NAOOA targets outlier olive oil brands after testing finds broad authenticity

The North American Olive Oil Association says its 2024 testing program found U.S. retail olive oil is overwhelmingly authentic, while a small number of non-compliant brands are now facing legal action. The move follows what NAOOA describes as the largest olive oil testing effort ever conducted in the United States and could affect consumer trust, retailer oversight and future foodservice testing.

Why it matters: - The NAOOA says its testing supports a broader consumer takeaway: most olive oil sold in U.S. stores is authentic. - The association is now using the findings to push legal accountability for the small number of products that failed authenticity standards. - The case could shape how retailers, brands and foodservice suppliers handle olive oil testing and labeling going forward.

What happened: - The North American Olive Oil Association announced the next phase of its 2024 Olive Oil Testing Program on June 22, 2026. - NAOOA describes the initiative as the largest olive oil testing program ever conducted in the United States. - The program was designed and overseen by Tassos C. Kyriakides, Ph.D., assistant professor of biostatistics at the Yale University School of Public Health. - The supermarket study tested 190 olive oil samples bought off the shelf from U.S. and Canadian retailers. - Those samples included products from the top 15 brands, which represented 85% of the market, plus 37 private-label store brands. - The testing found no evidence of adulteration in the supermarket samples from the major brands and private-label products. - Among brands representing less than 1% of market share, one extra virgin olive oil sample and one regular olive oil sample were found to be adulterated.

The details: - NAOOA said the adulterated samples were mixed with another type of oil without disclosure to consumers. - The association also tested olive oils sold by foodservice suppliers at the same time. - NAOOA did not publish those foodservice findings as part of the formal study because the scope was more limited and the sampling was not random. - NAOOA reported adulteration findings from both the supermarket and foodservice testing to food safety agencies in the states where the non-compliant products were purchased. - A New York class action firm later filed lawsuits against four brands identified in NAOOA testing: Racconto, Capatriti, Grigoris Lefas and Supremo Italiano. - NAOOA also filed its own complaint seeking a cease-and-desist order against a foodservice supply company over alleged sale of mislabeled and adulterated products. - The association says it will fund a more robust foodservice testing program in 2027. - This is only the second time in NAOOA history that the group has filed suit on behalf of the industry as a whole. - In 2013, NAOOA sued Kangadis Food, Inc., maker of the Capatriti brand, which is now among the brands facing class-action litigation.

Between the lines: - The NAOOA is framing the results as a validation of the olive oil market, not a broad industry scandal. - The small number of failures among low-share brands suggests the problem is concentrated rather than widespread, based on the testing results. - The association's move into litigation shows an effort to turn test data into enforcement pressure, not just public messaging. - The foodservice market appears to be a new focus area, but NAOOA's comments indicate the evidence base there is not yet as complete as the retail sample.

What's next: - NAOOA plans to expand foodservice testing in 2027. - The legal cases against the named brands and the foodservice supply company are likely to determine how much accountability follows the testing results. - The association says it wants to preserve the consumer confidence created by the testing program.

The bottom line: - NAOOA is using a large-scale authenticity study to argue that U.S. olive oil is broadly trustworthy while pursuing legal action against the small set of products it says fell short.