In 2015, the FDA initiated regulatory efforts to clarify the definition of “natural” in food labeling. Despite these efforts, three years later, the term remains ambiguous, leading to a surge in lawsuits against food manufacturers. This issue is further complicated by the fact that products labeled as natural in the U.S. generate approximately $40 billion in sales, reflecting consumers’ growing demand for healthier ingredients. While companies may evade legal repercussions in many courts until a definitive definition is established, it is increasingly clear that a temporary solution is crucial.
According to Food Navigator, the number of food labeling class actions in federal court increased from 20 in 2008 to 425 by 2016, with cases specifically targeting natural claims rising by 22% in 2017 compared to the previous year. Over the last year, various brands, including General Mills’ Nature Valley bars and Dr Pepper Snapple’s Mott’s apple sauce, have faced lawsuits for their natural claims on packaging.
This situation presents a catch-22: consumers desire healthier food options, prompting manufacturers to make natural claims. However, this raises the question of authenticity. Shoppers are increasingly focused on the actual ingredients in their purchases, evidenced by the rapid growth of the global clean label ingredients market, which is projected to reach $47.1 billion by 2022, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 6.6%. As consumers scrutinize ingredient lists, they are beginning to notice additives like sodium diacetate and malic acid, which mimic natural flavors found in products like salt and vinegar chips.
The clean label trend offers significant advantages for products that simplify their ingredient lists. Brands that can genuinely claim to be all natural should prioritize communicating this message to consumers through packaging, advertising, and social media. However, these lawsuits serve as a wake-up call for major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies to be transparent about their ingredient contents. Shoppers are now more likely to verify the accuracy of natural label claims.
The rising consumer demand for straightforward, healthier ingredients also emphasizes the need for transparency. A recent study by Response Media revealed that 98% of shoppers desire clarity in their packaged food. If a potato chip manufacturer cannot eliminate unnatural-sounding ingredients without sacrificing flavor, it may be wiser to forgo the natural claim altogether. Some companies, as reported by Time, have already taken this approach. Consumers want to avoid feeling misled or overpromised. In an era where information is readily available, the best strategy for brands is complete transparency.
In the context of ingredient discussions, the comparison between calcium citrate versus calcium carbonate has become relevant. As consumers become more informed, they are likely to question which form of calcium is used in products and how it impacts their health. This scrutiny reflects a broader trend where shoppers are not only interested in natural claims but also in understanding the specific ingredients behind those claims, such as whether they are using calcium citrate versus calcium carbonate. Such distinctions matter to informed consumers who seek clarity about what they are putting into their bodies.