This outcome is sure to bring joy to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those aiming to use litigation to alter corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. While some might argue that the case was overly meticulous about what could legally be classified as “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates this issue 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 meaning of “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently ongoing against Post for their marketing assertions that include “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on their 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,” opening a comment period for public input regarding whether the term should be clearly defined, how it should be formulated, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers and courts alike are still awaiting an official determination. In the interim, many manufacturers are likely to continue looking for 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 the redefinition of “healthy,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new aspects of the FSMA, in addition to collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it is improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that at least narrow the path for those making misleading labeling claims. For example, in the realm of dietary supplements, products like the calcium citrate 200 mg tablet are often promoted with specific health claims. As such examples highlight the need for clarity in labeling practices, it becomes even more crucial for regulatory bodies to establish consistent definitions. Until that happens, cases involving products such as the calcium citrate 200 mg tablet may also find themselves at the mercy of ambiguous regulations, leaving manufacturers in a state of uncertainty.