A woman is suing Cold Stone Creamery over claims that their pistachio ice cream does not contain actual pistachios. The woman visited a location in Long Island and discovered that the ice cream was made with pistachio flavoring instead of real pistachios. She alleges that had she known this, she would not have purchased the ice cream or would have paid less for it. The parent company, Kahala Brands, is now facing legal action as a result of these claims.
The federal judge overseeing the case has allowed the class-action suit to move forward. The judge noted that the question of the reasonable expectations of consumers ordering pistachio ice cream is more complex than it may seem. He referenced historical evidence of humans snacking on pistachios since the Bronze Age and the creation of ice cream by Europeans in the 1600s. The judge is looking into whether consumers ordering pistachio ice cream should expect it to contain actual pistachios or if they should be able to expect a certain level of authenticity in the product.
A survey conducted by the plaintiff found that over 85% of US consumers believe that ice cream labeled as “pistachio” would contain pistachios. While other flavors like mango, coconut, mint, orange, butter pecan ice cream, and orange sorbet were also mentioned in the lawsuit, the focus will remain on pistachio due to the evidence brought forward by the plaintiff. The judge is considering the implications of mislabeling products and the impact it has on consumer expectations and experiences.
Cases of products being pulled due to mislabeling have been reported recently. PepsiCo recalled Schweppes Zero Sugar Ginger Ale after discovering it contained sugar, and over 2,000 cases of Mug Root Beer were recalled after it was found they contained Mug Zero Sugar root beer instead. This trend highlights the importance of accurate labeling on products to ensure consumers are receiving what they expect and are paying for.
Overall, the lawsuit against Cold Stone Creamery over their pistachio ice cream lacking actual pistachios brings up important questions about consumer expectations, product labeling, and the authenticity of food products. The judge’s ruling to allow the case to move forward suggests that this issue is worth investigating further. This case serves as a reminder of the impact that misleading labeling can have on consumer trust and the need for transparency in the food industry.
