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!

Is That Natural?

Natural seems a simple enough word; the dictionary definition is simple: existing in or formed by nature. If only it were that simple when it comes to the food you buy. You see each governmental agency has its own definition, or lack of one and that can (and does) lead to quite a bit of confusion.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 1988 defined natural as: nothing artificial or synthetic has been added to or included in a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food. Since then the industry has asked numerous times for clarification and/or redefinition of the term "natural", but alas to date the FDA has refused.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses a decision tree to determine the natural status of a food (well really just meat, poultry & eggs since those are under their jurisdiction). They ask the following questions:

1. Does the product contain an artificial flavor, coloring agent, chemical preservative, or any other synthetic or artificial ingredient? If the answer is yes, then the product cannot be labeled as natural.
2. Are the product and its ingredients minimally processed? If the answer is yes, then the product can be labeled as natural.

Seems like this is pretty straight forward - right? Well, no. Some of the problems here are with defining minimally processed. Does drying, roasting/cooking, lowering pH (adding an acid like lemon juice or vinegar), or pressure cooking cause a product to lose it ability to call itself natural? What about microbially fermented products like yogurt, cheese, beer or wine - are these natural? You get the point.

And if those weren't enough to cause confusion, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau had decided they want a voice in this discussion too. They define natural as depending on:

1. The origin of the ingredients
2. How the term "natural" is presented in the context of a challenged advertisement
3. And the reasonable customer expectation as to the meaning of the term "natural"

Ouch! No wonder there is so much confusion about such a simple little word. There is a growing amount of pressure by consumers to have terms such as "natural" standardized and believe me, the industry is on board with that. Sometimes the simple things in life just aren't that simple.