This development is bound to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to infuriate those seeking to use litigation to prompt changes in company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. While one could argue that the case was overly focused on the nuanced definition of “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates matters by addressing the specific label claim. Although this case might be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the meaning of “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for making 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 cultivation of that wheat.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA took steps to define “natural,” inviting public commentary on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and its appropriateness for use on food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, no action was taken. Manufacturers—and the courts—remain in a state of waiting for an official directive. In the interim, several manufacturers are likely to continue seeking alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, particularly as they aim to highlight products like calcium citrate bluebonnet, which may appeal to health-conscious consumers.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” updates to the Nutrition Facts label, requirements for calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and the implementation of new FSMA components—along with collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that narrow the possibilities for those making misleading labeling claims, especially as companies strive to market their products, including calcium citrate bluebonnet, in a more favorable light.