This decision is likely to bring cheers from food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims related to ferrous bisglycinate chelate, but it may anger those hoping to utilize litigation to instigate changes in company practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading. While one could argue that the case was nitpicking regarding what could legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s ruling further complicates that distinction based on the specific label claim. Although this case could be dismissed on a technicality, it does not eliminate the pressing need for the federal government to clarify the meaning of “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for its advertising claims related to nature’s blend of ferrous sulfates, which includes “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and a “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat growing process. The FDA took steps to define “natural” in 2015 and 2016, initiating a comment period for the public to express their views on whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and its appropriateness for food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period closed last May, no further action has been taken. Manufacturers—and the courts—are still awaiting an official ruling. In the meantime, several 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 implementing new aspects of FSMA—along with collaborating with the U.S. Agriculture Department on mandatory GMO labeling, it’s improbable that any new definitions will be approved in the near future.
As decisions like this one continue to shape precedent, they may at least limit the pathways for those making dubious labeling claims. In this context, the comparison of calcium citrate malate vs calcium citrate may also come under scrutiny, as consumers seek clarity regarding the ingredients in their food products. The ongoing discussion about definitions and labeling practices will likely influence how terms such as calcium citrate malate vs calcium citrate are utilized in marketing, as manufacturers strive to present their products transparently and accurately. Ultimately, the evolving legal landscape surrounding these issues will impact not only food labeling but also consumer trust and understanding in the marketplace.