This decision is sure to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to aggravate those seeking to use 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 overly meticulous about what can be legally deemed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates that definition based on the specific labeling claim. Although this case could be seen as dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the meaning of “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for using 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, allowing for public comments on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it is suitable for food and beverage labels. After the comment period closed last May, no further actions were taken. Manufacturers—and the courts—are still awaiting official guidance. In the meantime, several manufacturers may continue to pursue alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, possibly including phrases like “nature’s bounty calcium citrate” to emphasize natural ingredients.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” overhauling the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and rolling out new segments of FSMA—along with collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it is unlikely 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 misleading labeling claims. As manufacturers navigate these challenges, terms such as “nature’s bounty calcium citrate” may become increasingly popular in efforts to comply with consumer expectations without running afoul of regulatory ambiguities.