Diacetyl Popcorn Lung Lawsuit [2026 Update]

Diacetyl popcorn lung lawsuits are civil claims alleging that inhalation of diacetyl or similar flavoring chemicals caused irreversible small-airway scarring, and that another party failed to provide adequate warnings or exposure controls.

The first lawsuits related to popcorn lung targeted manufacturers and chemical suppliers in the early 2000s, after workplace clusters drew attention to flavorings-related lung disease.

Reported outcomes from that early litigation include a $20 million judgment in 2004 and a $7.5 million award in 2009 for workers affected by diacetyl exposure.

Over time, lawsuits involving diacetyl have also expanded into consumer-product allegations, including claims tied to repeated inhalation of butter-flavor vapors or other flavoring aerosols.

These cases often turn on product knowledge, safety communications, industrial hygiene evidence, and medical proof that the lung injury fits bronchiolitis obliterans rather than asthma or ordinary bronchitis.

Your popcorn lung lawyer will focus on showing that liability for your injuries belongs to another party or parties based on what was known, what was supplied, and what protections were missing.

The choice of an attorney matters, and popcorn lung claims usually require experience with toxic tort lawsuits and chemical exposure lawsuits.

If you believe you qualify, the first step is to seek appropriate medical treatment, since stabilizing the lung condition and documenting impairment can affect both health outcomes and the claim’s value.

Companies and entities that may be named in a popcorn lung lawsuit can include:

• Manufacturers of diacetyl-containing flavorings and flavoring blends used in production
• Chemical suppliers and distributors that sold diacetyl or related diketone compounds
• Food manufacturers operating a microwave popcorn line that used butter-flavoring chemicals
• Manufacturers of butter-flavored cooking sprays or similar aerosolized flavor products alleged to create inhalation hazards
• Manufacturers, bottlers, or brands selling flavored e-cigarettes or e-liquids alleged to contain diacetyl
• Contract manufacturers and co-packers that handled flavoring chemicals during mixing, heating, or packaging
• Employers and corporate owners responsible for ventilation, exposure monitoring, and worker warnings where occupational exposure is alleged
• Parent companies or successor entities that assumed responsibility for the product line, facility, or chemical supply chain

TorHoerman Law: $25 Million Verdict for Consumer Popcorn Lung Case (2026)

A Los Angeles jury awarded $25 million in 2026 to a man who developed popcorn lung from using PAM cooking spray, marking a notable case against a cooking spray manufacturer.

TorHoerman Law’s team of diacetyl popcorn lung attorneys, including Jake Plattenberger and Alan Holcomb, handled this case.

The lawsuit alleged that long-term use of butter-flavored PAM cooking spray exposed the plaintiff to diacetyl and other flavoring chemicals that created an inhalation hazard and led to bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as popcorn lung.

The verdict was returned in Los Angeles County Superior Court and assigned Conagra Brands full responsibility for Esparza’s injuries.

TorHoerman Law partners Jacob Plattenberger and Alan Holcomb handled the case with co-counsel Scott Hall, and the firm has described the outcome as a record-setting diacetyl-related consumer verdict.

The jury found Conagra failed to adequately warn consumers about the dangers of inhaling fumes from the product, and Esparza’s condition was severe enough that he now requires a double lung transplant.

Popcorn lung is a rare, life-changing condition known as popcorn lung because it was first identified in workers at a microwave popcorn plant who inhaled diacetyl.

It is also called obliterative bronchiolitis, a disease that damages the smallest airways and the surrounding tiny air sacs, leaving permanent narrowing and scarring.

The medical process behind the disease involves inflammation in the bronchioles that can progress into fixed airway blockage, which is why many people develop long-term lung problems.

Doctors may also describe related forms of airway scarring after transplant as bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, which reflects similar airway injury in the setting of lung rejection.

The symptoms of popcorn lung include a dry cough, shortness of breath, and wheezing, and these symptoms can worsen over weeks to months.

