This outcome is bound to bring joy to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to anger those who aim to use litigation to influence corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as deceptive. While one could argue that the case was overly meticulous about what can legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates this by focusing on the specific labeling claim. Although this case could be dismissed on a technicality, the ruling does not eliminate the need for the federal government to define the term “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for using marketing claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the fact that chemical herbicides are utilized in the cultivation of that wheat.
The FDA took initial steps to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, inviting public comments on whether the term should be defined, how it should be articulated, and whether its use on food and beverage labels is appropriate. After the comment period closed last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers—and consumers—are still awaiting official guidance. Meanwhile, several manufacturers are likely to continue seeking 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, requiring calorie counts on menus at restaurants and grocery stores, and implementing new portions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—as well as collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. In the meantime, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that at least limit the scope for those making misleading labeling claims.
Moreover, as the conversation around labeling evolves, terms like “kal calcium” are likely to surface more frequently, emphasizing the ongoing debate about what constitutes accurate and fair labeling in food products. The importance of such definitions cannot be overstated, especially when considering consumer trust and the integrity of food marketing. As the industry navigates these challenges, the quest for clarity around terms like “natural” and “kal calcium” remains critical.