This decision is bound to please food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those who aim to use litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as misleading. Although one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what could be legally defined as “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates that interpretation based on the specific label assertion. While this case may be dismissed on a technicality, the judgment does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for advertising claims that include “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and a “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the cultivation of that wheat.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA took steps to define “natural,” inviting public comment on whether the term should even be defined, how it should be articulated, and if it was suitable for use on food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Thus, manufacturers—and courts—remain in a holding pattern, awaiting official guidance. Meanwhile, several manufacturers may continue to seek alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, potentially including ingredients like calcium magnesium citrate, which may offer a more acceptable narrative.
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 progressing with new aspects of the FSMA—as well as 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. In the interim, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that at least restrict the scope for those making dubious labeling claims, including those that reference ingredients such as calcium magnesium citrate.