This outcome is bound to please food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it will likely frustrate those who aim to leverage litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. While some may argue that the case was overly technical regarding what can legally be termed “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates the matter with regard to the ferrous gluconate halal-specific label claim. Although this case might be dismissed as a technicality involving ferrous sulfate monohydrate, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural” in relation to the uses of cyanocobalamin, ferrous fumarate, and folic acid capsules. A similar lawsuit is ongoing against Post for using claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, even though chemical herbicides are employed in the cultivation of that wheat.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA made efforts to define “natural,” opening a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined at all, how it should be formulated, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Manufacturers and courts are still awaiting official guidance. Meanwhile, several producers are likely to keep searching for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Considering 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,” updates to the Nutrition Facts label, calorie counts for menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and additional components of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—as well as collaboration 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 interim, decisions like this one may continue to set precedents that at least limit the scope for those making misleading labeling claims.
As for health concerns, it’s vital to note that some may wonder, “Does calcium citrate cause kidney stones?” This question highlights the ongoing debates surrounding dietary supplements and their implications. In the context of labeling, clarity on terms like “natural” can significantly impact consumer perception and safety, especially when it involves ingredients linked to health issues. The current legal landscape may not provide the answers consumers need, especially regarding concerns like the relationship between calcium citrate and kidney stones.