This outcome is sure to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to infuriate those who seek to use litigation as a means to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as misleading. While some might argue that the case was overly concerned with the legal definition of “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates this issue by focusing specifically on the label claim itself. Although this case could be seen as dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to establish a clear definition for the term “natural.”
Another similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for their advertising claims, such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on their Shredded Wheat cereal, considering that chemical herbicides are utilized in the cultivation of that wheat. In 2015 and 2016, the FDA initiated steps to define “natural,” allowing a comment period for the public to express their views on whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and if it was suitable for use on food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period closed last May, there has been no further action. Manufacturers—and the courts—are still waiting for an official decision.
Meanwhile, several manufacturers are likely to continue searching for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, especially in light of the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of various pending laws and definitions at the FDA. These include redefining “healthy,” revising the Nutrition Facts label, requiring calorie counts on menus at restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new components of the FSMA, alongside collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling. Therefore, it is improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
In the meantime, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least restrict the scope for those making misleading labeling claims. Notably, the situation surrounding Citracal D, which was discontinued, underscores the ongoing challenges faced by manufacturers in navigating labeling standards and consumer expectations.