In many cases, symptoms start gradually, but they can also occur suddenly, and severe symptoms may flare during exercise or other exertion.

Popcorn lung is not reversible, and while treatment may slow progression and reduce symptoms, the condition remains serious and has no cure.

In advanced cases, the loss of breathing capacity can become profound, and some patients ultimately require a lung transplant.

Symptoms of popcorn lung often include:

• Persistent dry cough
• Shortness of breath, especially with activity
• Wheezing
• Symptoms that worsen over time, including flares with exertion

Diagnosing popcorn lung typically involves pulmonary function tests and CT scans, and a lung biopsy may be used when clinical findings and imaging do not fully explain the decline.

A chest X-ray is often normal even when symptoms of popcorn lung are significant, which can delay recognition in working people who assume they have asthma or bronchitis.

Early treatment is more likely to prevent the disease from worsening, and early identification can change the trajectory of a patient’s long-term lung function.

Diacetyl exposure is best understood by separating workplace inhalation hazards from consumer product use, because diacetyl is generally recognized as safe to eat but can be dangerous to inhale at sufficient concentrations.

In workplaces, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) links flavorings-related lung disease to airborne exposure to diacetyl and similar flavoring chemicals released during mixing, heating, spraying, and packaging operations.

Coffee roasting and flavoring is now a documented route of occupational concern, including roasting, grinding, and packaging environments where diacetyl and related compounds may be present in air monitoring.

For consumers, lawsuits and public health warnings have focused on inhalation exposures tied to certain butter-flavored sprays and other products that can generate inhalable vapors during normal use.

Another consumer-facing route involves flavored e-cigarettes, where diacetyl has been identified as one of the harmful chemicals that may be present in some products even when users assume the ingredients are food-grade and therefore safe.

A widely cited Harvard analysis in 2015 reported that more than 75% of sampled flavored e-cigarettes and refill liquids contained diacetyl, which helped drive ongoing scrutiny of flavored e-cigarettes as a potential source of diketone exposure.

The American Lung Association has specifically warned that popcorn lung is a dangerous risk of flavored e-cigarettes, reflecting the concern that inhaled flavoring chemicals can carry different risks than ingestion.

Common routes of diacetyl exposure include:

• Flavoring manufacturing and food production jobs involving heated flavorings, mixing tanks, and packaging areas, an OSHA-identified setting for occupational diseases linked to flavoring vapors
• Coffee roasting, grinding, and packaging work, including flavored coffee operations where diacetyl and related compounds may be released
• Consumer use of butter-flavored cooking sprays that create inhalable fumes during spraying and heating
• Use of flavored e-cigarettes, where diacetyl may be added to the liquid or may be present as part of flavoring chemistry, and where CDC continues to list diacetyl among flavorings linked to serious lung disease
• Heavy, repeated exposure scenarios alleged in some microwave popcorn consumer cases, where heated butter-flavoring vapors are part of the claimed inhalation pathway

Diacetyl also occurs naturally in some foods, including dairy products, but the primary legal and medical concern centers on inhalation, not ordinary eating.

When popcorn lung develops, the effects are irreversible, and no treatment can remove the airway scarring once it forms, which is why the exposure setting and duration matter.

In high-exposure settings, diacetyl has been associated with severe, irreversible small-airway disease described by NIOSH as obliterative bronchiolitis, a condition that can permanently limit breathing capacity.

Flavored e-cigarettes remain a point of concern because ingredient disclosure and product variability can make it difficult for users to know whether diacetyl or related diketones are present, even as some manufacturers claim reformulation.

These facts are also why litigation can involve both occupational exposure claims and consumer product claims, depending on where the inhalation exposure occurred and what warnings or controls were allegedly missing.

Who is at the Highest Risk of Exposure to Diacetyl?

The highest risk of diacetyl exposure occurs in workplaces where flavoring chemicals are heated, mixed, sprayed, or packaged in enclosed production environments.

