This ruling is bound to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those seeking to leverage litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as misleading. Although one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates this based on the specific label assertion. While this case might be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the need for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and promoting Shredded Wheat cereal as a “Natural Source of Fiber,” despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat-growing process.
The FDA attempted to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, initiating a comment period for the public to express whether they believed the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it was suitable for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers and courts alike continue to await official guidance. Meanwhile, many manufacturers are likely to seek alternative, less disputable terms for their labels, including potential references to ingredients such as calcium citrate 1040.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” revising the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new components of FSMA—along with collaboration with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems improbable that any new definitions will be authorized in the near future. In the interim, decisions like this one may continue to create precedents that at least tighten the parameters for those making misleading labeling claims, while also promoting the use of ingredients such as calcium citrate 1040 in their formulations.