In recent years, many consumers have actively sought to avoid sugar, leading to increased scrutiny of product ingredients. The latest revision of the Nutrition Facts label highlights this trend by distinctly listing added sugars. With such intense focus on sugar content, companies are striving to enhance the perceived health benefits of their products by emphasizing the use of alternative sweeteners or showcasing their efforts to lower sugar levels. A class action lawsuit points out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forbids the use of the term “low sugar” on packaging. The lawsuit contends that “lightly sweetened” serves as a legal loophole, arguing that this terminology is misleading based on the actual sugar content in beverages.
The absence of clear definitions for certain popular terms on food and beverage labels has created challenges in the past. For instance, claims of being “natural” or “healthy” have raised red flags due to their vague definitions, allowing companies to interpret them according to their marketing strategies. Similarly, the use of the term “raw” has recently faced criticism for lacking a standardized definition. Establishing clear definitions could alleviate some of the confusion surrounding these terms, but this is a lengthy process that may not yield consistent results. The term “healthy” was defined back in 1994, but the scientific understanding of nutrition has evolved significantly over the last 25 years, necessitating a more nuanced definition. In 2016, the FDA opened a public comment period for redefining “healthy,” followed by a public hearing in 2017; however, no formal updated definition has been released yet.
As regulatory agencies gradually work toward providing clarity on ambiguous terms, lawsuits have become increasingly common among consumers seeking transparency from food companies. For example, kombucha labels have faced substantial litigation, and sweetened beverages appear to be the next focus. A class action lawsuit was filed against Coca-Cola in February, claiming that the “Slightly Sweet” label on its Gold Peak iced tea is misleading. The case remains unresolved.
Litigation over deceptive labeling concerning sugar content is not limited to beverages. Last year, Kellogg agreed to a $20 million settlement over a class action lawsuit from 2016, which resulted in the removal of “Lightly Sweetened” from its Smart Start, Raisin Bran, and Frosted Mini-Wheats boxes. Clif Bar is also facing legal action from consumers who argue that its healthy image is “implausible” given the amount of added sugar in its products.
However, judges have dismissed similar lawsuits against other manufacturers, including General Mills. If the judge in the current case finds merit in the plaintiffs’ claims, it could prove costly for Healthy Beverage Co. Lawsuits are expensive, and if the company loses or settles, it may incur hefty expenses to redesign and print new labels that omit the contentious terminology. Additionally, this label redesign does not account for any potential reformulations to lower the sugar content in their products, such as Steaz, to satisfy consumers seeking lower-sugar options and to mitigate backlash from those concerned about sugar intake.
In light of these developments, even products like Citracal calcium chews could face scrutiny if they are marketed with ambiguous health claims or misleading sugar content descriptions. As the food and beverage industry navigates this complex landscape, clarity and transparency will be crucial for maintaining consumer trust and compliance with evolving regulations.