3 Popular Drinks Facing Lawsuits Over Chemicals — What Could They Mean for Your Brain?
They were marketed as healthier choices. One is a coffee giant. One is a probiotic “health” drink. One became a social-media sensation among younger consumers. But all three have faced legal scrutiny involving chemicals, contaminants, or labeling.
And there is a reason this deserves attention beyond the courtroom: some of the chemicals involved are being investigated for their potential effects on the brain, cognition, hormones, metabolism, and long-term health.
That does not mean these beverages have been proven to cause dementia. But the emerging science is concerning enough to make you look twice at what is actually in the bottle or cup.
Starbucks: Methylene Chloride, Benzene and Toluene
A lawsuit against Starbucks alleges that independent testing of Starbucks Decaf House Blend Medium Roast detected three volatile organic compounds: methylene chloride, benzene and toluene.
According to the complaint, testing conducted by Eurofins EAG Laboratories in January 2025 detected approximately 22 parts per billion of methylene chloride, along with benzene and toluene.
Why would these chemicals be associated with coffee? The issue is connected to decaffeination.
Methylene chloride, also called dichloromethane, has historically been used as a solvent in some decaffeination processes. The FDA permits limited residual methylene chloride in decaffeinated coffee, meaning its detection does not automatically mean a product violates federal food regulations.
But “legally permitted” and “something you necessarily want in your daily drink” are two different questions.
Benzene is particularly concerning because it is a well-established human carcinogen. It is not an ingredient Starbucks adds to coffee for flavor or nutrition; the allegation concerns its presence as a chemical contaminant.
Toluene is another industrial solvent. High exposures can affect the nervous system, producing symptoms such as headaches, dizziness and impaired coordination.
Importantly, the Starbucks lawsuit is not a lawsuit proving that coffee causes dementia. It involves allegations concerning chemical contamination and consumer expectations regarding the product.
Still, it raises a bigger question: How many people think about the chemicals involved in the processing of their everyday beverages?
Health-Ade Kombucha: PFAS “Forever Chemicals”
Health-Ade is particularly interesting because kombucha is marketed as a gut-health and wellness beverage.
Health-Ade was the subject of a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that testing found PFAS — commonly called “forever chemicals” — in several beverages.
The complaint identified PFAS including PFBA, PFHxA and 6:2 FTS.
Testing cited in the complaint reported PFBA in Ginger Pineapple Belly Reset, Strawberry Glow and Mint Limeade, PFHxA in Cayenne Cleanse, and 6:2 FTS in Health-Ade Pop Pomegranate Berry.
PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals prized for their resistance to heat, grease, oil and water. And that’s precisely what makes them controversial: they don’t readily break down.
Some PFAS can persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body. Research has associated exposure to certain PFAS with outcomes involving cancer, immune effects, hormones, reproductive health, cholesterol and other health concerns.
But here’s where the story gets even more interesting.
Researchers are increasingly investigating PFAS and neurological health. A 2025 review published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia examined the potential relationship between PFAS exposure, cognitive impairment and dementia. The researchers concluded that PFAS are neurotoxic in experimental research and that the hypothesis connecting PFAS exposure with dementia deserves further investigation, while emphasizing that human evidence remains limited, weak and inconsistent.
Other research has detected PFAS in human cerebrospinal fluid and investigated relationships between PFAS exposure, Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers and cognitive impairment.
That’s very different from saying “kombucha causes dementia.” The science does not establish that.
But it does make the presence of persistent industrial chemicals in something marketed as a wellness beverage worth paying attention to.
Health-Ade has also subsequently reported conducting independent third-party testing on several of its best-selling kombucha flavors and said that its testing found no detectable PFAS among the compounds tested.
So this story has two sides: the earlier lawsuit allegations and Health-Ade’s later testing.
Prime Hydration: PFAS Allegations
Prime Hydration became one of the biggest beverage brands on social media, particularly among younger consumers.
But its Grape Sports Drink became the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit alleging PFAS contamination.
The lawsuit claimed independent testing detected PFAS in the beverage despite marketing emphasizing electrolytes, antioxidants, B vitamins and other health-oriented attributes.
The case is important because PFAS are not listed as an ordinary ingredient such as water, coconut water or potassium. They are contaminants, meaning their alleged presence would be entirely different from intentionally adding an ingredient to a formula.
The lawsuit alleged that testing found PFOA and PFOS in the Grape Sports Drink and argued that consumers were not informed about the alleged contamination.
And again, why should anyone care about the brain?
Because scientists are investigating whether long-term PFAS exposure may contribute to neurological problems. PFAS have been detected in human cerebrospinal fluid, demonstrating that at least some PFAS can reach the central nervous system. Researchers have also reported associations between certain PFAS levels and cognitive impairment.
But this distinction is critical: finding PFAS in a beverage does not prove that drinking that beverage causes dementia.
The scientific question is whether chronic exposure to certain PFAS, at particular concentrations and over long periods, contributes to neurological disease. That question is still being investigated.
The Bigger Problem: “Healthy” Doesn’t Always Mean Chemical-Free
Here’s where these cases become interesting.
Consumers often assume that a beverage marketed as natural, hydrating, probiotic, electrolyte-rich, sugar-free or wellness-focused must also be free of questionable chemicals.
But marketing and chemistry are two different things.
A drink can contain vitamins and electrolytes while simultaneously being exposed to contaminants during manufacturing, processing, water treatment, packaging or the agricultural supply chain.
And that’s why the ingredient label doesn’t necessarily tell you everything.
PFAS won’t necessarily appear on an ingredient list.
Neither will environmental contaminants such as lead or mercury.
The same principle applies to processing chemicals. Something doesn’t have to be intentionally added as an “ingredient” to potentially end up in the finished product.
Does This Mean These Drinks Cause Dementia?
No — and this is where the science needs to be separated from the headlines.
There is currently no good evidence proving that Starbucks coffee, Health-Ade kombucha or Prime Hydration causes dementia.
What we do have are lawsuits alleging chemical contamination or misleading labeling, laboratory testing cited in some complaints, established concerns surrounding certain chemicals such as PFAS, benzene and methylene chloride, emerging research investigating connections between environmental chemical exposure and cognitive decline, and preliminary research specifically examining PFAS and Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers.
Scientists studying PFAS and dementia have emphasized that the available human evidence remains limited and inconsistent.
That distinction matters.
The question isn’t, “Will this drink give you dementia?”
The better question is, “Do we really know the long-term consequences of repeatedly consuming beverages that may contain environmental or processing contaminants?”
And that’s a question worth asking.
Read the Label — Then Look Beyond It
Your body doesn’t recognize a marketing slogan.
“Natural.”
“Hydration.”
“Probiotic.”
“Electrolytes.”
“Zero sugar.”
Those words don’t tell you everything about how a product was manufactured, packaged or processed.
The safest approach isn’t to panic over one lawsuit. It’s to become a more informed consumer.
The fewer unnecessary chemical exposures you have on a daily basis, the better — especially when you’re talking about something you drink repeatedly for years.
Because when it comes to long-term health, exposure isn’t usually about one bottle.
It’s about the cumulative picture.