlighting the top trends...

Related suppliers

Follow us

Products

View more

Webinars