This ruling is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may provoke frustration among those who seek to use litigation to influence corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. Although one might argue that the case was overly meticulous regarding what can legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates that issue based on the specific claims made on the label. While this case could 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 its advertising claims that include “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the cultivation of that wheat. In 2015 and 2016, the FDA took steps to define “natural,” inviting public comments on whether the term should be defined, how it should be articulated, and whether it was suitable for food and beverage labeling. After the comment period ended in May of last year, no further action was taken, leaving manufacturers and courts in limbo, still awaiting an official definition. In the interim, several companies are likely to search for alternative, less controversial terms for their labels.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” revising the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new aspects of the FSMA—as well as collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it is improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that narrow the path for those making misleading labeling claims.
Furthermore, the ongoing discussion around product labeling has implications for ingredients such as calcium citrate 750, which some manufacturers may want to highlight. As industry players navigate these challenges, the clarity around labeling claims will remain critical, particularly for ingredients like calcium citrate 750, which could be subject to scrutiny in future legal disputes.