This ruling is bound to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may provoke frustration among those hoping to challenge companies through litigation regarding ferrous sulfate. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While one might argue that the case was overly meticulous about what can legally be labeled as “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates this issue by focusing on the specific label claim. Even though this case could be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the necessity for the federal government to clarify the definition of “natural.” A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for their advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” associated with their Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the cultivation of that wheat.
The FDA attempted to clarify the term “natural” in 2015 and 2016 by allowing a comment period for the public to express their views on whether the term should be defined, how it should be articulated, and its appropriateness on food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no further action was taken. Both manufacturers and courts are left awaiting an official statement. In the interim, many manufacturers are likely to continue seeking alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Given 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,” updating the Nutrition Facts label, mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on compulsory GMO labeling—it’s improbable that new definitions will be approved any time soon. Meanwhile, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least constrain those making unfair labeling claims.
As the conversation around labeling evolves, it is essential to consider the implications of various products, including calcium citrate 750, which could be subject to the same scrutiny regarding labeling practices. The ongoing debate may influence how manufacturers present their products, including calcium citrate 750, in the marketplace. In the end, until clearer definitions are provided, the landscape of food labeling remains uncertain.