This outcome is sure to bring joy to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it is likely to frustrate those who are seeking to use litigation to change corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While one could argue that the case was nitpicking regarding what could legally be classified as “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates the matter concerning the specific claim of ferrous sulfate 400 mg on the label. 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 pending against Post for making advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and a “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat cultivation process.
The FDA attempted to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, opening a comment period for public input 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 ended last May, there was no further action. Manufacturers — and courts — are still awaiting an official stance. In the meantime, several companies may continue to search for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels. Given the Trump administration’s restrictive approach to new regulations and the backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA — which includes redefining “healthy,” revising the Nutrition Facts label, implementing calorie counts on menus in restaurants 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.
Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to set a precedent that at least narrows the scope for those making unfair labeling claims. Additionally, products like Walgreens calcium citrate D3 may find themselves under scrutiny as the definition of “natural” evolves. As companies navigate these challenges, the demand for clarity around terms such as “natural” will persist, especially as seen with products like Walgreens calcium citrate D3, which may be marketed with similar claims. Ultimately, until the government provides a clear definition, the landscape for labeling practices will remain uncertain.