For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Myth of Natural page.

It’s no secret that food companies falsely label products with healthy buzz words, creating the illusion that consumers are making a hearty choice. Today, the word “natural” is one of the most ubiquitous food labels seen on grocery store shelves. But over the past few years, frustrated consumers have filed numerous class action lawsuits against food companies, saying used deceptive marketing to trick shoppers into buying products that were not nearly as healthy as they claimed to be.

These are just a few of the food giants that have landed themselves in hot water recently:

From 2006 to 2010, Dannon had been purporting that two of its products, Activia and DanActive, had been clinically proven to regulate digestion and boost the immune system. They were charging 30% more than other brands on the market, claiming they contained unique strains of probiotics that had been clinically proven to ease certain medical conditions.

However, a judge in Cleveland ruled these medical claims unjustified and ordered Dannon to pay $45 million in damages to consumers as a result of a class action lawsuit. Dannon was also forced to remove claims such as “helps support the immune system” and “scientifically proven” from labels.

Plaintiffs Barry Stoltz, of Westchester, and Allan Chang, of Queens, are pursuing separate lawsuits against Chobani and Fage, but with similar grounds. The men claim the yogurt manufacturers are misleading consumers by referring to their product as “Greek,” they’re actually produced in the U.S. Well, that might be going a bit too far, but the lawsuits do bring more valid nutritional information into question. For instance, they are challenging the term “”evaporated cane juice” as a sweetening agent, even though it is really sugar. Even though sugar is listed under Chobani’s nutritional information, it is not listed as an actual ingredient. Stoltz and Chang also take issue with the ambiguous 0% label; both men believe it puts consumers under the false assumption that 0% refers not only to the amount of fat, but the amount of sugar and calories as well.