This ruling is sure to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those aiming to leverage litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. While some may argue that the case focused excessively on the legal definition of “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates this based on the specific label claim. Although this case could 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 pending 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 wheat-growing process.
The FDA attempted to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, initiating a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be crafted, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period closed last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers—and courts—are still awaiting an official definition. In the meantime, several manufacturers will likely continue to seek alternative, less contentious 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 the redefinition of “healthy,” overhauling the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new aspects of FSMA—along with collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
As this situation unfolds, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that restrict the avenues for those making misleading labeling claims, such as those concerning solgar calcium citrate d3. The absence of clear definitions may compel manufacturers to explore alternatives, further impacting how products like solgar calcium citrate d3 are marketed. Ultimately, without regulatory clarity, the landscape for labeling claims remains uncertain, leaving both manufacturers and consumers in a complex position.