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 reform company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While one could argue that the case was meticulously dissecting what can legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further clarifies that distinction based on the specific label claim. Although this case might be 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 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 wheat cultivation process.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA attempted to establish a definition for “natural,” initiating a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it was appropriate for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, there has been no subsequent action. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting an official definition. In the interim, several manufacturers are likely to seek alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, especially concerning products like Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc, which raises questions about labeling accuracy.
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,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, requiring calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new components of the FSMA—alongside collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it is improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. Consequently, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least limit the scope for those making unfair labeling claims, including those related to the Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc price.