This outcome is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may provoke frustration among those seeking to leverage litigation to alter corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. Although one could argue that the case was overly focused on the legal definition of “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates this based on the specific label claim. While the dismissal of this case could be viewed as a mere technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the term “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for advertising 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,” allowing a public comment period for individuals to express their opinions on whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no action was taken. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting an official directive. Meanwhile, several companies are likely to continue seeking alternative, less controversial 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,” updating the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and rolling out new components of the FSMA—along with collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
In the interim, cases like this one may continue to set precedents that narrow the options for those making misleading labeling claims. Additionally, as consumers become more aware of health-related claims, such as indications of calcium citrate, the demand for clarity in labeling will likely increase. This could prompt manufacturers to find more transparent ways to present health benefits, especially regarding ingredients like calcium citrate. Ultimately, until definitive guidelines are established, the landscape of food labeling will remain complex and contentious.