Respect for your privacy is our priority

The cookie is a small information file stored in your browser each time you visit our web page.

Cookies are useful because they record the history of your activity on our web page. Thus, when you return to the page, it identifies you and configures its content based on your browsing habits, your identity and your preferences.

You may accept cookies or refuse, block or delete cookies, at your convenience. To do this, you can choose from one of the options available on this window or even and if necessary, by configuring your browser.

If you refuse cookies, we can not guarantee the proper functioning of the various features of our web page.

For more information, please read the COOKIES INFORMATION section on our web page.


Why certification claims on tomato origin matters

05/02/2020 - François-Xavier Branthôme
Challenge to tomato origin moves forward

A putative class action against Cento Fine Foods (Cento) challenging the packaging and labelling representations regarding its “Certified San Marzano” tomato products will move forward after a California federal court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Earlier this year, a trio of tomato fans filed a false advertising suit against Cento, alleging that its “Certified San Marzano” tomatoes are not truly San Marzanos. The plaintiffs claimed that the term “San Marzano” refers to canned tomatoes that are grown in the Agro Sarnese-Nocerino region of Campania, Italy, and “must have a Denominazione di Origine Protetta (D.O.P.) marking” from the Italian Consortium that “was granted the right to certify and approve San Marzano tomatoes by the European Union.”

Cento asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, but U.S. District Court sided with the plaintiffs.

The allegations stated in the complaint—that each of the named plaintiffs relied upon the “Certified” marking on the product packaging, that the “Consortium is the only entity that can certify and approve a San Marzano tomato,” that “San Marzano tomatoes must have a D.O.P. marking, certifying that the tomato was grown in the correct region and according to the correct specifications,” and that Cento’s products are not grown specifically in the Agro Sarnese-Nocerino region and lack the Consortium’s D.O.P. marking—were sufficient to state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law, the court said.

Cento argued that the plaintiffs could not have been misled by the “Certified” label claim because its products are in fact certified and the certifier is expressly identified on the company’s website, and also because Cento does not use the D.O.P. markings on the label.

The court was not convinced and noted that the qualifying language regarding the certification of Cento’s tomatoes was not included on the packaging itself. “Instead, the packaging states, “These San Marzano tomatoes are certified [by an] independent third-party agency and are produced with the proper method to ensure superior growth,’” the court continued. “This language does not clearly disclose that the independent third-party agency is not the Consortium, and instead relies on consumers subsequently visiting its website to find such detail.”

The court’s order provides an important reminder for advertisers to use caution in using a “certification” claim on product labels and packaging, and to make sure to place any disclosures or qualifying language regarding the certification near the claim itself.

More details about Cento Fine Foods’ products and certification:






Supporting partners
Featured company
Most popular news
Featured event
15th World Processing Tomato Congress and 17th ISHS Symposium on Processing Tomato
Our supporting partners
Library Z-Library