Unnatural Products: "Natural" Mislabeling Roundup

Those trying to make the switch to a healthier lifestyle may find themselves caught up in terminology often used on the packaging of food or personal care products. Words like “natural” and “organic” sound healthier and less processed. However, these terms can actually confuse consumers by making them believe that by carrying such a term on its labeling each product meets certain regulations established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Items labeled “organic” are closely monitored by the FDA, but there are only general guidelines companies must follow when labeling products “natural.” Our previous post “Know What You Eat: Do ‘Natural’ And ‘Organic’ Actually Mean Anything?” describes these regulations in more detail. Due to consumer misconception, lawsuits over “natural” labels have been in full swing over the last few years, and here are some recent newsworthy suits.

Lawsuits over “natural” labels have been in full swing over the last few years.

Arm & Hammer – False Advertising Claims in “Natural” Deodorant Suit

In 2012, consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Arm & Hammer’s manufacturer Church & Dwight Co. alleging that the company deceived customers by labeling certain deodorants “natural.” This October, the judge overseeing the litigation permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with claims over the product’s labeling under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, but dismissed those over the company’s advertising of the product. The plaintiffs argued that synthetic ingredients, like triclosan, have been found in Arm & Hammer’s “natural” deodorant. Although the FDA currently takes the position that triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans, they have launched a new investigation into the ingredient since many consumer safety advocates believe triclosan can disrupt hormones and encourage the growth of drug-resistant bacteria.

Truvia - Cargill Settles for $5 Million in False Advertising Suit

Cargill agreed to pay $5 million to settle a putative class action lawsuit in September after consumers alleged that the company falsely advertised its Truvia products as “natural” because the sweetener is made from genetically modified corn and is highly processed. The settlement will allow Cargill to continue labeling Truvia as “natural,” but they will modify the sweetener’s tagline – “Nature’s calorie-free sweetener” – by either adding an asterisk which will direct consumers to the company’s FAQ page on their website, or by changing the tagline entirely. Truvia’s packaging likens the extraction process of the sweetener from the stevia leaf to making tea, and suggests that the additive erythritol is produced naturally, according to the complaint. In reality, the erythritol is created when genetically modified corn is converted into starch, which is then broken down into glucose and fermented through a process using toxic chemicals like methanol, according to the plaintiffs. Cargill is still currently facing a federal lawsuit in Hawaii, which similarly accuses the company of mislabeling Truvia.

Frito-Lay - Judge Trims Down Labeling, GMO Lawsuit

In August, a New York federal judge trimmed down a 13-count complaint against the Frito-Lay division of PepsiCo claiming that products including Tostitos, SunChips, and Fritos Bean Dip were deceptively labeled as “all natural” because they were made with genetically modified organisms. However, the judge denied the company’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by federal preemption or a lack of standing. There has been a growing divide in federal district courts recently over similar “natural” label lawsuits, as some judges have preferred to wait for a response from the FDA ruling whether “natural” labeling can be lawfully applied to bioengineered foods; however, the judge overseeing this litigation refused to stall the case. “There is no telling…whether [the FDA’s] definition would shed any further light on whether a reasonable consumer is deceived by the ‘all natural’ food label,” the judge said. She added that even if the FDA did define the term “natural,” it would still not dispose of the claims brought under state law.

Blue Diamond – Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss over “All Natural” Almond Milk Labeling

In May 2012, consumers filed a putative class action lawsuit against Blue Diamond Growers, alleging that the company violated California’s Sherman Law – which regulates packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics – when they labeled their products “all natural.” According to the plaintiffs, Blue Diamond’s almond milk and other products are labeled “all natural,” despite the fact that they contain artificial colors, artificial ingredients, synthetic chemicals, and chemical preservatives. The products also list the ingredient “evaporated cane juice” rather than sugar cane or cane syrup to suggest a healthier alternative to sugar, although the FDA has previously concluded that “evaporated cane juice” is just another term for sugar. This October, the judge overseeing the litigation rejected Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss the suit after the company argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

TRESemme - Consumers of “Natural” Shampoo Taking Action

In August, Unilever USA Inc. was hit with a proposed class action after it was accused of labeling and advertising its TRESemme hair products as “natural,” even though they contain synthetic ingredients. The plaintiffs claim that TRESemme used the term “natural” along with an image of a leaf on their shampoos to entice customers seeking natural products. According to the suit, “consumers are willing to pay, and have paid, a premium for products branded ‘natural’ over ordinary products that contain synthetic ingredients.” According to the plaintiffs, the shampoos include ingredients that can release formaldehyde or have a high risk of contamination by dioxane, a solvent used in inks and adhesives. The plaintiffs argued that since Unilever’s headquarters in New Jersey are where the advertising acts disseminated, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act should be applied to the claims of the class members nationwide.