If you’re like millions of home cooks, PAM cooking spray has been a staple in your kitchen for years—quick, convenient, and seemingly harmless for preventing food from sticking to pans. But a recent court case has raised alarming questions about potential health risks from older versions of the product, particularly the butter-flavored variety. A Los Angeles jury awarded $25 million to Roland Esparza, a 58-year-old man who claimed that long-term use of PAM led to a debilitating lung condition known as “popcorn lung.” This verdict highlights issues around a chemical called diacetyl, inadequate warnings from manufacturer Conagra Brands, and what it might mean for everyday users. Let’s break it down so you can understand the facts and assess any personal risks.
What Happened in the Court Case?
The lawsuit centered on Esparza’s diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans—a rare, irreversible lung disease that scars the small airways in the lungs, making breathing increasingly difficult. Often called “popcorn lung” due to its initial discovery among microwave popcorn factory workers, the condition can lead to severe respiratory failure, sometimes requiring a lung transplant.
Esparza, a dedicated bodybuilder and martial artist with a health-conscious lifestyle, used butter-flavored PAM multiple times a day since the 1990s to cook high-protein meals like eggs and meats on his stovetop. He alleged that inhaling the aerosolized fumes over decades caused his condition. The jury unanimously agreed, finding Conagra negligent for failing to warn consumers about the inhalation hazards. This is the first successful verdict of its kind against a cooking spray company.
Conagra has stated they disagree with the decision and plan to appeal. They emphasized that diacetyl was removed from PAM formulations in 2009, making the product diacetyl-free for nearly two decades and safe when used as directed.
The Chemical in Question: What Is Diacetyl?
At the heart of the case is diacetyl, a synthetic chemical used to impart a buttery flavor and aroma. It’s naturally occurring in small amounts in foods like butter and cheese, but in concentrated, aerosolized forms—like in cooking sprays or popcorn flavorings—it can become hazardous when heated and inhaled. Medical studies have linked repeated exposure to diacetyl vapors with lung damage, as it irritates and inflames the airways, leading to scarring over time.The issue first gained attention in the popcorn industry, where factory workers exposed to high levels of diacetyl developed popcorn lung. Diacetyl has also been flagged in some e-cigarette liquids, raising similar concerns about inhalation risks.
In PAM’s case, the butter-flavored spray allegedly released diacetyl into the air when sprayed and heated, creating fumes that users could inhale unknowingly during routine cooking.
Lack of Warnings: A Key Failure?
One of the jury’s main findings was that Conagra didn’t provide sufficient warnings about these risks. While PAM cans have long included general cautions about flammability and not leaving them near heat sources, there were no specific alerts about the potential for lung damage from inhaling diacetyl fumes. Critics argue this left consumers in the dark, especially since the product was marketed as a safe, everyday kitchen essential.
Esparza’s case pointed to the company’s knowledge of diacetyl’s dangers from earlier popcorn-related issues, suggesting Conagra should have acted sooner to warn users or reformulate the product. The verdict underscores a broader debate about corporate responsibility in labeling potential health hazards, even for low-level exposures.
How Likely Is It That Regular Users Have Been Affected?
This is the big question for most PAM users: Am I at risk? The short answer is that for the vast majority, the likelihood is extremely low—especially with current products. Popcorn lung is rare overall, primarily documented in high-exposure occupational settings like factories. Consumer cases are even rarer, with only a handful reported tied to products like microwave popcorn or cooking sprays.
Factors that could increase risk include:
- Heavy, long-term use: Esparza used the spray multiple times daily for over a decade, often in close proximity while cooking. Casual users who spray occasionally are far less exposed.
- Butter-flavored varieties: These contained diacetyl pre-2009; original or other flavors might not have.
- Inhalation exposure: Poor kitchen ventilation could heighten risks by allowing fumes to linger.
- Pre-existing conditions: People with respiratory issues might be more vulnerable.
Importantly, since Conagra phased out diacetyl in 2009, newer cans shouldn’t pose this specific threat. If you have old cans in your pantry, check the labels or dispose of them. For current users, health experts recommend using any aerosol products in well-ventilated areas and avoiding direct inhalation.
That said, this case might prompt more people to come forward if they’ve experienced unexplained lung issues after heavy PAM use. If you’re concerned, consult a doctor—symptoms of popcorn lung include shortness of breath, wheezing, and fatigue that worsens over time.
A Note on Other PAM Safety Concerns
While this lawsuit focuses on chemical inhalation, PAM has faced separate litigation over exploding cans. Since 2011, dozens of burn victims have sued Conagra, alleging faulty vent designs caused cans to rupture and ignite near heat sources, leading to severe injuries. Conagra has settled some cases and insists products are safe with proper use, but always heed flammability warnings.
What Should You Do Now?
- Check your products: Look for diacetyl in ingredients (unlikely in post-2009 cans) and ensure good ventilation when using.
- Consider alternatives: Non-aerosol options like oil brushes or silicone mats if you’re worried.
- Stay informed: Follow updates on the appeal or any potential class actions—this verdict could influence future labeling.
This case serves as a reminder that even everyday items can have hidden risks. While PAM remains popular and generally safe for most, knowledge is your best tool in the kitchen. If you’ve been affected, seek medical advice promptly.
PAM cooking spray gave everyone lung cancer fam pic.twitter.com/p7lAwOblam
— 𓅃 UAE Exotic Falconry & Finance (@FalconryFinance) February 11, 2026
E-cigarettes and Vaping Products
Diacetyl has been a significant concern in e-liquids and vaping. Studies (including a notable 2015 Harvard study) found it in many flavored e-cigarette liquids and refill products—often in dessert-like, creamy, candy, fruit, or cocktail flavors (e.g., custard, vanilla, butterscotch, cotton candy, or even some non-butter ones). It was detected in a high percentage (over 75% in some tested samples) of flavored vapes, as manufacturers used it for rich, smooth tastes.
- Inhalation is the main risk here (similar to the PAM concerns), and it’s linked to potential lung issues.
- Many reputable e-liquid brands (especially in regulated markets like the EU/UK) have banned or removed diacetyl since the mid-2010s, often replacing it with alternatives like acetyl propionyl (which has its own concerns).
- If you’re vaping, look for products labeled “diacetyl-free” or check third-party lab reports—avoid cheap or unregulated ones that might still include it.
Overall, while diacetyl risks are mostly tied to heavy, repeated inhalation (like in factories or very frequent use of flavored aerosols), most people encounter it safely in food at low levels.