What people are telling the FDA about defining 'natural'
![What people are telling the FDA about defining 'natural' What people are telling the FDA about defining 'natural'](https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/blt09e5e63517a16184/blt6b5251b445edc9d8/64e8fa211056642d00e1d375/natural-teaser_0_1.png?width=700&auto=webp&quality=80&disable=upscale)
There is no reason for food labels to contain the word "Natural" in regard to identity of food products. The word is used only to create a monetary value beyond values established in supply and demand concepts which adequately establish prices. It is time FDA steps up to the plate to stop ridiculous meaningless use of eye catching terminology in food labeling. —William Rannells D.V.M., W. Rannells LLC (food industry)
Natural should always be the 'natural' ingredient that is un touched by humans in any way. "Natural" should not be allowed on labels showing the Ingredients, as it doesn't give the person consuming the product ANY information what so ever. The true ingredients should be labeled, every one of them. It should be the FDAs responsibility to the public to see that happens and no more of this wording that describes nothing, but is only confusing. —Genie Exum (government)
Drop the term "natural" altogether as it means nothing. Use "organic" or "non-organic" or "containing GMO products". —Penelope King (food industry)
The use of the word "natural" in foods, I fear, will become a scare tactic leading to an anti-science frenzy in America. Already, the public and the media fear terms such as "genetic engineering", "genetically modified organisms", and "non-organic." In reality, many of these technologies are not harmful to consumers and should not be treated like unnatural or harmful techniques. Many organisms arise from genetic engineering: selective breeding of apples leads to better, crispier apples; strawberries are made to grow bigger; rice is modified with minerals to benefit those who may not be getting the right amount of nutrients. All of these are beneficial to people who may be malnourished, unable to grow a good crop, or plagued with bad apples. And many of these foods are not known to people. Some of these foods arise through accident via cross-pollination and some are purposefully engineered. Both are not necessarily detrimental to humans, but both can be considered "unnatural". I accidentally cross pollinated a pumpkin with a squash this past summer: unnatural, yes, but bad? Not necessarily. Does this food now need to be labeled as unnatural? Molecules that are synthesized in the lab are not necessarily bad, and are often created out of need. Not knowing how a molecule is pronounced is not a bad thing. Not recognizing a substance in the listed ingredients on a product is not a bad thing. Thus, I fear for the labeling of foods as "natural". Natural does not equal good for you. There is often a reason that additives have been added to foods. Some people may balk at extra amounts of corn syrup or preservatives added to food, but they are not added superfluously. I am against the labeling of foods as "natural" in cases such as these. The use of pesticides is not bad, the use of genetic technology is not bad, and I fear for the association that may arise between "natural foods" and "good for you foods." —Elise (consumer)
The FDA should not define the word "Natural". Doing so would add a meaningless distinction in people's mind that would confuse them and obscure the best choices for them. The origin of a compound is not a predictor of its health risks - only the structure of a compound itself. It's sad that there's already a distinction between "Artificial Flavors" and "Natural Flavors" even when the compounds that compose those flavors are chemically identical. Giving credence to the word would be a big mistake, so please do not do it. —Mark Govea (consumer)
Because everything on planet earth is "natural" (already existed in nature OR has been created by natural processes or natural humans), it should not be used in relation to anything associated with marketing, especially on food labels. I could argue the same for the misuse of the word "organic" - everything is either organic or inorganic. The USA needs to improve science teaching and reverse the dumbing down of society. Let's start calling a spade a spade! —Anonymous (consumer)
Labeling food as natural is likely to always be misleading to the general public. Better would be to label food what it is: organic, non-gmo, preservative free etc. If the decision is made to use the natural label, it should mean that it contains food in the form it would be found in nature with no synthetic additives or preservatives and no genetically modified ingredients. —Beverly Walters (consumer)