Employees who handle concentrated butter-flavoring mixtures or work near open vats, grinding stations, or mixing tanks may inhale vapors repeatedly over the course of a shift.

Occupational investigations have linked several of these roles to flavorings-related occupational diseases involving permanent small-airway damage.

While diacetyl is used in food production as a flavoring agent, inhalation during manufacturing presents a different level of risk than ingestion.

In some circumstances, even consumers may face exposure when using products that release concentrated butter-flavor vapors during heating or spraying.

Industries and job roles associated with higher diacetyl exposure include:

• Microwave popcorn factory workers, including mixing room operators, quality control technicians, packaging line workers, and maintenance staff working near heated flavoring tanks
• Coffee manufacturing workers, including coffee roasters, flavoring technicians, grinders, packaging operators, and warehouse employees in roasting and flavoring facilities
• Pet food manufacturing employees, particularly batch mixers, flavor applicators, extrusion line operators, and sanitation workers cleaning flavoring equipment
• Tortilla factory workers, including seasoning applicators, flavor blending technicians, and production line workers exposed to aerosolized butter or cheese flavorings
• Candy or chocolate factory workers, including flavor mixers, coating line operators, and confectionery production staff handling artificial butter flavor additives
• Flavoring manufacturing plant employees, including chemical blending technicians and laboratory staff handling concentrated diketone compounds
• Consumers, particularly individuals with repeated exposure to vapors from heated microwave popcorn bags or butter-flavored cooking sprays used in enclosed kitchens

In many of these roles, exposure risk increases when ventilation is inadequate or when flavoring chemicals are heated in open systems. Workers who spend years in these environments may experience cumulative inhalation that affects lung tissue and long-term respiratory health.

The risk is often highest for employees assigned to mixing and flavor application areas, where airborne concentrations tend to peak.

Early industrial cases first identified in microwave popcorn facilities led to broader recognition of the hazard across other food production industries.

Today, these occupations remain central to diacetyl popcorn lung litigation involving alleged failures to control airborne flavoring exposure.

How is Diacetyl Exposure Linked to Popcorn Lung?

Diacetyl exposure is linked to popcorn lung through repeated inhalation of airborne flavoring vapors in industrial settings.

The chemical diacetyl is used to produce artificial butter flavoring in many foods, including candy and microwave popcorn, and it is categorized among food additives that are recognized as safe to ingest.

That safety designation applies to eating the substance, not breathing it at high concentrations in enclosed production areas.

In the earliest confirmed cases, workers breathed concentrated diacetyl vapors inside a microwave popcorn factory where mixing and heating processes released the compound into the air.

Medical investigations later connected those inhalation exposures to irreversible small-airway injury consistent with bronchiolitis obliterans.

Researchers found that employees with the highest cumulative exposure levels were more likely to develop measurable declines in lung function and disabling respiratory symptoms.

As evidence mounted regarding the health effects of inhaled diacetyl, manufacturers moved away from using the compound in popcorn production due to the risk of harm to workers.

The history of these confirmed cases forms the scientific foundation for modern diacetyl popcorn lung lawsuits involving occupational exposure claims.

You may qualify for a diacetyl popcorn lung lawsuit if you were diagnosed with a lung condition consistent with bronchiolitis obliterans after repeated inhalation exposure to butter-flavoring chemicals at work or through a consumer product.

Many claims involve flavorings related lung disease linked to jobs where diacetyl or similar compounds were heated, mixed, sprayed, or packaged in enclosed areas.

A qualifying work history often includes time in a microwave popcorn facility, flavoring manufacturing, coffee roasting and flavoring operations, or other industries that rely on concentrated flavoring additives.

Evidence of exposure can come from job duties, worksite descriptions, safety records, product information, or industrial hygiene findings where available.

Medical support typically includes pulmonary function testing, CT imaging, and a diagnosis that fits the clinical pattern of fixed small-airway obstruction, with a lung biopsy sometimes used in complex cases.

