Martinelli’s Apple Juice Recalled Over Mold Toxin Concerns.
S. Martinelli & Company announced a sweeping recall in April 2025, pulling more than 170,000 bottles of its popular apple juice from shelves nationwide.
The recall, initiated voluntarily, follows the discovery of potentially elevated levels of patulin — a toxic substance produced by molds that grow on apples.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the recall is classified as Class II, meaning that while the risk of serious health problems is relatively low, consumption of the affected product could still cause temporary or medically reversible adverse effects.
Understanding Patulin: A Hidden Threat in Apple Products
Patulin is not a household name, but it’s a toxin that food safety experts take seriously. Produced by species of mold commonly found on apples and other fruits, patulin can survive the pasteurization process if contaminated fruit slips through quality control.
Exposure to high levels of patulin may cause symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and gastrointestinal discomfort. In more severe cases, it has the potential to damage vital organs, including the liver, spleen, and kidneys.
So far, no illnesses linked to Martinelli’s recalled juice have been reported. Nevertheless, the company, based in Watsonville, California, moved swiftly to remove the affected batches from the market, a decision likely aimed at limiting both health risks and legal fallout.
Details of the Recall
The recall targets 7,234 cases of 10-ounce glass bottles sold in four-packs, easily identifiable by their white metal screw-top lids. The affected bottles bear the UPC code 0 41244 04102 2 and a best-by date of December 5, 2026.
These products were distributed across 28 states, including major markets like California, New York, Texas, and Florida, meaning the impact of the recall is likely to be significant both logistically and reputationally.
Consumers who purchased the recalled juice are advised not to drink it. Instead, they should either discard the bottles or return them to the store where they were purchased to receive a full refund.
Potential Legal Ramifications for Martinelli’s
While Martinelli’s response has so far been swift and transparent, that may not be enough to stave off potential legal challenges. Food recalls, even when managed responsibly, can open the door to a range of lawsuits, including:
-
Product liability claims, where plaintiffs argue the company failed to ensure the safety of its goods.
-
Consumer fraud or deceptive trade practices claims, especially if it’s alleged that Martinelli’s misrepresented the purity of its product.
-
Breach of contract disputes between Martinelli’s and its retail partners or suppliers.
Moreover, businesses that suffer losses from the recall, such as grocery chains or restaurants, might seek indemnification or damages, adding another layer of complexity to the company’s legal exposure.
Martinelli & Company has encountered legal challenges in recent years, primarily related to product safety concerns involving their apple juice.
Arsenic Contamination and Class Action Lawsuit (2024)
In 2024, Martinelli’s faced a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to disclose the presence of inorganic arsenic in its apple juice products.
The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court, claimed that independent testing revealed arsenic levels exceeding the FDA’s action level of 10 parts per billion.
Plaintiff Barbara Seaman argued that Martinelli’s recall process was inadequate, requiring consumers to return the product for a refund, an impractical step for many who had already consumed or discarded the juice.
The suit accused the company of misleading consumers and violating New York’s General Business Law.
Tax Dispute with Washington State Department of Revenue
Martinelli’s was also involved in a legal dispute with the Washington State Department of Revenue concerning the tax classification of its products.
The case revolved around whether certain items should be taxed as food or as carbonated beverages, classifications that carry different tax implications under state law.
The outcome of this case had potential financial consequences for the company’s operations within Washington State and highlighted the ongoing complexities businesses face in navigating varying tax regulations across jurisdictions.
More Articles from Lawyer Monthly