This outcome is bound to please food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to anger those who aim to use litigation to instigate changes in company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. While some may argue that the case was overly focused on the legal definition of “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates this based on the specific label claim. Although this case might be seen as dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to define the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently in progress against Post for its 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’s cultivation.
The FDA attempted to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, initiating a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it is suitable for use on food and beverage labels. After the comment period closed last May, there has been no further action. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting an official directive. In the meantime, several manufacturers are likely to continue their search for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Considering the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—such as redefining “healthy,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on menus at restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and advancing new portions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), along with collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
Meanwhile, decisions like this may continue to set precedents that at least limit the scope for those making unfair labeling claims. In this context, products like Citracal Maximum Plus may find themselves navigating these murky waters, as manufacturers reassess their claims to avoid legal challenges. The ongoing uncertainty around labeling regulations could lead Citracal Maximum Plus and similar products to seek clearer definitions of what constitutes “natural” to ensure compliance and avoid litigation.