Naturally Debatable.

The definition of natural foods, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “food that has undergone minimal processing and contains no preservatives or artificial additives.” What is and isn’t considered natural, in relation to food, depends on whom you ask. The food industry throws around the term for potato chips, canned soups and even jellybeans! Some definitions, although broad, have been developed by the United States Department of Agriculture to govern certain food products, while other agencies have no regulations that directly deal with natural food claims.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no formal guidelines for the use of the term natural in food claims. Since the late 1980s, the agency has maintained a policy that it will not restrict the use of the term except for added color, artificial or synthetic substances, and artificial flavors. Natural, according the FDA, refers to “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.” The agency does take action against labeling that is considered misleading or misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

For many consumers, confusion isn’t solely due to the ambiguous meaning of natural on a food label, but also arises when they try to distinguish between natural and organic products. A 2009 study performed by the Shelton Group, a company that specializes in marketing sustainability, revealed uncertainty among American consumers about products within the green market. The results showed that consumers consider "natural" to be a greener term than "organic." The President and CEO of the company, Suzanne Shelton, noted that the consumers who were surveyed overall felt that “organic was just a fancy way of saying expensive. They think 'natural' is regulated by the government but that organic isn't, and of course it's just the opposite.”


                                      

The food industry has tried to sway the government into clarifying the issue through legal actions. Today, there are petitions pending before both agencies from players in the food industry requesting that they each define “natural” by regulation. One of the petitions before the FDA was submitted by The Sugar Association in February 2006, and requests that FDA define “natural” by adopting USDA’s policy in a regulation.

The Sugar Association’s petition states that the actual chemical state of high-fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners have been altered so much during processing that it cannot be considered natural. The Corn Refiners Association sent comments to the FDA in response to the Sugar Association’s petition, stating the claims would draw an “unjustified and inconsistent distinction between sucrose and the high-fructose corn syrup”.

Natural foods are a large and profitable sector for the food industry. During 2010, “natural” was the number one claim on new product packaging, appearing on 23% of new products. It seems that the natural food market will continue to grow. The FDA may never issue a definition that clearly defines the use of natural food claims. Furthermore, even if the meaning of “natural” is defined it does not guarantee clarity on the issue or that industry will approve of the definition. Another question still remains as to whether regulation will benefit the consumer. If consumers continue to view natural as a synonym for healthful, many more issues can arise that may be out of the scope of the government and even the food industry.

Vitamins, Sugar and Water.

Recently, The National Consumer League has come down hard on Vitamin Water (a Coca Cola Company product) over misleading advertising. The drink's ad campaign this past winter promoted it as a replacement for the flu shot and having the ability to reduce the risk of getting sick. The league wrote a letter of complaint, which was sent to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in February of 2011, stating “The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other public health agencies, have recommended that many Americans get a vaccination to protect them from contracting the flu. Advertising that discourages consumers from following that advice can create substantial consumer injury”.

Vitamin Water contains 33 grams of sugar (about 8 ¼ teaspoons) per 20-ounce bottle, exceeding the American Heart Association’s recommended daily intake of added sugar . In the United States the number-one source of added sugar in the diet is sweetened beverages such as soda, juice and sports drinks. Americans consume an estimated excess of 150-300 calories per day, with half of these calories coming from sugar containing beverages. 

Essentially, Vitamin Water is a junk food disguised as a dietary supplement drink. A 20-ounce bottle of Vitamin Water contains half the amount of sugar as a regular 20-ounce Coke. Someone who typically limits their sugar sweetened beverage intake may mistakenly drink more of the product than they would if they were aware of its sugar content. The “Nutrient Enhanced Water Beverage” may potentially be harmful to consumers’ health. Diets containing excess amounts of added sugar could likely lead to an increased risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.

Between the FTC and the FDA, standards for what food companies can and cannot say, and under what circumstances, remain broad. Companies will continue to use health claims to effectively market products. It is evident that misinformation and exaggeration about the benefits of Vitamin Water could potentially harm public health in the long run. Promoting junk foods as healthful could send consumers the wrong message and direct them away from eating actual healthful foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

More Labeling Woes.

The giants of the food industry, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), have announced a new labeling program called the Nutrition Keys. They claim the development of the Keys was in response to Michelle Obama's request for a consistent front-of-pack labeling system. Front-of-package labeling refers to any health and nutrition-related message or symbol displayed on a food label. Here are a few examples:

 The Nutrition Keys, which will begin appearing on the front of packaged foods in the next few months, is the food industry's fancy, new labeling system. It's a glorified nutrition facts label, only it contains less information in a bigger font and it appears on the front, as opposed to the back, of the package. The icons display the calorie, saturated fat, sodium and sugar content of the product along with the serving size.

                                    
The decision to put the proposal into action came after the results of an International Food and Information Council study that was meant to evaluate the effectiveness of the Nutrition Keys. The conclusion was that consumers prefer the Nutrition Keys over other labels, but the results offer no evidence that shoppers are more willing to buy those products or if purchasing them will lead to healthier eating habits. The IFIC report states that the new label "strengthen(s) consumers' comprehension and comfort levels with the information provided." The GMA and FMI seem to have taken the only positive message out of the study and run with it.

Are we really confident that the food industry has our health, and not the depth of their pockets, as a prime interest? This isn't the first time food manufacturers have "taken action" to develop a unified front-of-package label. Their last attempt was known as Smart Choices. The green checkmark was used to promote “healthy” foods and listed the calorie amount along with servings per container on the front. It was abandoned in 2009, after scrutiny by the FDA and investigations into its validity when the logo started appearing on sugary cereals and frozen treats. The program's supporters argued the sugary cereal had been fortified with vitamins and the frozen dessert was low in calories and fat.

                                                              
Although the Nutrition Keys slim down the Nutrition Facts Label and make some of the information more visible, they still require the shopper to contemplate the overall quality of the product. The same limits and confusion of the Nutrition Facts Label remain. A new front-of-package location and a larger font won't mean squat to someone who typically spends under 13 seconds choosing one product over another. I understand the convenience factor, but summarizing the Nutrition Facts Label to give a quicker "peek" at the content is a little too reductive for me.