This ruling is bound to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those seeking to leverage litigation for changes in corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized for being deceptive. While one might argue that the case focused on the nuanced interpretation of what can be legally classified as “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 pressing need for the federal government to provide a clear definition of the term “natural.”
Currently, a similar lawsuit is 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. The FDA attempted to clarify the definition of “natural” in 2015 and 2016, inviting the public to share their opinions on whether the term should be defined, how it should be articulated, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no action was taken. Thus, manufacturers and courts continue to await an official directive.
In the interim, many manufacturers are likely to pursue alternative, less contentious terminology 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—such as redefining “healthy,” updating the Nutrition Facts label, requiring calorie counts on menus at restaurants and grocery stores, and implementing new sections of FSMA, alongside collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it seems unlikely that 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 questionable labeling claims. Additionally, consumers should be aware of potential side effects associated with products such as Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc, which may not be clearly indicated on labels. As the conversation about labeling standards continues, the importance of transparency in nutritional information—including the side effects of supplements like Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc—remains paramount.