Conagra Ordered to Pay $25M in Pam Cooking Spray Lawsuit

Jury finds Conagra failed to warn consumers about lung disease risks from diacetyl in butter-flavored spray.

Published on Feb. 13, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Los Angeles jury awarded $25 million to a man who developed a rare chronic lung disease after regularly using Conagra's butter-flavored Pam cooking spray. The verdict found that Conagra did not adequately warn consumers about the potential dangers of inhaling fumes from the spray, which contained the chemical diacetyl linked to respiratory illness.

Why it matters

This case highlights growing concerns about the potential health risks of certain food additives and the responsibility of manufacturers to properly inform consumers. The ruling could set a precedent for future lawsuits against cooking spray and other food product companies over undisclosed dangers.

The details

Roland Esparza, 58, filed the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that his regular use of Pam cooking spray since the 1990s, which contained the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl, caused him to develop bronchiolitis obliterans, a severe and progressive respiratory disease known as "popcorn lung." Conagra said it removed diacetyl from its Pam formulation in 2009, but the jury found the company did not adequately warn consumers about the risks prior to that.

  • Esparza filed the lawsuit in 2022.
  • The jury reached its $25 million verdict last week.
  • Conagra says it removed diacetyl from Pam in 2009.

The players

Roland Esparza

A 58-year-old Los Angeles man who regularly used Pam cooking spray containing diacetyl since the 1990s and developed a rare chronic lung disease as a result.

Conagra

The Chicago-based food company that owns the Pam cooking spray brand and was ordered to pay $25 million in the lawsuit.

Jacob Plattenberger

Esparza's Chicago-based attorney who represented him in the lawsuit against Conagra.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

Conagra says it plans to challenge the $25 million verdict.

The takeaway

This case highlights the importance of food manufacturers being transparent about potential health risks associated with their products, even after removing problematic ingredients. The ruling could open the door for more lawsuits against companies over undisclosed dangers.