On Friday, October 2, a consumer lawsuit was instituted against multinational coffee giant, Starbucks. The plaintiff claims that Starbucks adds sugar in its acclaimed sugar-free protein drinks.
The allegations in the lawsuit have not been adjudicated, and Starbucks denies wrongdoing.
The case has been lodged against eight beverages in Starbucks’ protein line. The eight beverages are the hot and iced versions of the Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha, and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha. The products at the centre of the lawsuit are hot and iced protein lattes as well as protein matcha beverages, offered in vanilla and caramel variants.
The class-action lawsuit accuses the coffee brand of mislabeling and mis-leading people. The case was filed on behalf of three individual consumers who purchased Starbucks sugar-free protein drinks in California, New York and Washington.
Steve Berman, the co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-headquartered firm, Hagens Berman that filed the lawsuit, says that, “Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, whether that be general health, diabetes and blood glucose levels or other factors, and for many, a staunch mislabeling like this is significant.”
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of the U.S. Consumers that were mislead and want the court to stop Starbucks from using sugar-free labels on its products.
Starbucks has strongly denied any such claims of misleading its consumers saying that it has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and they intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter.
They claimed that their website indicates the use of added sugar in their products and that the sugar in the accused drinks comes from protein boosted milk, they only use sugar-free syrup in their drinks.
The dispute centers on the difference between “sugar-free” and “no added sugar.” Starbucks says the drinks contain no added sugar, while the plaintiffs argue that the term “sugar-free” applies to the finished beverage and therefore should meet the FDA’s sugar-free standard.
The Starbucks’ U.S. website menu lists a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha with 16 grams of sugar and a 20-ounce (0.6-liter) version of the same drink with 21 grams of sugar.
| Starbucks drink | Portion/size mentioned | Sugar content |
|---|---|---|
| Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha | 16 oz | 16 g |
| Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha | 20 oz | 21 g |
| Iced Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte | 16 oz | 9 g |
| Other drinks named in lawsuit | 13–21 g range reported by the law firm |
The lawsuit also alleges that Starbucks failed to provide the calorie-related disclaimer required under FDA regulations for products using a “sugar-free” claim when they are not low- or reduced-calorie foods.
Apart from the controversy, the one who is the most at stake are the people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who dose insulin or track carbohydrates, people with prediabetes, and anyone on a medically guided low-carb plan.
A sugar-free branding can lead a customer to skip checking the label, which is the central concern the plaintiffs raise. It states that an average person would not expect something labelled as sugar-free to contain this much sugar.
It is advisable that people who monitor their blood sugar should treat milk-based "sugar-free" drinks as containing carbohydrates. They should consult a clinician or a dietitian and ask them how to fit these drinks in their nutritional plan.
The US FDA, states that a food may be claimed as sugar free only if it contains less than 0.5 g of sugar per reference serving and per labeled serving under 21 CFR 101.60(c).
The rule also limits ingredients that contain sugars. It requires the products to contain a disclaimer such as “not a low calorie food” to indicate that the product is not low or reduced in calories.
The FDA has warned manufacturers about this before. In a letter to manufacturers on sugar-free claims issued in 2007.
The American Heart Association's added sugar guidance separates sugars naturally found in foods like milk and fruit from sugars added during preparation.
AMA has set consumption limits of about 6 teaspoons per day for women and 9 teaspoons per day for men to ‘added sugars’ only. This limit does not apply to sugars naturally present in food products.
The law firm compares the drinks' sugar to the AHA limit for women, a comparison Starbucks may contest because milk sugar is not added sugar.
The product contains very little or no sugar. Under common regulatory definitions, it generally means less than 0.5 g of sugars per serving. It may still contain artificial or other non-sugar sweeteners.
No sugars were added during processing or preparation. However, the product can still contain naturally occurring sugars, such as those in milk or fruit.
The product contains a limited amount of sugar, but not necessarily zero. The exact threshold depends on the country's food-labelling regulations.
(Rh/MF/MSM)