Naturally Confused

Merriam-Webster defines “natural food” in 13 words. New federal rules can be expected to add a few more.

USDA initiated a rulemaking on “natural” to resolve growing controversy. At the heart of this controversy is sodium lactate. “Natural” sodium lactate can be produced by fermentation of corn. However, sodium lactate is both a flavoring and a preservative. Thus, the dilemma: Should natural sodium lactate—with a preservative effect—be allowed in meat products labeled “natural”?

Since 1982, USDA policy has defined “natural” as a product that contains no artificial flavoring or coloring, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient. In addition, a natural product and its ingredients may not be more than minimally processed. USDA also requires a brief statement that explains what is meant by “natural.”

Natural ingredients, however, may be used in nontraditional ways. For instance, salt and water are natural, but is a chicken breast injected with saline solution still natural? Critics contend these foods might be labeled, “all natural ingredients,” but the product itself should not be called natural.

USDA has also been challenged to define “naturally raised.” Animal production claims—such as “grass fed” and “free range”—have been allowed on a label-by-label basis, but never the term, “naturally raised.” Defining “naturally raised” in regulation could be as complicated as defining organic.

In 2005, USDA revised its policy because some people were confusing organic and natural as synonyms. Many are unaware that an organic ingredient may not automatically be used in a “natural” product. For example, organic plant extracts that function as preservatives cannot be added to “natural” foods.

Surveying the briar patch of issues, it is no surprise FDA has declined to formalize a definition. More than once over the past 20 years, FDA has been urged to define “natural” by regulation, but decided, “because of resource limitations and other agency priorities,” not to undertake a rulemaking.

Lacking a legal definition, FDA relies on the law’s general prohibition of any false or misleading labeling. The agency has informally noted that natural means nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives, regardless of source) has been included in, or added to, a food that would not normally be expected in the food.

Most of FDA’s enforcement actions related to “natural” claims involve colorings added to foods labeled “natural.” FDA rules strictly define “artificially colored.” Any added coloring—even natural coloring—results in an artificially colored food. For instance, if beet powder is added to pink lemonade, the product would not be natural pink lemonade, but rather “artificially colored pink lemonade” or “pink lemonade—color added.” This rule applies when added coloring is not expected in the food (i.e., beets in lemonade), but does not apply when coloring is a part of the food (e.g., the normal red color of a cranberry drink). FDA rules also specifically distinguish between natural and artificial flavors.

While regulatory activity has been subdued, private actions are also a concern. Competitors might challenge a claim through the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Arlington, VA, or through a Lanham Act lawsuit. Consumer activists may also sue—the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., recently sued over products containing high-fructose corn syrup being labeled “all natural.”

Good protection against these actions is common-sense attention to the dictionary definition of “natural food,” i.e., a food that has undergone no or minimal processing, and contains no artificial flavoring or coloring, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient.

Neal Fortin is director and professor at the Institute for Food Laws and Regulations, Michigan State University, East Lansing. For more information, visit iflr.msu.edu. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.