This is simple, the term natural shouldn't be on a food label. A natural food doesn't require a label. For example, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are natural foods. Call a spade a spade, if you use beet root to make something red then label it as such. Truth in labeling. "Made with GMO's" is a good example. We have serious health issues, including a rise in obesity, in this country. As a certified health coach, and holistic care provider, I know how important it is to know what we are eating. I believe it is important to list things like GMO's and take a long, hard look at some of the ingredients we allow to be used in food that have been banned from most every other country. A great example of that would be Monsanto's (glyphosate) Roundup herbicide. If you have to wear personal protective gear to spray something on my food, how can anyone possibly think it is safe to ingest? Pesticides weren't introduced in this country until the 1940's and since that time the manufacturers of these products have gained way too much power. It is time to take care of the American people. This country needs to be reeducated on what it means to eat healthy. The immune system starts in the gut, healthy gut, healthy life. If we fix the food system, we fix a large portion of the expense in our health care system. Not to mention, how much more money and jobs would stay in the US if we were growing more of our own organic food and producing processed items with far fewer ingredients that no one can pronounce. Fixing the food system will not be easy, but it can be done and will have amazing results in the end. I'm happy to be helping. There is a list of positive results from the domino effect of fixing our food system. Live happy and healthy! —Vicky Darden (health professional)
Natural means the food should not be the by-product(or any added ingredient) that was man made or synthesized. Ei the food is in it's naturally occurring state. Examples include; corn, not corn syrup or any of its derivatives. A potatoes, not a gmo potato. Chicken, preferable cage free and not filled with anti bionics and hormones. If the ingredient are unpronounceable or you have no idea what it is, hint it's not natural and can not be labeled so. Natural basically means any food or drink that you could create living in an Amish or seventeenth century farmland. Now if only you'd add the daily value percentage next to sugar and you guys would be golden. —Ashely H. (food industry)
Cheetos Cheerios and other products made in factories are not and cannot be 'natural'. Fresh produce is 'natural'. Meat can also be 'natural'. But please put an end to companies deceiving consumers that manufactured food items are somehow 'natural'. —Yvona Fast (consumer)
One month after opening comments on defining natural, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received more than 2,300 comments. The FDA is accepting public comment through Feb. 10, 2016, as to whether it is appropriate to define the term natural and, if so, how it should define natural and determine appropriate use of the term. Perusing the comments shows just how big defining natural is. So far, comments appear to run the gamut. Generally, they fall into those equating natural to: How food is grown and raised. How it is processed. What's added to it. Health. Ways of eating (including calling out corn as a nonhuman food). Organic. Non-GMO. Even commenters that approach the definition the same don't agree on whether the FDA should define the word natural or manufacturers should use it on labels. Here are some comments for the natural products industry to consider as it formulates, packages and moves forward in this changing food landscape. For guidance on commenting and to comment yourself, visit the Federal Register here.
Healthy Nation Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to dietary guidance that focuses on adequate essential nutrition, agrees with the petition put forth by Consumers Union. We suggest that the "natural" label be prohibited on food by issuing the following interpretive rule: The term 'natural,' or any derivation of the term, such as 'naturally grown,' 'naturally sourced' or 'from nature,' is vague and misleading and should not be used." When applied to food, the word "natural" has come to be associated with "better for you." However, this association is a rhetorical one, not one based in nutrition science. As a result, the use of the term "natural" on a food label is far more useful to food manufacturers than to consumers. It offers a "health glow" to products that may or may not provide any nutritional benefits and is often a way of "health-washing" products that, without such labeling, may rightly be interpreted as poor nutritional choices. "Natural" label claims may be confusing to consumers, obscure the nutritional value of food, and distract consumers from attention to the nutritional quality of the food. Therefore, we suggest that the term "natural" and any derivations thereof be prohibited in label claims for foods derived from plants, animals, and combinations thereof. —Adele Hite (consumer group)
