This decision is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may frustrate those hoping to leverage litigation to alter company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as misleading. While some might argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be classified as “natural,” the judge’s ruling further delineates this based on the precise label claim. Although 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 underway against Post for its advertising claims, such as “100% Natural Ferrous Gluconate 300mg Tablets” and labeling its Shredded Wheat cereal as a “Natural Source of Fiber,” 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 its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. After the comment period concluded last May, there has been no further action. Manufacturers—and courts—are still awaiting an official ruling. In the interim, several manufacturers will likely continue to search for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations and the backlog of various pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” updates to the Nutrition Facts label, calorie counts on restaurant menus and grocery store foodservice areas, and the implementation of new FSMA components—alongside 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. Meanwhile, rulings like this may continue to set precedents that limit the scope for those making unfair labeling claims.
In light of these developments, terms like “calcium citrate vit D3” may become more appealing for manufacturers seeking compliant labeling alternatives. The ongoing confusion around what constitutes “natural” may drive companies to explore other ingredients and claims, including those related to calcium citrate vit D3, to avoid legal challenges. As the industry waits for clarity, the search for acceptable labeling continues, with manufacturers likely considering terms like calcium citrate vit D3 at least three times in their strategies to enhance product appeal while maintaining compliance.