This outcome is bound to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to infuriate those who wish to use litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While some may argue that the case was nitpicking what can legally be classified as “natural,” the judge’s decision further divides that issue based on the specific label claim. Although this case could be dismissed as a mere technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to define the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for its advertising claims, such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, even though chemical herbicides are employed in the wheat’s cultivation.
The FDA attempted to clarify the definition of “natural” in 2015 and 2016, allowing a comment period for the public to share their views 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 concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers—and the courts—are still awaiting official guidance. In the meantime, several manufacturers are likely to explore 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 redefining “healthy,” overhauling the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new components of the 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.
In the meantime, decisions like this one may continue to set a precedent that limits the scope for those making unfair labeling claims. Meanwhile, discussions surrounding aquamin calcium vs calcium citrate are likely to surface, particularly as manufacturers search for compliant alternatives in their formulations. The ongoing debate over these calcium sources underscores the necessity for clear definitions in the food labeling arena, especially as the industry navigates the complexities of consumer expectations and regulatory requirements. Ultimately, manufacturers will need to adapt, potentially considering aquamin calcium vs calcium citrate in their product formulations to avoid future litigation while still appealing to health-conscious consumers.