If a food item is going to be labeled as "Natural" then it needs to meet my these standards. My standards are as follows: If you can Kill it, pick it, grow it. Then it is "Natural". Also, lets get a couple things straight. Corn is a grain not a vegetable! So... Wheat and Grain may be food for many creatures out there. But not Humans, we are not built to digest those items, therefore making them "not natural food". So, if a food item has wheat or any type of corn... which there are too many corn products to list, then it shouldn't be called Natural because grain and wheat is not natural for humans. Another thing. As a kid my father talked about eating 20-40 chicken wings himself with a group of his buddies. That's not possible anymore since the chicken mysteriously grew in size about 4 times, in the past 40 years. Either evolution has been friendly to the chicken or restaurants are using chicken legs as wings? Consumers trust that if something is for sale then it must be safe for their family. YOUR THE FDA!!! ELIMINATE STERIODS FROM OUR FOOD, ELIMINATE CORN FROM OUR FOOD, ELIMINATE WHEAT FROM OUR FOOD!!! THE FDA SHOULD HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO KEEP US SAFE!!! PEOPLE ARE FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT CARBS FROM BREAD ONLY TURN INTO FAT!!! OUR BODY BREAKS DOWN CARBS AND TURNS THEM INTO SUGAR WHICH THEN TURNS TO FAT!!! PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT!!! THIS SHOULD BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!! QUIT TAKING MONEY FROM COKE, MCDONALDS, AND ALL THE OTHER CORPORATIONS WITH DELICIOUS "FOODS" THAT ARE DANGEROUS TO US. STOP OUR GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING HUSH MONEY FROM THESE CORPORATIONS!!! QUIT THE DAMN CORRUPTION AND USE SOME HUMAN MORALS. THE FDA CAN FIX ALL OF THIS BY EXPLOITING OUR GOVERNMENT AND USING THE MOST BASIC OF HUMAN MORALS. —Shawn McCoy (food industry)
The processed chemical laden food makes me ill. Upset the bowels, headaches and I feel horrible after eating it. We want real food! I buy fresh vegetables and local butchered meat because I don't trust any prepackaged foods. The age of convenience is killing us slowly. Cancer causing chemicals and chemicals causing obesity, glandular problems, digestive problems, migraines, fibro Malaga, lupus etc etc. I have to trust you to label the food but I should be able to trust you to stop the manufacturers from allowing the company's putting additives that are not needed for nourishment. —Sherri Crane (consumer)
I believe that the term "natural" is so misunderstood by the public that it should be BANNED from use on food packaging. I think that if companies want to label a food item (whether processed or a grain or meat or fruit/vegetable item), it should be labeled with a specific and accurate label such as: no artificial color or no high fructose corn syrup or no artificial ingredients or no growth hormones or no antibiotics or no pesticides or no GMO (genetically modified organisms). I know that manufacturers would prefer to use one word because it saves them on labeling and it makes for an easy and catchy advertisement. However, the fact that no one understands what specific words like "natural" mean indicates that such words should NOT be used. And no one is forcing them to put any labels on their food about the '"naturalness" of it. If they think it will improve their sales to add such labels, then they should be forced to tell the public exactly what the food is or isn't. One reason I don't believe the FDA should come up with a specific outline of what "natural" means is that exactly what the public cares about in their food is a moving target. The public wants to know different things every year AND our understanding about what is important continues to change. For instance, if the FDA had come up with a definition of natural 20 years ago, it wouldn't have included anything about GMO or growth hormones because those weren't hot topics at the time. If manufacturers want to benefit from such labels, force them to be specific about what their food is or isn't. Don't allow them to just slap an overall label onto it. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. From a nurse practitioner in California —Mary Petrofsky (health professional)
No one should be allowed to use the word "Natural", unless the food is Organic. Most of us are assuming, "Natural" means Organic, and does not contain any artificial, not made from genetically modified, not from animals fed on artificial/genetically modified. Are you guys not educated and understand, how a common man think and assume/confused over the word "Natural". You should have already banned companies to use the word "Natural" or "Organic", if they are not true "Organic". God save mankind. —Movien S (private industry)
No one should be allowed to use the word "Natural", unless the food is Organic. Most of us are assuming, "Natural" means Organic, and does not contain any artificial, not made from genetically modified, not from animals fed on artificial/genetically modified. Are you guys not educated and understand, how a common man think and assume/confused over the word "Natural". You should have already banned companies to use the word "Natural" or "Organic", if they are not true "Organic". God save mankind. —Movien S (private industry)
What people are telling the FDA about defining 'natural'
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like