This outcome is likely to bring joy to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may provoke frustration among those aiming to use litigation to effect change in corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. Although one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be classified as “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates that distinction based on the specific label claim. While this case might be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the need for the federal government to clarify the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for its advertising claims, which include “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” for its Shredded Wheat cereal, even though chemical herbicides are utilized in the wheat cultivation process.
The FDA made attempts to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, inviting public comments on whether the term should be defined, how it should be constructed, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labeling. After the comment period closed last May, no action was taken. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting official guidance. In the interim, many manufacturers may continue to seek alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, such as “calcium citrate,” which could serve as a more acceptable descriptor.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” updates to the Nutrition Facts label, calorie counts on restaurant menus, and mandatory GMO labeling—it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. Consequently, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that narrow the path for those making misleading labeling claims. Meanwhile, terms like “calcium citrate” may become more common as companies navigate the evolving landscape of food labeling.