Your ‘Natural’ Dog Food Contains the Same Chemicals as Cheap Kibble

Nutro’s Natural Choice dog food promises “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” on the label, yet contains citric acid and mixed tocopherols — both synthetic preservatives manufactured from industrial feedstocks.

A class action lawsuit alleges the company deceived California consumers who paid premium prices for supposedly natural pet food. The case targets Mars Petcare US Inc., which owns the Nutro brand.

If you’ve ever stood in the pet food aisle wondering whether premium “natural” dog food is worth paying double the price of store brands, this dog food lawsuit reveals why your suspicion was justified.

Nutro has been marketing its Natural Choice line as preservative-free while using the same synthetic chemicals that extend shelf life in conventional pet foods.

The Premium Pet Food Shell Game

The pet food industry has discovered that slapping “natural” on a label can double the price consumers will pay. Nutro’s Natural Choice dog food costs significantly more than conventional brands, with the company explicitly marketing the absence of artificial preservatives as a key selling point.

But according to the class action lawsuit filed by California consumer Nicole Flick, that marketing claim is false.

The lawsuit alleges Nutro’s “natural” dog food contains:

• Citric acid — manufactured from industrial feedstocks using fermentation and chemical processing, not extracted from citrus fruits
• Mixed tocopherols — synthetic compounds derived from petrochemical sources, not natural vitamin E

The math is straightforward: If you’re paying premium prices for preservative-free dog food that contains preservatives, you’re subsidizing a marketing lie.

How the Labeling Loophole Works (Spoiler: It’s Designed This Way)

The pet food industry operates in a regulatory gray zone where “natural” claims face minimal FDA oversight. Unlike human food labeling, which has specific definitions for terms like “organic,” pet food manufacturers can make “natural” claims with little accountability.

This creates a perfect incentive structure for companies like Mars Petcare (Nutro’s parent company):

• They can charge premium prices for “natural” products while using the same cost-effective synthetic preservatives as conventional brands.
• The consumer pays more, the company’s costs stay low, and the profit margin expands.

The system works because most pet owners can’t easily verify ingredient sources. When a label lists “citric acid,” consumers assume it comes from lemons.

When it lists “tocopherols,” they think natural vitamin E. The manufacturing process of fermentation tanks and petrochemical synthesis stays invisible.

What the Dog Food Lawsuit Claims Happened

Nicole Flick purchased Nutro Natural Choice dog food specifically because she wanted to avoid artificial ingredients for her pet. The lawsuit alleges she relied on the prominent “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” claim on the packaging.

The complaint argues that Nutro violated multiple California consumer protection laws:

• Consumers Legal Remedies Act — prohibiting deceptive business practices
• Business and Professions Code — barring false advertising
• Unjust enrichment — collecting premium prices for misrepresented products
• Breach of express warranty — failing to deliver the preservative-free product promised on the label

Flick wants to represent all California consumers who purchased the falsely labeled dog food within 4 years of the lawsuit filing.

The Pattern Keeps Expanding (Because It Works)

This isn’t an isolated case. Post Holdings Inc. currently faces a similar lawsuit over its Nature’s Recipe dog food, also accused of falsely advertising “no artificial preservatives” while using citric acid.

The pet food industry has learned that “natural” claims are low-risk, high-reward. Even if lawsuits emerge, the companies typically settle for amounts far below the premium profits they collected.

Meanwhile, millions of consumers continue paying inflated prices for products that aren’t what they claim to be.

The Regulatory Vacuum that Enables This Nonsense

The FDA’s oversight of pet food labeling creates a perfect storm for consumer deception. While human food manufacturers must meet strict definitions for terms like “natural” and “organic,” pet food companies operate with far less scrutiny. The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) provides some guidance, but enforcement remains inconsistent across states.

This regulatory gap means companies like Nutro can make bold “no artificial preservatives” claims while using chemically identical synthetic compounds. The preservatives work exactly the same way as their “artificial” counterparts — they just come with marketing-friendly names that sound natural to consumers.

The result is a marketplace where premium pricing is divorced from actual product differences. Consumers pay extra for peace of mind that their pets are getting “natural” nutrition. Companies pocket the difference using the same industrial ingredients as budget brands.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Nutro Natural Choice dog food in California within the past 4 years:

1. Check your eligibility for the class action by reviewing your purchase history and receipts
2. Monitor the case progress at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-02142-CAB-BJW)
3. File a complaint with California’s Attorney General under “Consumer Protection” for false advertising practices
4. Report the deceptive labeling to the FDA at — select “Pet Food” and “Labeling Issues”
5. Contact your retailer for a refund — many stores will accept returns of falsely labeled products even without receipts if you explain the lawsuit allegations

How to Avoid Fake Natural Dog Food

Beyond this specific case, consumers can protect themselves by:

• Reading ingredient lists carefully rather than relying on front-of-package marketing claims
• Researching ingredient sources through FDA databases and technical documentation
• Comparing prices per pound between “natural” and conventional brands to assess whether premium claims justify cost differences
• Supporting companies with transparent labeling practices that clearly identify synthetic versus naturally-derived ingredients

‘Natural’ Was the Marketing. Not the Product.

Consumers weren’t just buying dog food — they were buying trust. And according to the lawsuit, Nutro’s “no artificial preservatives” claim helped justify premium prices for ingredients that may not be so different from cheaper brands.

This isn’t just about one label. It’s about a system where vague terms like “natural” carry real price tags but little accountability — especially in an industry with looser oversight than human food.

Companies Behaving Badly will keep calling it out: If “natural” can mean whatever companies want it to mean, what exactly are consumers paying for?

If Nutro charged you premium prices for dog food falsely labeled as preservative-free, report it to the FDA or tell us about it.

Written by: Companies Behaving Badly

The team behind it all.