A “healthy” kitchen shortcut turned into a double-lung-transplant fight—and a jury just put a $25 million price tag on what happens when warnings don’t match real-world use.
Quick Take
- Roland Esparza, 58, won $25 million after a jury linked his chronic lung disease to inhaling fumes from butter-flavored PAM cooking spray used for years.
- The case hinges on diacetyl, a buttery flavoring associated with bronchiolitis obliterans, often called “popcorn lung,” when inhaled over time.
- Conagra removed diacetyl from the product in 2009, but the lawsuit argued consumers weren’t adequately warned while it was still used.
- Conagra says the product is safe and plans to pursue legal options to contest the verdict.
A Bodybuilder’s Routine Meets a Chemical That Doesn’t Care
Roland Esparza wasn’t living on drive-thru meals or chain-smoking in the garage. Reports described him as a health nut, bodybuilder, and martial artist who used butter-flavored PAM regularly starting in the 1990s, sometimes multiple times a day. That detail matters because it frames the central consumer problem: people don’t use “cooking spray” like a lab sample. They spray it into hot pans, inhale what rises, and assume “food product” equals safe.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury accepted Esparza’s claim that prolonged exposure to fumes from the spray contributed to “popcorn lung,” a rare and irreversible disease formally known as bronchiolitis obliterans. The award—$25 million—signals the jury believed the harm wasn’t just bad luck. It was foreseeable enough that a warning should have been clearer, earlier, or both. That’s a big line for any manufacturer selling something used daily in American kitchens.
Diacetyl: Safe to Eat Isn’t the Same as Safe to Breathe
Diacetyl sits at the uncomfortable intersection of food chemistry and workplace medicine. The compound became notorious after occupational health investigations tied inhalation of buttery flavoring vapors to severe lung damage among some microwave popcorn factory workers. The mechanism isn’t about digestion; it’s about inhalation and repeated irritation that can scar and narrow the small airways. People hear “butter flavoring” and think taste. Lungs “taste” nothing; they react.
Cooking sprays create a special exposure pathway because they’re designed to aerosolize. That doesn’t automatically make them dangerous, but it does change the common-sense duty of clarity. If a product is likely to be heated and inhaled in normal use, labeling that reads like it’s only about eating misses the point. Consumers can’t manage a risk they can’t see, smell reliably, or understand—especially when it comes packaged as a kitchen helper.
The Jury’s Message: “Failure to Warn” Is a Real-World Standard
The jury found Conagra failed to adequately warn consumers about dangers tied to inhaling fumes from the buttery spray. That finding doesn’t require proving a company wanted anyone harmed; it requires persuading ordinary people that the warning didn’t meet the practical standard of everyday use. Conservative-minded common sense lands here: if you know a hazard can occur during normal, foreseeable use, you say so plainly. You don’t hide behind fine print or technicalities.
Conagra’s response stressed disagreement and disappointment, and the company emphasized the product has been diacetyl-free for nearly two decades after discontinuing diacetyl in 2009. Those facts can be true and still leave the core dispute intact: what did consumers deserve to know during the years diacetyl remained in the product, and how quickly did labeling and formulation reflect what was already being learned about inhalation risks? Courts exist because “should have” arguments don’t settle themselves.
What the Money Can’t Fix, and Why the Case Still Matters
Esparza’s attorney said he hopes to be placed on a lung transplant list and needs a double lung transplant, adding that nothing will give him his health back even if money helps him fight for more time. That line sticks because it separates two things Americans often mash together: compensation and restoration. A verdict can punish, deter, and provide resources, but it can’t rewind damaged lungs or restore the life you planned around your health.
This case also lands in the broader “consumer protection versus corporate accountability” debate without needing slogans. Conagra is a major manufacturer with deep legal resources; Esparza is one consumer. The jury siding with the individual hints that the evidence and story aligned: a health-conscious man, a daily-use product, and a disease associated with the same chemical in another inhalation setting. Even readers skeptical of lawsuit culture can see how “warn people plainly” fits traditional values.
The Kitchen Lesson: Demand Clarity, Not Panic
Limited data is publicly available on trial details beyond the verdict amount, key dates, and the failure-to-warn finding, so sweeping conclusions would be irresponsible. The practical takeaway still stands: treat aerosolized, heated products differently than ingredients you simply eat. Use ventilation. Avoid intentionally inhaling cooking fumes. Read labels with an eye toward how you actually cook, not how the manufacturer imagines you cook.
Man awarded $25M after getting lung disease from popular cooking spray: ‘Nothing will give him his health back’ https://t.co/fzlC5it0wF pic.twitter.com/2m7JSVVppt
— New York Post (@nypost) February 14, 2026
The open loop after a verdict like this is whether it sparks copycat suits or industry-wide labeling changes. Conagra says it will contest the decision, and appeals can reshape outcomes. Whatever happens next, the case exposes a blind spot in modern convenience: Americans didn’t just outsource cooking; they outsourced caution. The jury’s $25 million answer suggests that when “convenient” becomes “inhalable,” the duty to warn stops being optional and starts being the whole ballgame.
Sources:
US Man Awarded Rs 226 Crore Over Chronic Lung Disease Linked to Popular Cooking Spray
