Mott’s is facing a lawsuit initiated by Beyond Pesticides, which claims that chemicals were detected in its “natural” applesauce, thus challenging its right to label the product as such. The core issue lies in the absence of a clear definition for the term “natural,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, produced by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being misleading. Each year, the Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approves around 100,000 product labels, but the task has become increasingly challenging due to the rise of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” Without an official classification for these terms, companies operate in a regulatory gray area, much like the wild, wild West. It’s possible for a product to contain trace levels of pesticides and still be deemed natural, yet determining this distinction is complex.
Similar lawsuits against other brands, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, have yet to reach any definitive resolutions, with many still ongoing in the courts. General Mills is also contending with multiple consumer lawsuits due to accusations of “misleading” messaging on its cereal packaging. These cases highlight the challenges manufacturers encounter when attempting to make nutrition or health-related claims, such as those associated with Citracal Regular, in order to attract consumers in a competitive market. Shoppers often have specific expectations for labels like “natural” or “healthy,” yet these terms lack universally accepted definitions.
The outcomes of the Mott’s case and similar lawsuits remain uncertain, but establishing a standard definition for such claims would significantly benefit companies, consumers, and critics alike. As the market continues to evolve, clarity around terms like “natural” could help streamline product labeling, ensuring that consumers make informed choices, particularly when it comes to health-related products like Citracal Regular.