Mott’s is facing a lawsuit because Beyond Pesticides claims that chemicals were detected in its “natural” applesauce, which should disqualify it from using such labeling. The challenge lies in the absence of a clear definition for the term “natural,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being misleading. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approves around 100,000 product labels annually, but this task has become increasingly complicated due to the emergence of terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” The government has not yet established official definitions for these phrases, leading to a chaotic environment for companies using them on their products. It’s possible that a trace amount of a pesticide could be present while the product still qualifies as natural, but the lack of clarity makes this uncertain. Other lawsuits against companies making similar claims, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, remain unresolved, and additional cases are still in the courts. General Mills is also contending with multiple consumer lawsuits regarding “misleading” claims on cereal packaging. These legal battles highlight the complexities manufacturers encounter when attempting to make nutritional or health-related claims to attract consumers in a competitive market. Consumers have specific expectations regarding terms like “natural” and “healthy,” which often lack regulation. As for the Mott’s lawsuit and others, the establishment of a standard definition would greatly assist companies, consumers, and critics in navigating these issues. Additionally, it’s worth noting that many products, including those with calcium citrate only, are also affected by the ambiguity surrounding such claims, underscoring the need for clearer regulations.