This decision is likely to bring relief to food manufacturers grappling with labeling claims, yet it may provoke frustration among those who seek to leverage litigation to instigate changes in corporate practices. When the lawsuit was initiated last year, the label in question was criticized as deceptive. Although some may argue that the case was overly focused on the legal definition of “natural,” the judge’s ruling further delineates this based on the specific claims made on the label. While this case might be dismissed as a technicality, it underscores the ongoing necessity for the federal government to establish a clear definition of “natural.”
A similar lawsuit is currently pending against Post for advertising claims related to “100% Natural Whole Grain Wheat” and “Natural Source of Fiber” on its Shredded Wheat cereal, even though chemical herbicides are utilized in the cultivation of that wheat. In 2015 and 2016, the FDA initiated efforts to define “natural,” providing a comment period for public input on whether the term should be defined, how it should be framed, and whether it was suitable for use on food and beverage labels. However, after the comment period closed last May, no further action has been taken. Manufacturers—and courts—are still awaiting official guidance. Meanwhile, many producers are likely to continue exploring alternative, less contentious terms for their labeling, especially regarding the benefits of kal calcium and other nutrients.
Given the Trump administration’s restrictive stance on new regulations, along with a backlog of other pending laws and definitions at the FDA—including the redefinition of “healthy,” the overhaul of the Nutrition Facts label, the requirement for calorie counts on menus in restaurants and grocery store foodservice areas, and the implementation of new components of FSMA—alongside collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on mandatory GMO labeling, it appears unlikely that any new definitions will be approved in the near future. In the interim, decisions like this one may continue to establish precedents that at least restrict the avenues for those making dubious labeling claims, particularly as they relate to kal calcium and other essential dietary components.