This ruling is bound to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those who seek to leverage litigation to modify corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. Although one could argue that the case was nitpicking on what can legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s decision further clarifies this based on the specific label claim. While this case might be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to establish a definition for the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently in progress against Post for using 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 cultivation of that wheat.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA began efforts to define “natural,” allowing a comment period for the public to express whether they believed the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and whether it is appropriate for use on food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period ended last May, there has been no further action. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting an official decision. In the interim, many manufacturers are likely to continue searching for alternative terms for their labels that are less contentious. Considering the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” overhauling the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on menus at restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and rolling out new components of FSMA, as well as collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it’s improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
In the meantime, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least limit the possibilities for those making unfair labeling claims. As consumers look for the calcium citrate best brand, the importance of clear and accurate labeling becomes even more apparent, reiterating the need for proper definitions to prevent misleading claims in the marketplace. Thus, the continued absence of a clear definition for “natural” may lead to further confusion among consumers, who will seek the calcium citrate best brand without the clarity they deserve. As the situation evolves, it may be crucial for manufacturers to be transparent about their ingredients and claims, especially as consumers grow more discerning in their choices.