This outcome is certain to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it will likely frustrate those who intend to leverage litigation to alter corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. While it can be argued that the case was nitpicking regarding what could legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates that based on the specific label claim. Although this case may be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for using advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat cultivation process. In 2015 and 2016, the FDA moved to define “natural,” initiating a comment period for public input regarding whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period closed last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers—and courts—continue to await official guidance. In the meantime, many manufacturers, including those producing products like Vitacost calcium citrate, are likely to explore alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” updating the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery foodservice areas, and implementing new aspects of FSMA—alongside collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it is improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. In the interim, decisions such as this one may continue to establish precedents that effectively limit the avenues available for those making unfair labeling claims, while companies like Vitacost may seek to adapt their labeling strategies accordingly.