Timing matters, because symptoms may develop during employment or appear after exposure ends, and many people first notice persistent cough and shortness of breath during exertion.

Legal eligibility also depends on the state where exposure occurred and whether the facts support claims against an employer, manufacturer, or other responsible party.

TorHoerman Law can perform a critical review of your work history and medical records to determine whether your case fits the exposure and diagnosis profile seen in diacetyl popcorn lung litigation.

Gathering Evidence for a Popcorn Lung Claim

Evidence is the backbone of a popcorn lung claim because these cases depend on proving both a credible exposure pathway and a lung injury that fits bronchiolitis obliterans rather than ordinary asthma or bronchitis.

The strongest cases tie the diagnosis to specific job duties or product use, with documentation that shows how often and how intensely the exposure occurred.

Good records also help identify which companies may be responsible and support the damages linked to reduced lung function and long-term medical needs.

Common types of evidence in popcorn lung cases include:

• Medical records documenting diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment history
• Pulmonary function tests showing fixed airway obstruction and reduced lung function
• CT scans and radiology reports, plus notes stating a chest X-ray was normal when relevant
• Lung biopsy pathology reports when performed
• Treating physician notes linking exposure history to the lung condition
• Employment records: job titles, dates, departments, shift schedules, and task descriptions
• Witness statements from coworkers, supervisors, or family members who observed symptoms or work conditions
• Safety documents if occupational exposure is a concern: SDS sheets, hazard communications, training materials, and warning labels
• Industrial hygiene data: air sampling results, ventilation assessments, and compliance audits when available
• Product evidence for consumer claims: brand, lot numbers, purchase history, photos of packaging, and ingredient disclosures
• Workers’ compensation files, prior incident reports, and internal investigations

Potential Compensation in Popcorn Lung Lawsuits

Damages in popcorn lung lawsuits are the measurable losses tied to a permanent lung injury, including the cost of care, the income impact of reduced work capacity, and the human harm of living with chronic breathing impairment.

Because popcorn lung can worsen over time and may require long-term treatment, damages often account for future medical needs and the ongoing limits caused by reduced lung function.

A lawyer helps assess damages by gathering medical documentation, confirming work restrictions, and using records and expert opinions to estimate both past losses and likely future costs.

The calculation also considers how the injury affects daily activities, sleep, exertion tolerance, and the ability to participate in normal life, without assuming any particular result.

In some cases, damages may also include punitive damages, but only where the facts and state law support that remedy.

Potential damages in popcorn lung lawsuits may include:

• Past and future medical expenses, including specialist care, testing, medications, and oxygen therapy
• Pulmonary rehabilitation and related therapy costs
• Costs tied to severe progression, including hospitalization and evaluation for a lung transplant
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Out-of-pocket expenses, including travel for treatment and medical equipment
• Pain and suffering related to chronic breathing limitations and physical distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life due to reduced activity tolerance and persistent symptoms
• Disability-related losses and accommodations
• Wrongful death damages for eligible family members when popcorn lung contributes to death
• Punitive damages in cases where allowed and supported by evidence and applicable law

Popcorn lung cases demand careful legal analysis grounded in medical science, industrial hygiene evidence, and a clear understanding of how flavorings-related lung disease develops.

TorHoerman Law has experience evaluating diacetyl exposure claims and building cases that connect documented workplace or product exposure to measurable loss of lung function.

These lawsuits often involve complex questions about chemical supply chains, safety warnings, and what companies knew about the health risks associated with inhaled flavoring compounds.

A disciplined legal strategy can identify responsible parties and present the medical evidence in a clear, credible manner.

If you or a family member has been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans or another qualifying lung condition after exposure to diacetyl, contact TorHoerman Law for a confidential case evaluation.

An attorney can review your medical records, work history, and exposure details to determine whether you may have a viable claim.

Taking action early allows your legal team to preserve evidence and fully assess the scope of your losses.