Instinct Pet Food: Class Action Challenges 'Natural' Claims Over Preservatives

• A class action lawsuit by Nicole Flick alleges Instinct Pet Food falsely claims "all-natural" and "no artificial preservatives."
• The lawsuit contends that Instinct Pet Food products contain mixed tocopherols and citric acid as preservatives.
• M.I. Industries, Instinct's owner, had its motion to dismiss the case denied by Chief U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant.
• Judge Bashant ruled that the question of whether the ingredients are "synthetic" or "nonsynthetic" is a factual dispute not resolvable at this stage.
• The case highlights the growing scrutiny of "natural" labeling in the pet food market, valued at $14 billion in 2025.

The judicial scrutiny of whether ingredients like mixed tocopherols and citric acid are 'synthetic' or 'nonsynthetic' creates a precedent for potential costly litigation if marketing claims do not precisely reflect the chemical nature and origin of all components.

A federal class action lawsuit has been initiated against M.I. Industries, the parent company of Instinct Pet Food, challenging the "all-natural" labeling of its products. The complaint, filed by San Diego resident Nicole Flick, alleges that Instinct Pet Food falsely advertises its products as being free from artificial preservatives. Flick contends that the company's dog food contains both mixed tocopherols and citric acid, which are intentionally added as preservative systems to maintain freshness and prevent rancidity, despite the brand's marketing claims.

The plaintiff asserts that she specifically seeks out and purchases food products devoid of artificial or synthetic ingredients, and that her purchasing decisions for Instinct Pet Food were directly influenced by and relied upon these explicit label statements. This legal challenge highlights the increasing scrutiny faced by pet food manufacturers regarding the precise definition and application of "natural" claims on their packaging, particularly when it comes to ingredient sourcing and processing methods.

Central to the lawsuit are the ingredients mixed tocopherols and citric acid. While both substances can occur naturally, the complaint points out that the vast majority of citric acid used globally is produced through industrial manufacturing processes, rather than direct extraction from fruits. Similarly, although natural forms of tocopherols exist, pet food producers commonly utilize "mixed tocopherols" to extend the shelf life of their products.

The plaintiff's argument hinges on the assertion that these ingredients are not merely incidental components but are deliberately incorporated into the pet food as preservative agents. This distinction is crucial, as the presence of such industrially processed or "mixed" forms of these substances could contradict the "no artificial preservatives" and "all-natural" claims prominently displayed on Instinct Pet Food's packaging, raising questions about the true nature of the product's composition.

M.I. Industries sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that citric acid and tocopherols are simply chemical preservatives, not artificial ones, and therefore do not violate their labeling promises. Chief U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, struck the plaintiff's amended complaint earlier in the proceedings due to improper filing, and a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was subsequently filed by M.I. Industries. Judge Bashant indicated that the regulatory framework surrounding these definitions is not straightforward, stating that "The regulations are not quite so black and white."

The judge's decision underscores a critical point: whether the specific processes employed by Instinct Pet Food result in ingredients that are classified as "synthetic" or "nonsynthetic" under pertinent regulations constitutes a factual dispute. This question, she concluded, cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage of a motion to dismiss, thereby allowing the class action to proceed. This ruling signals that courts are prepared to delve into the nuanced origins and processing of ingredients when evaluating "natural" and "no artificial preservatives" claims.

The ongoing legal battle holds significant implications for the rapidly expanding pet food industry, particularly for brands that emphasize "clean label" or "natural" attributes. Industry analysts have estimated the market for such pet foods to be worth approximately $14 billion in 2025, with projections indicating growth to $23 billion by 2030. This substantial market segment relies heavily on consumer trust in natural claims, often commanding premium prices.

For pet food manufacturers, this case serves as a stark reminder of the need for meticulous alignment between marketing language and actual ingredient sourcing and processing. The judicial scrutiny of whether ingredients like mixed tocopherols and citric acid are 'synthetic' or 'nonsynthetic' creates a precedent for potential costly litigation if marketing claims do not precisely reflect the chemical nature and origin of all components. Companies must ensure their "natural" and "no artificial preservatives" claims can withstand detailed examination, especially given the technical complexities involved in differentiating natural from industrially produced substances.

Compliance officers and legal counsel for pet food manufacturers should review 'natural' and 'no artificial preservatives' claims, particularly concerning ingredients like mixed tocopherols and citric acid. The denial of the motion to dismiss in this case indicates that courts may scrutinize the 'synthetic' versus 'nonsynthetic' nature of ingredients, even if chemically identical to natural forms, creating a factual dispute that can lead to costly litigation for companies whose marketing does not align precisely with ingredient sourcing and processing.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News