Mott’s is facing a lawsuit initiated by Beyond Pesticides, which claims that chemicals have been detected in its “natural” applesauce, thereby disqualifying it from using such labels. The core issue here is the lack of a clear definition for what constitutes “natural,” making it challenging for plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being deceptive. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approves around 100,000 product labels annually, but the task has become increasingly complicated due to the prevalence of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” The government has yet to establish an official designation for these phrases, creating a situation akin to the wild west, where companies can freely use these terms on their products.
It is possible for a product to contain trace levels of pesticides and still be classified as natural, but this ambiguity complicates matters. Other lawsuits against brands making similar claims, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, remain unresolved, with General Mills also facing multiple consumer lawsuits concerning “misleading” claims on cereal packaging. These legal challenges highlight the difficulties manufacturers encounter when making health or nutrition-related assertions to gain a competitive advantage. Consumers hold certain expectations regarding labels like “natural” and “healthy,” terms that often lack officially regulated definitions.
As discussions around these issues continue, a standard definition could significantly benefit companies, consumers, and critics alike. Additionally, the conversation around products that may contain calcium citrate and their implications for conditions like GERD is becoming more prevalent, as consumers seek clarity on health-related claims. The outcomes of the Mott’s lawsuit and similar cases are still uncertain, but establishing a clear definition could provide much-needed guidance in this complex landscape.