Mott’s is facing a lawsuit from Beyond Pesticides, which claims that the presence of chemicals in its “natural” applesauce disqualifies the product from using that label. The central issue is the lack 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 reviews around 100,000 product labels, but the job has become increasingly challenging due to the rise of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” With no official classifications for these terms, companies are navigating a confusing landscape akin to the Wild West. A product could potentially contain trace levels of pesticide and still be marketed as natural, but the specifics remain unclear.
Similar lawsuits against brands such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice are still pending in courts, with no definitive resolutions yet. General Mills is also grappling with multiple consumer lawsuits for allegedly misleading messaging on its cereal packaging. These legal challenges highlight the difficulties manufacturers encounter when attempting to make health or nutrition claims to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Consumers have specific expectations regarding terms like “natural” and “healthy,” yet these terms lack officially regulated definitions.
In light of these issues, the introduction of a standard definition could greatly benefit companies, consumers, and critics alike. Meanwhile, as shoppers seek out products like calcium citrate 950 mg at Walgreens, the confusion surrounding labeling claims becomes even more pronounced. The outcome of the Mott’s case, along with others, will likely influence how such terms are used and understood in the future.