This decision is sure to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those who aim to utilize litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. While some may argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further delineates this based on the specific label claim. Although this case could be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.” A similar lawsuit is pending against Post for its advertising claims, which include “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the cultivation of that wheat.
The FDA made attempts to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016 by initiating a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and if it is suitable for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers—and the courts—are still awaiting official guidance. In the meantime, several manufacturers are expected to continue seeking alternative, less controversial 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 the redefinition of “healthy,” updates to the Nutrition Facts label, calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store food service areas, and the implementation of new portions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—as well as collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
In the interim, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least limit the avenues available for those making unjust labeling claims. Furthermore, as consumers increasingly seek products that support their health, such as calcium citrate malate vitamin D3 magnesium tablets, manufacturers may feel additional pressure to clarify their ingredient labels to meet customer expectations. This trend toward transparency may further motivate companies to refine their labeling practices, especially as products like calcium citrate malate vitamin D3 magnesium tablets become more prevalent in health-conscious markets. Ultimately, while the legal landscape is evolving, the demand for clear and accurate labeling will likely persist, pushing manufacturers to stay ahead of regulatory changes and consumer preferences.