PAM Spray Linked to Rare Lung Disease

A chef in a white uniform holding wooden cooking utensils with crossed arms

A California jury delivered a stunning $25 million verdict against a major food corporation for failing to warn consumers that a popular cooking spray contained a toxic chemical that destroyed a health-conscious man’s lungs, exposing how corporate negligence can devastate ordinary Americans who trusted a household brand.

Story Highlights

Roland Esparza awarded $25 million after developing “popcorn lung” from PAM butter-flavored cooking spray containing diacetyl
Jury found Conagra Brands failed to warn consumers about serious health dangers despite knowing the risks
Health-conscious bodybuilder now needs double lung transplant after using product multiple times daily since the 1990s
Conagra removed diacetyl in 2009 but only after decades of consumer exposure, now plans to appeal the verdict

Corporate Negligence Destroys California Man’s Health

Roland Esparza, a 58-year-old martial artist and bodybuilder from California, trusted PAM cooking spray as a healthy alternative for his fitness-focused lifestyle. Instead, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury determined that Conagra Brands’ butter-flavored product containing diacetyl caused him to develop bronchiolitis obliterans, commonly known as “popcorn lung.” This rare and irreversible respiratory disease has left Esparza desperate for a double lung transplant. The jury’s $25 million verdict reflects the severity of corporate negligence when companies prioritize profits over consumer safety warnings.

Decades of Exposure Without Warning

Esparza began using PAM spray regularly in the 1990s, applying it multiple times daily while preparing meals as part of his rigorous health regimen. Throughout this period, Conagra Brands continued marketing the product without adequate warnings about the respiratory dangers of inhaling diacetyl fumes. The chemical compound, also linked to lung injuries in microwave popcorn factory workers, remained in PAM butter spray for years despite growing documentation of its health risks in occupational health research. Conagra finally discontinued diacetyl in 2009, yet this action came far too late for Esparza, who had already sustained permanent lung damage from years of unknowing exposure.

Company Knew Risks But Failed to Protect Consumers

The jury’s decision hinged on evidence that Conagra possessed knowledge of diacetyl’s health dangers yet failed to communicate these risks to consumers through proper warning labels. This represents a fundamental breach of corporate responsibility and consumer trust. Attorney Jacob Plattenberger emphasized that while the $25 million provides resources for medical care, “nothing will give him his health back.” Esparza faces a grim reality: even if he receives a successful double lung transplant, his quality of life will remain permanently compromised. His attorney warned that “time might be running out” as his client desperately needs placement on a transplant list to survive.

Corporate Response Raises More Questions

Conagra’s response to the verdict demonstrates the typical corporate playbook when facing accountability. The company issued a statement claiming PAM butter spray “is safe and has been diacetyl-free for nearly two decades,” while announcing plans to “pursue all available legal avenues to contest the verdict.” This response sidesteps the central issue: why did Conagra use a dangerous chemical for years without warning consumers, and why did they only remove it in 2009 after the damage was done? The company’s removal of diacetyl itself suggests they recognized the ingredient posed problems, yet they now attempt to escape responsibility for past negligence.

Broader Implications for Consumer Protection

This verdict should concern every American who trusts that products on store shelves are safe or adequately labeled with health warnings. The case establishes important precedent for holding corporations accountable when they fail to disclose known dangers to consumers. Other food manufacturers now face increased scrutiny regarding ingredient transparency and warning label adequacy. Americans deserve to know what chemicals they’re exposing themselves and their families to, especially when corporations possess scientific evidence of health risks. This case demonstrates why limited government doesn’t mean zero corporate accountability, it means protecting individual liberty by ensuring companies cannot knowingly harm consumers through deceptive practices or inadequate warnings about dangerous products.