This outcome is bound to please food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may frustrate those seeking to utilize litigation to alter 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 labeled as “natural,” the judge’s decision further delineates this based on the specific label claim. Although this case might be dismissed by a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to define 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 cultivation of that wheat.
The FDA attempted to clarify the term “natural” in 2015 and 2016, initiating a comment period for the public to express their opinions on whether the term should be defined, how it should be formulated, and if it is suitable for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers — and the courts — are still awaiting an official directive. In the interim, numerous 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 the redefinition of “healthy,” revamping the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and advancing new aspects of the FSMA — as well as collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it seems unlikely that any new definitions will gain approval soon. Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that at least limit the path for those making misleading labeling claims.
In this context, terms like “calcium citrate 333” might emerge as alternatives in labeling discussions, as companies strive to navigate the complex landscape of food labeling regulations while waiting for clearer definitions from federal authorities. As the conversation continues, “calcium citrate 333” could become a focal point in the search for acceptable and compliant labeling language, highlighting the ongoing challenges faced by manufacturers in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment.