Lawsuit: Meat alternative Quorn can make you violently ill
Filed under: Food, Consumer Ally
Quorn, a popular meat alternative sold at grocery stores nationwide, can cause allergic reactions that make people violently ill and should carry a warning on its label, according to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.CSPI says reactions range from vomiting and diarrhea to difficulty breathing.
Quorn, sold in different shapes and styles to simulate a variety of meat products from hot dogs to "chicken-style nuggets," is made from a fungus found growing in England in the late 1960s. The company's web site says Quorn products have been sold in the U.S. since 2002 and are now the biggest selling frozen meat-free alternatives in this country. Quorn has been sold in Great Britain since 1985.
The lawsuit claims the fungus has been known to cause serious allergic reactions since the late 1970s. In addition, CPSI says the products are actually derived from a soil mold, alleging "Quorn markets its products in a deceptive manner" by portraying it in like this: "Quorn foods are made with mycoprotein, an edible fungi like truffles, morels and mushrooms."
"It's almost unheard of for a company to market something as healthy when it actually makes a significant percentage of its customers sick within minutes or hours," CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner said in a written statement. "It is the company's legal obligation to warn consumers about these serious adverse reactions, and getting the company to meet that obligation is the purpose of this lawsuit."
Quorn's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. British-based Quorn's U.S. operations are run out of Westport, Conn.. The lawsuit filed on behalf of an Arizona woman who alleges she had severe reactions to Quorn before realizing it was the cause of her problems was filed in Connecticut and seeks class action status.
On one of its web sites, the manufacturers of Quorn say the potential for someone to have a reaction to the product is trivial -- between one in 100,000 and one in 200,000. The most common side effect, it said, is fllatulence.
CSPI has maintained a site to collect complaints about Quorn and now claims to have more tha
n 1,400 adverse reaction reports. If you're into it, you can read accounts here of mostly British folks puking and suffering attacks of diarrhea after eating Quorn.
In releasing a copy of the lawsuit, CSPI also sent out comments from the named plaintiff in the case, Kathy Cardinale, described as a 43-year-old advertising executive.
"I felt like the soles of my feet were going to come out of my mouth, I was vomiting so hard," she said. "Once I began to research Quorn online I realized I wasn't alone and that other people had similar stories. It was unbelievable to me that the company knew this was going on and wasn't warning consumers about these problems."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
9-19-2009 @ 4:32AM
Spencer said...
The fungus Quorn is made from is similar to mushrooms. Mushrooms are a delicious fungus. My biggest complain with Quorn is that they named it after an existing food product that is completely unrelated to either the food Quorn is made of or the food it is imitating. That just makes no sense.
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 8:47AM
parrotthegreat said...
WRONG...!!!.....FUNGUS AND MOLD ARE NOT THE SAME THING...THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PLANTS, MOLD ARE VERY TOXIC...!!
9-19-2009 @ 9:51AM
johnH said...
parrot, read a basic biology book. All molds are fungi, but not all fungi are molds. And no fungi are plants.
9-19-2009 @ 5:29AM
Pete said...
I prefer textured Vegetable Protein or TVP. It is much easier to use in place of beef or chicken *1lb TVP = 1lb beef or chicken*, has the same texture and look and taste. TVP Tacos are great! Thank you MorningStar Farm!
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 6:41PM
Suzy said...
I have eaten Morningstar farm products for 29 years. It is the only vegeterian meats I will eat. Except for Worthington, which is morningstar, only cheaper and harder to find. Lucky me, I live close to Loma Linda Ca. and vegeterian food is abundant there.
9-19-2009 @ 7:32PM
TB said...
Even better is Worthington!
9-19-2009 @ 5:39AM
Sean said...
Speculative lawsuits from the land of litigation? Surely not!
There's a line between penalising the bad guys for knowingly profiting from unsafe products and trying to retire on whatever spurious claim it is your 'good fortune' to get before a judge and jury. Sadly the US crossed the line a long, long time ago and we in the UK are stupidly racing to catch up.
My family of six (2 adults and 4 kids) have been regularly chowing down on Quorn for many years and have yet to experience our internal organs exploding from our mouth in a frenzy of vomiting, so it seems unlikely that it is not inherently vomit-inducing.
Allergic to something? Don't eat it. Not hard is it? People need to stop playing the legal lottery in the hope of making a mint - it's a very negative way to live your life and it is harmful to society. Sometimes bad stuff happens and you need to accept it and move on folks...
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 7:41AM
sadgalinsd said...
Sean-just because you and your family have no allergies to the product doesn't mean other people don't!
9-19-2009 @ 5:56PM
antexjerr said...
