Mott’s is facing a lawsuit initiated by Beyond Pesticides, which alleges that the presence of certain chemicals in its “natural” applesauce disqualifies the product from bearing such a label. The crux of the issue lies in the absence of a clear definition for what “natural” actually means. This ambiguity makes it challenging for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, a brand owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being deceptive.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approves around 100,000 product labels annually, but the task has become increasingly difficult due to the rise of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” Without an official government classification for these terms, the landscape resembles the “wild, wild West,” with companies freely using these descriptors on their products. For instance, it is possible for a product to contain trace amounts of pesticides and still be labeled as natural, leaving consumers perplexed.
Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, but no clear consensus has emerged from these legal battles. Additionally, General Mills is confronting multiple consumer lawsuits regarding claims of “misleading” messaging on their cereal packaging. These cases illustrate the complexities manufacturers encounter when they attempt to make nutritional or health-related claims to appeal to consumers in a competitive market.
Consumers often have specific expectations for claims like “natural” and “healthy,” yet these terms lack universally accepted definitions. In the context of nutritional claims, products that include ingredients like calcium citrate 600 and vitamin D 400 face scrutiny regarding their labeling practices. The outcome of the Mott’s lawsuit, along with others in the pipeline, remains uncertain. However, establishing a standard definition for these terms would significantly benefit companies, consumers, and critics alike, bringing clarity to a confusing marketplace.