FOOD LAW ATTORNEY: The motivation for bringing these lawsuits is opportunistic and even parasitic in some cases
Finally we spoke to one food law attorney who asked to remain anonymous.
FNU: Who is driving all the litigation? Angry consumers or opportunistic lawyers?
Attorney: The motivation for bringing these lawsuits is opportunistic and even parasitic in some cases. At the same time, they have had the salutary effect of at least making food marketers aware that the ongoing misrepresentations in food labeling have got to stop. What continues to go in food labeling is utterly preposterous.
FNU: Should the FDA define 'natural'?
Attorney: Courts are well equipped to decide what is and is not natural. There is no need for FDA to get involved on ‘natural’ beyond what FDA has already said [FDA guidance says natural means “nothing artificial or synthetic - including all color additives regardless of source - has been included in or added to a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food”]
FNU: Are more food companies qualifying natural claims to avoid the threat of litigation?
For my part, qualified natural claims are a joke. People tend to generalize from the specific. Maybe the ‘natural flavors’ or ‘no artificial preservatives’ claims communicate only a limited message, but I’ve had clients that want to qualify natural claims in a way that makes no difference to the overall message communicated to consumers.
Picture: PopChips recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over all-natural claims for $2.4m in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of protracted litigation. It did not admit liability.
Stay up to speed with the 'natural' debate at FoodNavigator-USA’s Natural & Clean Label Trends forum on September 30.
Click HERE to register for free.
