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 that label. The challenge arises from the absence 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 misleading. 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 complicated as terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed” gain popularity. Without an official classification for these terms, it’s akin to a legal free-for-all for companies using them. It’s possible for a product to contain a trace amount of a pesticide and still be considered natural, but this ambiguity creates confusion.
Similar lawsuits against other companies, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, have yet to reach a definitive conclusion, and several cases remain unresolved. General Mills is also facing multiple consumer lawsuits regarding claims of “misleading” messaging on cereal packaging. These legal battles highlight the complexities manufacturers encounter when attempting to make health or nutrition claims to attract consumers in a competitive market. Shoppers often have specific expectations for labels like “natural” and “healthy,” yet these terms lack regulated definitions.
Incorporating ingredients like calcium citrate and zinc into products can further complicate the narrative, as consumers may associate these elements with health benefits. However, the lack of standardized definitions for health claims means that the presence of such ingredients does not necessarily ensure a product meets consumer expectations. The outcomes of the Mott’s lawsuit and others like it remain to be seen, but establishing a clear definition would significantly benefit companies, consumers, and critics alike.