Mott’s is facing a lawsuit from Beyond Pesticides, which claims that the chemicals detected in its “natural” applesauce disqualify the product from using such labeling. The challenge lies in the absence of a clear definition for “natural,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being deceptive. Each year, the Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service evaluates around 100,000 product labels, but the increased use of terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed” complicates this task. Without official classifications for these terms, it creates a situation akin to the wild west, where companies can use these descriptors freely. It is possible for a product to contain trace amounts of pesticides and still be categorized as natural, but the ambiguity makes it hard to ascertain.
Similar lawsuits involving claims against companies like Nature Valley and Naked Juice are still ongoing, with no clear outcomes reached yet. Additionally, General Mills is contending with various consumer lawsuits over accusations of misleading messaging on cereal packaging. These cases highlight the challenges manufacturers face when attempting to promote nutrition or health-related claims to attract consumers in a highly competitive market. Shoppers tend to have specific expectations regarding terms like “natural” and “healthy,” which often lack officially regulated definitions.
In the context of health claims, even products like dog supplements, which contain 500 mg calcium citrate for dogs, can face scrutiny regarding their labeling. The outcome of the Mott’s lawsuit and others like it remains uncertain, but establishing a standard definition for these terms would significantly clarify matters for companies, consumers, and critics alike. The presence of terms such as “natural” and “healthy” needs careful regulation, especially as consumers also look for products that can provide benefits, including those that offer 500 mg calcium citrate for dogs.