This ruling is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it will probably frustrate those aiming to leverage litigation to alter corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. Although it could be argued that the case involved fine distinctions regarding what can be legally classified as “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates this issue by focusing on the specific label claim. While the case may be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the need for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.” There is an ongoing lawsuit against Post for its advertising claims like “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the fact that chemical herbicides are employed in the wheat cultivation process.
The FDA took initiatives to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, allowing a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and whether it is suitable for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period ended last May, no further action was taken. Both manufacturers and courts are still awaiting official guidance. In the interim, many manufacturers are likely to seek 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, requiring calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new segments of the FSMA, as well as collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it’s unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
In the meantime, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that restrict the avenues for those making unfair labeling claims. For instance, products such as bariatric advantage calcium chews 500 mg could be scrutinized under these evolving standards, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in labeling practices. As the industry awaits further regulation, it’s essential for manufacturers of bariatric advantage calcium chews 500 mg and similar products to remain vigilant and consider how they present their claims to avoid potential legal challenges.