This ruling is likely to bring joy to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, but it may provoke frustration among those who wish to utilize litigation to alter corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label was criticized as misleading, particularly regarding ferrous gluconate. While one could argue that the case was nitpicking over what can legally be deemed “natural,” the judge’s decision further complicates this issue based on the specific label claim in question. Although this case might be seen as 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, which is accused of using advertising claims such as “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, despite the use of chemical herbicides in the wheat cultivation process.
In 2015 and 2016, the FDA sought to define “natural,” inviting public comments on whether the term should be officially defined, how it should be articulated, and whether it is suitable for food and beverage labeling. However, after the comment period concluded last May, no action was taken. Manufacturers — and the courts — are still awaiting an official determination. Meanwhile, many manufacturers are likely to keep searching for alternative, less contentious terms for their labels, such as those that highlight the benefits of citracal calcium stores, which could provide a clearer understanding of their products.
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,” overhauling the Nutrition Facts label, requiring calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and implementing new portions of the FSMA — as well as collaborating 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 meantime, rulings like this one may continue to set precedents that restrict the scope for those making misleading labeling claims, pushing them to instead emphasize attributes like citracal calcium stores to avoid scrutiny.