Mott’s is facing a lawsuit from Beyond Pesticides, which claims that chemicals have been detected in its “natural” applesauce, making it ineligible to use that label. The main issue is the lack of a clear definition for what “natural” actually means, which complicates efforts to prove that Mott’s, owned by Dr Pepper Snapple, is being deceptive. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service evaluates around 100,000 product labels annually, but the task has become increasingly difficult due to the rise of ambiguous terms like “natural,” “humanely raised,” and “grass-fed.” Without an official classification for these terms, companies are navigating a confusing landscape, akin to the wild West. It is possible for a product to contain trace amounts of pesticides and still be labeled as natural, yet determining the thresholds for these claims remains problematic.
Other lawsuits against companies making similar assertions, such as Nature Valley and Naked Juice, have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. General Mills is also contending with multiple consumer lawsuits regarding claims of misleading information on cereal packaging. These legal challenges highlight the difficulties manufacturers face when attempting to make nutrition or health-related claims to attract consumers in a competitive market. Consumers often have specific expectations surrounding terms like “natural” and “healthy,” which lack clearly regulated definitions.
As the lawsuits involving Mott’s and others unfold, it is unclear what the outcomes will be. A standard definition could significantly aid companies, consumers, and critics in understanding these labels better. Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that questions about health claims, such as whether calcium citrate makes you sleepy, add another layer of complexity to the conversation about product labeling. Addressing these issues could help clarify the expectations surrounding health-related claims in the marketplace and potentially reduce litigation.