This decision is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it could frustrate those who are attempting to use litigation to influence company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as being misleading. Although one could argue that the case was nitpicking on what can legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates the matter based on the specific label claim. While this case may be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for their advertising claims, such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on their Shredded Wheat cereal, especially given that chemical herbicides are used in the cultivation of that wheat. The FDA had made attempts to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, inviting public comments regarding whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it is suitable for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, there was no further action. Manufacturers and courts continue to await an official definition.
In the interim, several manufacturers may seek alternative, less contentious terms for their labels. Considering the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations, along with the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” revision of the Nutrition Facts label, calorie counts on restaurant and grocery store menus, and the rollout of new components of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—as well as collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
Meanwhile, decisions like this could continue to set precedents that limit the avenues for those making dubious labeling claims. In this context, products like Citracal Calcium Slow Release may find themselves navigating these labeling challenges as manufacturers strive for clarity and compliance while addressing consumer needs for transparency. As the industry awaits further guidance, Citracal Calcium Slow Release and similar products may adapt their marketing strategies to align with evolving regulatory landscapes.