Quaker Oats Lawsuit: A New Type of Natural Suit?

You’ve heard it all before. Company X got sued for having ingredient Y in a product they claimed was natural. Both sides argue back and forth about what the word “natural” means and the case either settles or gets dismissed. These suits have come and gone, but a few new ones seem to be trickling into the courthouses.

As of late April, a new type of suit has entered the “natural” lawsuit game. A lawsuit against Quaker Oats.

So – What Are the Allegations?

The lawsuit against Quaker isn’t so much arguing the meaning of the term “natural.” It’s simply saying that certain Quaker Oats contain a small amount of glyphosate (a carcinogen) and that any amount of a carcinogen in a product makes it unnatural. Period. End of story.

Where the “natural” suits of yesteryear have sought to ponder the almost philosophical meaning of the word “natural,” the suit against Quaker argues that if the product has potentially cancer-causing agents, it’s no good.

Valid point.

But – Do Carcinogens Make for a Stronger Case?

In short, yes. The other lawsuits complained of shady-sounding ingredients in products they probably shouldn’t be in, but none of them were carcinogenic. It would be difficult to find another lawsuit claiming that a product isn’t natural because it has a carcinogen in it, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been lawsuits before over carcinogens in food:

If there’s one thing these suits tell us, it’s that if there’s even a rumor of a carcinogen in something we eat, people are going to have something to say. You could do a quick search on any of the previously mentioned lawsuits and find dozens of blog posts and web pages filled with outrage over the discovery. Public opinion says that if you try to feed us food with potentially cancer-causing agents in it, we aren’t going to be happy about it. A solid standard. But, how does public opinion affect Quaker’s suit? Well, hopefully, our collective opinion has a good amount of weight when it comes to the courtroom. After all, we are the ones the law is supposed to protect – not to mention, we’re the ones eating the stuff.

So, why is it so hard to regulate this type of thing?

Here’s the Real Problem

The problem here comes from our definition of the term “natural.” Or, more specifically, the Food and Drug Administration’s reluctance to give a solid definition to the word. Federal judges have always had trouble passing judgment on “natural” class actions and a few of them even wrote to the FDA, demanding that the agency define the word. But, in true FDA fashion, they refused to attempt a definition and left the judges with a meagre piece of advice. Check out what the FDA says on its website:

“From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.”

Really? I get that it’s a difficult topic, but isn’t providing the guidelines for the production, sale and marketing of our nation’s food part of the job description?

In the end, the old breed of natural lawsuits is being phased out. Debating the meaning of “natural” hasn’t proved itself to be the best courtroom strategy, or at least not the most consistent. Some of the cases have settled, others have been dismissed. Without a solid standard, it has become difficult to predict which way a “natural” food suit will fall.

Now, the fight over “natural” products is leaking into the cleaning and cosmetic industries. Natural makeup and detergents are all the rage right now, and companies are trying to jump on the bandwagon – some more honestly than others. But, that’s a story for another time.

All we know is that the fight over the ambiguity of the word “natural” is going to smolder until we see the amorphous beast vanquished, categorized and slapped with a concrete and tidy definition.