Mott’s is facing a lawsuit initiated by Beyond Pesticides, which claims that chemicals were detected in its “natural” applesauce, potentially disqualifying the product from using such labeling. The core issue is the lack of a clear definition for the term “natural,” making it challenging for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is misleading consumers. The Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service evaluates around 100,000 product labels annually, but the process has become increasingly complicated due to the rise of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” Without an official government classification for these descriptors, companies are navigating a regulatory landscape that resembles the Wild West.
For instance, it is possible that a product could contain trace amounts of a pesticide yet still be labeled as “natural.” This ambiguity extends to other lawsuits concerning similar claims, such as those against Nature Valley and Naked Juice, which remain unresolved in court. Additionally, General Mills is contending with multiple consumer lawsuits over accusations of “misleading” labels on cereal packaging. These legal challenges illustrate the complexities manufacturers encounter when attempting to make nutrition or health-related claims to attract consumers in a competitive marketplace.
Shoppers often have specific expectations regarding terms like “natural” and “healthy,” which lack regulated definitions. In this context, ingredients like calcium citrate, calcium ascorbate, and cholecalciferol could be used to enhance product labels, but their presence or absence doesn’t necessarily guarantee clarity regarding the product’s natural status. As the outcomes of Mott’s and other lawsuits unfold, establishing a standard definition for these terms could significantly benefit manufacturers, consumers, and critics alike.