Unpacking the Nature's Own 'No Preservatives' Class Action Lawsuit

For health-conscious consumers, labels that boast “all-natural” and “never any artificial preservatives” are powerful selling points. They generally suggest a premium product, a cleaner ingredient list, and a company dedicated to transparency. Flowers Bakeries LLC, the distributor behind the popular Nature’s Own brand, has leveraged this assertion, prominently displaying the claim on its packaging: “Never any artificial preservatives, colors or flavors and no high fructose corn syrup.”

However, that very claim is now at the heart of a concerning legal battle. A recent class action lawsuit, Nelson v. Flowers Bakeries LLC, has been filed in California. The lawsuit accuses the company of engaging in Nature’s Own false advertising and deliberately misleading shoppers by including an ingredient that, according to the suit, functions as a chemical preservative—all while allegedly continuing to charge a premium price. 

We’re going to explore the Nature’s Own class action lawsuit, detailing the central claims, the parties involved, and what this lawsuit could mean for California consumers.

The Heart of the Matter: The Ascorbic Acid Preservative Claim

The core of the dispute of the Flowers Bakeries lawsuit revolves around a seemingly innocuous ingredient: ascorbic acid.

The plaintiff, Maria Nelson, representing a proposed class of California consumers, argues that Nature’s Own products, including various breads and baked goods, contain ascorbic acid. While many consumers recognize ascorbic acid as Vitamin C, the lawsuit asserts that in the context of commercial baking and at the quantities used, its function is essentially that of an artificial preservative.

The complaint alleges: “The ascorbic acid in the Products functions as a preservative because it is an antioxidant that prevents microbial growth, thereby preserving color and freshness.” In other words, by acting as an antioxidant to slow down the process of deterioration and spoilage, the ingredient extends the shelf life of the bread—the definition of a preservative. The presence of this active, preservative-functioning agent, the plaintiff claims, directly contradicts the bold “never any artificial preservatives” labeling.

Consumers who prioritize a clean, preservative-free diet often rely on such front-of-package marketing to make quick purchasing decisions. The plaintiff claims that this alleged Nature’s Own bread mislabeling case is designed to create the illusion of a superior, purer product, justifying a higher price point than competitors who openly declare the use of preservatives.

Who Is Involved and the Legal Arena

The case pits an ordinary consumer against one of the largest baking companies in the United States.

• The Defendant: Flowers Bakeries LLC, the Georgia-based company that produces and distributes Nature’s Own bread and other baked goods across the country.
• The Plaintiff/Claimant: Maria Nelson, a California resident who purchased Nature’s Own products, relying on the “never any artificial preservatives” claim. She seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers.

The choice of venue is significant. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. California is renowned for its stringent consumer protection laws, which are often utilized in cases of alleged false advertising. The plaintiff claims Flowers Bakeries’ conduct violates key state legislation and laws, specifically:

1. California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act
2. California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
3. Breach of Express Warranty

The plaintiff is not merely seeking a label change. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks a court order that would not only stop Flowers Bakeries from continuing the alleged false advertising but also grant damages and restitution for the purchase price of the products to the class members. The objective is to secure compensation for the premium price consumers paid, which they likely would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, had they known the true nature of the ingredients.

A Growing Trend in Food Mislabeling Cases

The ascorbic acid preservative claim against Nature’s Own is not an isolated incident. It reflects a growing scrutiny of “clean label” claims across the food industry. Consumers are demanding more from brands, and what a company defines as “natural” or "artificial" is increasingly being challenged in court.

In a similar case, a major grocery retailer faced a lawsuit over its "Simple Truth" fruit and grain bars, which were marketed as having "no preservatives" but allegedly contained citric acid, another ingredient with antioxidant, preservative-like functionality. These cases highlight the fine line that manufacturers walk when using ingredients that have a dual purpose: one as a nutritional component (like Vitamin C) and another as a functional processing aid (like a preservative).

For the general public, this Nature’s Own California Lawsuit serves as a stark reminder to look beyond the front-of-package claims and understand the function of every ingredient on the product label.

Who Is Eligible to Join the Nature’s Own lawsuit?

For eligible claimants and plaintiffs, the current stage of this class action requires monitoring and patience. The specific details regarding final eligibility, payout amounts, and deadlines will be determined later in the legal process.

You may qualify as a Class Member under these preliminary circumstances:

• Residency: You must be a California resident.
• Product Purchase: You purchased Nature’s Own products labeled as containing “never any artificial preservatives.”
• Ingredient Basis: The product purchased must have contained ascorbic acid as an ingredient.

What to Expect (Estimated/Projected Relief):

• Potential Compensation: Eligible participants may receive compensation for the purchase price of the mislabeled products, or the difference between the actual value and the premium price paid. The exact amount will depend on the final settlement or judgment.
• Proof Required: If the case settles, you will likely need proof of purchase, such as receipts or store loyalty card records.

Important: The lawsuit is currently seeking Class Certification. There is no deadline to file a claim yet because the case has not reached a settlement or judgment phase. Consumers should monitor the case for future official announcements regarding claims.