Driscoll's answered a PFAS lawsuit with a lab report that never tested for PFAS

In July 2026, US consumers filed a California class action accusing Driscoll's strawberries of carrying pesticide residues, including compounds linked to PFAS, the synthetic 'forever chemicals' associated with cancer risk. Driscoll's called the allegations baseless and said it would contest them in court.

The story reached Chinese social media as 'Driscoll's contains a carcinogen' and topped a trending-topics chart within a day. Walmart's China mini-program and Yonghui Supermarket stopped returning search results for the brand; Sam's Club and Costco marked several berry lines as restocking; Hema kept selling its stock.

Reporters posing as customers asked Driscoll's flagship store for proof. The company supplied third-party test reports for its blueberries and strawberries showing the samples met China's food-safety contaminant limits — but the reports had not tested for PFAS at all, since China has no mandatory PFAS limit for food. The certificate answered a question nobody had asked.

Driscoll's answered with a generic compliance certificate that never tested for PFAS, so it rebutted a question nobody had asked and left the actual claim unanswered.

The China response reused a generic compliance certificate instead of commissioning a PFAS-specific test, so it could not actually rebut the claim that triggered the panic.

Retailers made uncoordinated calls under the same headline — two delisted, two marked restocking, one kept selling — which read to shoppers as the company having no consistent answer.

The underlying US lawsuit was itself unresolved when the China crisis broke, leaving local staff defending a product against an allegation the parent company had not yet answered in court.

A compliance certificate that does not test for the substance under accusation is not a rebuttal. Answer the claim that was made, not the one that is easiest to certify.

Driscoll's maintained the US lawsuit's allegations were unfounded and said it would defend itself in court. In China, some retailers restored the product once restocked while the underlying US case remained unresolved.