Defining Natural

I originally started this conversation on my post dated 11-20-08, but this topic just keeps reappearing, so I'm going to delve a bit deeper today.

Natural. Everyone can define this word - right? Per Webster, natural means: "existing in or produced by nature". Pretty simple & straightforward. So why is it that the FDA and USDA are having such trouble creating a working definition for this term? Perhaps it is because natural, when pertaining to foods, is not so easily defined. You see, there is a lot of grey area; there are many natural things, including chemicals, out there that you wouldn't want to be eating, so the dictionary definition simply won't work.

Let's start with the FDA. Way back in the early 1990's, they were petitioned to create a definition of "natural" for the industry to use. But in January of 1993, the FDA declined to establish a formal definition of natural and instead gave us this informal definition we've been using ever since. Natural means "nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food." [58 Fed. Reg. 2302, 2407 (January 6, 1993)]. Hence, the FDA decided not to attempt to restrict the use of the term natural except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors.

Here's why this gets interesting. The FDA's Food Labelling and Standards department reviews the use of the term "natural" on a case-by-case basis since this statement of policy is just an advisory opinion and not a regulation. Or in plainer English, while companies and courts follow the FDA's opinion, it does not constitute federal law. One case currently being fought in the US courts is the against Snapple Beverage Corp. for their use of "All Natural" on their beverages containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

In April 2008, the FDA's office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplementation, stated that HFCS, due to the manufacturing process, would not qualify for a "natural" labeling term. But in July 2008, after clarification from one of the manufacturers about the process used to create HFCS, the FDA reversed its decision and declared that HFCS (when produced by the process submitted) can be considered "natural". (If anyone wants details on the processes involved, send me an email & I'll explain) Snapple argued that the FDA has authority regarding the naming & labeling of its drinks and the original court (New Jersey US District Court) found in favor of Snapple. Unfortunately, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last month reversed this decision and sent it back down for further review; their opinion is that the FDA's opinion has no force of law.

Unfortunately, there have been a number of other lawsuits (Ben & Jerry's, Cadbury Schweppes, Kraft, Arizona Beverage Co., etc.) also surrounding the use of the term "natural" (although not all concerning the use of HFCS). So what does this mean to consumers? Well, the industry is hoping it may force the FDA to adopt a formal policy regarding the definition of the term "natural". And the place they may start is with the USDA definition; but that will be my next post - so be sure to check back soon!

Sweet Is as Sweet Does

Sugar, that ubiquitous sweet substance we all love, is comprised of fructose & glucose (50%/50%) as you learned here. HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is also comprised of fructose & glucose in a very similar ratio (55%/45% or 42%/58%). So why is HFCS vilified, sugar not and honey, agave syrup and evaporated cane juice all but ignored?

Both fructose and glucose have the chemical formula of C6H12O6, but have different configurations (where the atoms are located) and so have different sweetness levels and are metabolized differently. Fructose is absorbed through the wall of the small intestine directly into the bloodstream and taken up into the liver cells where it is converted into components indistinguishable from glucose and sometimes into glucose. A downside of each: glucose needs insulin to get into your cells, fructose doesn't, so it has a high glycemic response while fructose is more likely to elevate your triglyceride levels.

In sugar the monosaccharides fructose & glucose are linked, unlike in HFCS where they are not. Enzymes in your digestive system break down the links into the individual monosaccharides fructose and glucose which are processed identically to monosaccharides consumed separately. Since all of these products will end up as monosaccharides, it is impossible to say one is inherently better or worse for you.

In addition, the University of Washington Nutritional Science Program performed a study which showed that there was no direct link between the type of sweetener consumed and obesity. While the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study results showed that cane sugar and HFCS have similar effects on hunger, fullness and food consumption.

Whether you consume sugar (50% fructose), HFCS (42 or 55% fructose), honey (53% fructose), agave nectar (56 -92% fructose) or evaporated cane juice (45% fructose), your body is going to treat them all the same. That is not to say that there is not a difference between eating a piece of fruit (a pear for instance) or a candy bar. While your body may not distinguish one fructose molecule from another, the pear has water (a diluent), fiber, vitamins and minerals which the candy bar most certainly does not.

So, enjoy your sweets in moderation and don't get caught up in all the hype; we could all do better at consuming less sugar in any of its forms!

UPDATE! American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Supplements:

1. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Everything You Wanted to Know, But Were Afraid to Ask
2. Straight Talk About HFCS: What it is and what it ain't
3. HFCS: Is This What's For Dinner?
4. Endocrine & metabolic effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, sucrose or HFCS
5. HFCS, energy intake and appetite regulation