Defining Natural - Part II

Last week, I told you about the FDA definition of "natural", their lack of one, and told you that they may start by looking at the USDA's. The branch of the USDA that is involved in allowing a natural claim is the FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The FSIS first issued its guidance on November 22, 1982 in a Standards and Labeling Policy Memo (#055) stating that the term "natural" could be used in the labeling of meat & poultry when:

• The product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring, ingredient, or chemical preservative (as defined in 21 CFR 101.22), or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient; and
• The product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed, which may include (a) those traditional processes used to make food edible, to preserve it, or to make it safe for human consumption, e.g. smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting, or (b) those physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, e.g. grinding meat, separating eggs, pressing fruit.
• Relatively severe processes, e.g. solvent extraction, acid hydrolysis and chemical bleaching would clearly constitute more than minimal processing.

This sounds good - right? It is much more precise than the FDA definition, and the FSIS, like the FDA, reviews label submissions on a case-by-case basis for clarification. So why is it that even this definition is under review?

While I can't speak for the USDS/FSIS, it is probably because this still has a lot of grey areas. For instance, sodium, calcium, and potassium lactate (from corn sources) were allowed at levels up to 2% as flavoring. That is until the FSIS discovered that at that level, those products had an antimicrobial effect and they decided to re-evaluate those labeling claims individually for technical function and intended use. There are other ingredients that have similar stories. So in 2006 the FSIS took comments from the public and industry to try to clarify the term "natural" - they received over 12,000 comments that contained wildly divergent views on the topic.

So this year they decided to try again; they are soliciting comments until November 13, 2009 (if anyone wants to know how to submit their own comments send me an email & I'll send you the information). Some people want a very rigid definition, but that is difficult because it means the FSIS must think of almost every circumstance to close any potential loopholes; while others want flexibility so that the context can be considered (whether an ingredient is used as an antioxidant or as a flavor - like rosemary extract). And this is a complex issue; for instance, vinegar is a natural product, as is sea salt, but depending on their usage, it could mean a product cannot be legally labeled as natural.

So, what is the likely outcome for both the USDA/FSIS and the FDA? Well, with lawsuits and public comments pending, some changes will likely be forthcoming. We may very well end up with a system similar to that for organic products - kind of a tiered labeling system: 100% Natural, Natural, Made with all Natural Ingredients, Naturally Raised, etc.

I for one, am interested both as a consumer and as a food technologist, to see how these governmental agencies resolve this issue. And I hope you have gained a better understanding of the issues that impact the foods you consume and the regulations that govern their manufacture.