Another Cocoa Puffs Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over High Levels of Lead in Popular Cereal Products

General Mills faces another class action lawsuit over the risk of lead poisoning from Cocoa Puffs products, indicating that the company knew its chocolate flavored cereals and bars contained dangerously high levels of lead, yet continued marketing the products for children, who may face serious health risks.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Dante Melendez and Destiny Morrison in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 30, seeking class action status to pursue damages for consumers nationwide who purchased Cocoa Puffs cereal, Cocoa Puffs Treat Cereal Bars, Cocoa Puffs Soft Bake Oat Bars, Cocoa Puffs Brownie Crunch Cereal and Cocoa Puffs Minis Cereals, with sub-classes for individuals living in Kentucky and South Carolina, where the two plaintiffs reside.

“Unfortunately, the [Cocoa Puffs cereal and bars] are unfit for their intended consumption because they contain high levels of lead,” Melendez and Morrison state in the lawsuit, which points out that even small amounts of lead can be harmful to a child’s developing brain.

Lead Poisoning Risks for Children

Lead is a toxic heavy metal, which can contaminate food from the environment where ingredients are grown or processed. However, it is known that lead ingestion can result in a number of long-term health problems, especially among young children, who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of lead poisoning.

Although short term exposure to lead can result in minor symptoms, such as headaches, abdominal pain, and vomiting, long term lead exposure often results in more severe symptoms like muscular weakness, lethargy, tremors, and confusion.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), no levels of lead are safe for children, because their brains are still developing and signs of lead exposure may not be immediately apparent.

Repeated ingestion of lead by children can result in permanent brain damage, nervous system injuries, cognitive impairment and other long-term disabilities associated with lead poisoning.

As a result of the serious health risks the toxic metal poses, the FDA closely monitors and regulates levels of lead in food, requiring manufacturers to take steps to significantly minimize the presence through agricultural or manufacturing processes when possible.

“Other manufacturers formulate, produce and sell non-poisonous chocolate cereal and bars, which is evidence that this poisoning risk inherent with [Cocoa Puffs’] Products is demonstrably avoidable,” Melendez and Morrison allege in their complaint.

Cocoa Puffs Advertising to Children

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs note that General Mills’ marketing and advertising specifically targets children, promoting Cocoa Puffs cereals and bars as products “the whole family will love.” However, nowhere on any labels or marketing materials did the company inform families that lead contamination in Cocoa Puffs could poison consumers.

Similar allegations were raised in another Cocoa Puffs lawsuit filed against General Mills by Mark Tobin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last month, indicating that independent laboratory testing has revealed that one cup (36 grams) of Cocoa Puffs cereal contained .432 micrograms of lead. That is just below the threshold of .5 micrograms, which has been recognized by some health officials as the maximum daily dose level that should be allowed in foods.

However, Tobin pointed out in his complaint that nearly all consumers exceed the recommended cereal portion size of one cup per day. As a result, most children and families eating Cocoa Puffs cereal are exposed to dangerous levels of lead.

In this more recent complaint, neither Melendez nor Morrison claim that they experienced any observable symptoms of lead poisoning, but they indicate that General Mills should be held responsible for failing to disclose the high levels of lead in its cereal products, present claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and failure to warn.