This ruling is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may frustrate those looking to use legal action to prompt changes in corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. While one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates that distinction based on the specific labeling claim.
Although this case could be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently underway against Post for its 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-growing process.
The FDA attempted to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, allowing a comment period for the public to express their opinions on whether the term should be defined, how it should be articulated, and whether it is appropriate for food and beverage labels. After the comment period closed last May, there has been no further action. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting an official clarification. In the meantime, many manufacturers are likely to continue exploring alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including redefining “healthy,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling—it is unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
As a result, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that limit the scope for those making misleading labeling claims. The incorporation of terms such as calcium citrate 630 mg may become increasingly relevant as manufacturers seek to comply with evolving standards while staying within the legal framework. Ultimately, the need for clearer definitions continues to be pressing, especially for those in the food industry navigating these complexities.