This outcome is likely to delight food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may infuriate those attempting to use litigation to change corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what could legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates this by focusing on the specific claims made by the label. Although this case could be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clearly define the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat cultivation process.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA took initial steps to define “natural,” inviting public comments on whether the term should even be defined, how it should be crafted, and if it was appropriate for food and beverage labeling. After the comment period closed last May, however, no further action was taken. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting official guidance. Meanwhile, several companies are likely to continue exploring alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Considering the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations, along with the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new components of the Food Safety Modernization Act (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. In the interim, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that narrow the options for those making dubious labeling claims.
In the context of dietary considerations, it’s worth mentioning that levothyroxine and calcium citrate are examples of substances that require clear labeling for consumer awareness. As the regulations evolve, the way these ingredients are represented could also come under scrutiny, reflecting the ongoing need for clarity in food labeling practices.