I have said that it is the lawyers that are slowly killing the USA and the world. If a million of them died all of a sudden I would not shed a single tear. They help reward stupid people for doing stupid things and getting hurt. If I were a judge I would look at the moron and say "didn't you think that using a slip and slide without water would hurt?" His answer "no I didn't." "My reply well you are truly to stupid to live case dismissed and you must pay for all the legal fees." Stupid people get weeded out through natural selection they show not be rewarded.
9-19-2009 @ 8:37PM
bk said...
This may be the most rational comment I have ever seen on the internet.
9-19-2009 @ 9:44PM
Cindy said...
I agree with you completely.
9-19-2009 @ 5:48AM
Louis said...
"It's almost unheard of for a company to market something as healthy when it actually makes a significant percentage of its customers sick within minutes or hours"
Are they saying that peanuts should also be banned? My mother has a violent allergic reaction to most fruit. Should that be banned too? Should we ban milk for the lactose intolerant, and bread for the gluten in tolerant. Surely there's a significant percentage there?
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 7:33AM
Roger said...
Good point. And equally obnoxious is their use of the phrase "a significant percentage," instead of presenting the actual number, which (intentionally) makes it seem larger and more ominous that it really is.
If, for example, that actual percentage of customers who became "within minutes or hours" is a number like 0.00025%, then I think that most people would accept that as a risk they could live with. (More people get sick from milk, and nobody thinks milk should be outlawed.) And if, for example, the actual number was 10%, then most people would (should) find that to be a risk they cannot accept.
But to hide the facts, hide the truth, and instead use suggestive words is just one more good reason why people think lawyers are weasels.
9-19-2009 @ 7:48AM
sadgalinsd said...
Louis-this is not a natural product (meaning something has to be done to it before it can be eaten as is). Milk and fruit and peanuts and other things like garlic, etc are NATURAL and eaten as is! This food is made from a fungus and is meant to taste like real meat? Not only is that gross but it would never normally be eaten if these people didn't manufacture it the way they do. Surely they add crap to it too. Even mushrooms are natural. Humans weren't meant to eat crap like this. So no, natural products shouldn't be banned even though people have reactions to them. Something derived from something else that is making lots of people sick? Hmmmmm, maybe!
9-19-2009 @ 8:43AM
mari said...
maybe they should label the products in plain english so that the consumer is able to make a wise/healthy decision......
some foods arent all that EASY to avoid......just like you retards with your uneducated posts...........
9-19-2009 @ 10:04AM
Nichol said...
No one said anything should be banned,,,, they just want a warning in the product, just like any product containing any known food allergen, including peanuts.
9-19-2009 @ 12:13PM
Brandon said...
@ sadgalinsd
??? By your reasoning, you are literally claiming that boiled salted peanuts should be illegal because they have had stuff done to them before they are eaten, yogurt should be illegal because it had to be processed, candy bars and hot dogs and soft drinks and bread and wine and that BBQ chicken you had for dinner last night should all be banned because 'STUFF' when into the manufacturing of those products. HA!
Seriously, lighten up. People are having adverse reactions to the base ingredient that is the fungus. Someone people have allergies to some items, others don't, it sucks when people realize for the first time that they have an allergy... but it happens. People are supposed to use a reasonable amount of care for themselves. and your claims that every product being sold should have a warning label that 'SOMEONE' may possibly have an allergic reaction to them is absolutely ABSURD! Just remember how much of a hypocrite you are the next time that you buy a hamburger.
And @ Roger, I completely agree with your assessment of the scare tactics being used in this article. Another thing that jumped out at me was the claim "Quorn's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Please note that this does not say that Quorn did not respond. It actually says that Quorn didn't instantaneously reply to the e-mail or voicemail that was left by the no-name author of this article.
This whole thing really is laughable, and shame on AOL for headlining and promoting the downfall of a proven, successful, and healthy meat-alternative product.
9-19-2009 @ 5:56AM
dish said...
what a load of crap. They are running out of thinks to write about. Their discovery is that yes people can be allergic to quorn, like every other food.
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 6:22AM
Poppa T. said...
Here we go folks. Reading a news flash about another law suit.
When will people ever use common sense.
This person who claimed to be poisoned by the product probably does not know they have a food allergy, and if they do know they have a food allergy they should have read the content of the food shown upon its packaging. I therefore believe the manufacture is not at fault for this persons experience.
Reply
9-19-2009 @ 11:14AM
Joe said...
I agree with you. But we all know that those creepy lawyers. Will try to have there hands all over this law suit. Any time people fine something wrong with something. The first thing they want to do is sue. Whats this world coming too.