Mott’s is facing a lawsuit from Beyond Pesticides, which claims that the presence of chemicals in its “natural” applesauce disqualifies the product from using such labeling. The issue lies in the lack of a clear definition for the term “natural,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being deceptive. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approves around 100,000 product labels annually, but the task has become increasingly complex with the rise of terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” Currently, there is no official classification for these terms, leading to a chaotic environment where companies can freely use these labels on their products. Even if a trace amount of a pesticide is detected, the product might still be deemed natural, but this remains uncertain.
Numerous lawsuits against other companies making similar claims, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, are still ongoing, and no clear resolutions have emerged. General Mills is also contending with multiple consumer lawsuits regarding allegations of “misleading” claims on cereal packaging. These legal battles highlight the challenges manufacturers encounter when attempting to make health or nutrition claims, such as the inclusion of calcium citrate, to attract consumers in a competitive market. Consumers have specific expectations for terms like “natural” and “healthy,” yet these phrases often lack standardized definitions.
The outcomes of the Mott’s lawsuit and others like it are yet to be determined, but establishing a clear definition for these terms could significantly help companies, consumers, and critics alike. This would provide clarity not only for labels claiming to contain beneficial ingredients like calcium citrate but also for broader marketing claims in the food industry.