Scientists and doctors may disagree about what makes a food "healthy" or "natural." On an American food label, though, the answer is often settled by regulators, and when they haven't settled it, by lawyers arguing class actions in court.
In this TalksOnLaw interview, Joel Cohen sits down with food lawyer Lauren Handel, founder of Handel Food Law, to decode the words on the package. They cover what "organic," "healthy," "natural," "free-range," and "grass-fed" actually mean, when an accurate label can still be misleading, and why the Kind bar, Cap'n Crunch, and POM Wonderful ended up in court.
Where Food Labeling Law Comes From
Much of food regulation grew out of concern about economic adulteration: watering down a product or swapping in cheaper ingredients so that consumers don't get what they paid for. One early answer was the standard of identity, which defines a food by regulation and requires that the defined terms be used. Orange juice, for example, is a defined product that anyone can look up. Handel notes that consumers now care about more than what's in the package. They want to know how their food is grown and made, and marketers are responding with a growing list of production claims.
What "Organic" Really Means
"Organic" is one of the few claims with a full legal definition, under the Organic Foods Production Act, USDA regulations, and the National Organic Standards Board. It means a product was grown without prohibited practices such as most synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering, and was certified by an accredited third party. The label also tells you how organic a product is. "100% organic" means every ingredient. "Organic" on the front panel means at least 95 percent organic ingredients. "Made with organic" followed by an ingredient means at least 70 percent. For meat and eggs, organic also means the animals ate only organic feed.
False or Misleading
Federal law forbids selling misbranded food, meaning food whose label is false or misleading, or that leaves out a material fact consumers would want to know. Handel explains that a claim can be true and still unlawful. FDA allows an "antioxidant" claim only for nutrients with recognized antioxidant activity, such as vitamin C and beta-carotene. Makers of green tea and other products built around newer compounds have been sued for antioxidant claims that may prove scientifically correct but that FDA's rules don't permit.
"Healthy" and the Kind Bar Case
"Healthy" was a defined nutrient content claim with specific limits, including on saturated fat. FDA sent Kind a warning letter saying its nut-heavy bars had too much saturated fat to qualify. As often happens, consumer class actions quickly followed under state consumer protection laws. Handel explains the difficulty of damages in such cases: plaintiffs must show the price premium consumers paid because of the claim, which is very hard to measure. She also notes that FDA rulemaking moves slowly, and that the "healthy" rules of that era were widely considered out of date.
Words with No Legal Definition
"Nutritious," "wholesome," and "good for you" have no regulatory definition, so the only rule is that they must be truthful and not misleading. "Natural" has no formal definition either, which is why it has drawn so many lawsuits. FDA's informal policy is that a "natural" food contains nothing artificial or synthetic and no added color. Cases have challenged "natural" claims on Ben & Jerry's ice cream made with alkalized cocoa, Naked Juice, and corn-based snacks, since most U.S. corn and soy is genetically engineered. Many settled, some for millions of dollars. The test is what a reasonable consumer would take the word to mean.
Meat, Poultry, and Animal-Welfare Claims
USDA regulates meat and poultry and, unlike FDA, approves labels before use. "Free-range" has a USDA meaning: the birds had access to the outdoors. Most animal-welfare terms are not defined, however. Producers set their own standards and document that they meet them, and third-party certifications such as Animal Welfare Approved fill part of the gap. Handel notes that USDA's marketing standard for "grass-fed" had just been withdrawn, which left each producer to define the term for itself.
Nutrient Claims: "Good Source" and "High In"
Claims about a nutrient's level, such as "low fat," "low sodium," or "high fiber," are nutrient content claims. Only FDA-approved terms may be used, and only when the food meets the threshold. A "good source" claim requires at least 10 percent of the daily value per serving, and "high," "rich in," or "excellent source" requires at least 20 percent. As Handel puts it, you can't advertise "fabulous fiber."
Crunch Berries and Soy Milk: Cases That Didn't Survive
Most food-labeling class actions get past a motion to dismiss. A few don't. A court threw out the claim that Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Berries misled buyers into thinking the cereal contained real fruit, reasoning that no reasonable consumer believes crunch berries grow on bushes. Courts likewise rejected the theory that "soy milk" misleads anyone into thinking it contains dairy. Handel expects plant-based "milk" names to hold up, though the dairy industry has pressed FDA to object.
Juice, POM Wonderful, and Competitor Suits
Juice labels follow detailed rules. Anything not actually squeezed from a fruit or vegetable must be called a "drink" or "beverage," and blends are closely regulated because cheaper apple and grape juices are often mixed with more valuable fruit. In POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, POM sued under the Lanham Act, arguing that Coca-Cola's "Pomegranate Blueberry" juice, which was mostly apple and grape, misled buyers even if it complied with FDA rules. The Supreme Court held that the federal food law does not bar such competitor suits, and that the two laws complement each other.
How FDA Enforces
FDA does not impose fines for labeling violations. Its most common tool is the warning letter, an informal action that lists the violations and requires a written plan to correct them by a deadline, with formal enforcement as the alternative. Outside California, whose law lets consumers enforce federal food labeling standards, there is no private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Consumers sue under state laws against deception instead.
What to Know Now
The Kind bar dispute ended up changing the rule. Kind petitioned FDA, the agency let it keep "healthy" as a statement of company philosophy, and FDA began rethinking the term. In December 2024 it issued a final rule redefining "healthy." The old total-fat limit is gone. A qualifying food must now contain a meaningful amount of at least one food group, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, or protein, and stay within limits on added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. Nuts, seeds, olive oil, and fatty fish can now qualify. Manufacturers have until 2028 to comply, and FDA is developing a symbol for the claim. FDA has also proposed a front-of-package "Nutrition Info" box rating saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars as low, medium, or high. As Handel predicted, all of this took years.
Other points Handel raised have developed as well. On plant-based beverages, FDA's 2023 draft guidance accepted names like "almond milk" as long as they identify the plant source, and suggested voluntary statements comparing their nutrients to dairy milk. That largely confirms the view that consumers are not confused. USDA has strengthened organic oversight with its Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule and new organic livestock and poultry welfare standards. It has also asked for stronger documentation, and encouraged third-party certification, for animal-raising claims such as "grass-fed." Its tighter "Product of USA" standard for meat took effect in 2026. "Natural" still has no formal FDA definition, so litigation over the term continues. Appellate courts have split on how much a front label can rely on the back panel to cure ambiguity: some protect consumers who trust the front of the package, while others expect shoppers to read the whole label in context. The newest front is food additives. FDA revoked approval of Red No. 3 in food, states such as California and Texas have enacted their own ingredient bans and warning requirements (a federal court has preliminarily blocked Texas's warning labels), and federal regulators have begun asking how to define "ultra-processed" food. Industry groups warn of a patchwork of state rules, while consumer advocates welcome closer scrutiny. After the POM decision, competitor suits under the Lanham Act remain an option alongside consumer class actions. POM's own case, back in the trial court, ended in a jury verdict for Coca-Cola.
