In a world of health-conscious people, food
manufacturers are quick to use the terms “healthy” and “natural” on their food
packaging labels to attract customers.
And the ploy is working; more people buy
foods labelled “natural” than organic foods – 73% compared to 58% - according
to a 2016 survey by Consumer Reports. From breakfast cereal to confectionery to
fruit juice, it’s hard to come by a product that doesn’t feature such wording,
which often leaves one wondering how well regulated the use of these terms is.
The definition of “natural” and what makes
it attractive.
UK’s Foods Standards Agency, FSA, defines
natural products as “ingredients produced by nature, not the work of man or
interfered with by man”, while Israel only allows inclusion of natural
ingredients, which must be physical treatments and not chemical modifications.
From a consumer point of view, shoppers
often go for “natural” foods because they believe they are minimally processed,
or that the ingredients used are wholly natural products. Others buy “natural”
foods because they think they’re getting the same benefits as organic food, but
at a cheaper price, according to the director of the Consumer Reports Food
Safety & Sustainability Center, Urvashi Rangen.
Would a product like high fructose corn
syrup (HFCS) pass as natural?
The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA)
1991 guidelines state that for a food product to be considered natural “nothing
artificial or synthetic (including colours regardless of source) is included
in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be
there”. So while most people would say HFCS isn’t a natural product, under FDA
guidelines it may actually qualify depending on how it is made and handled.
Paying a premium for the "feel better"
factor...
With no clarity, consistency or
transparency in the term, food manufacturers will put "natural" on
just about anything because they know you want to fell better about purchasing
it.
Such ambiguity has led US courts to seek
clarification from the FDA, following litigation against some manufacturers for
using misleading labelling. As a result, the FDA decided in 2016 to seek
comments from the public on the following points:
1. Whether it is appropriate to define the
term “natural”,
2. If so, how the term and acceptable use
of “natural” should be defined; and
3. How this acceptable use of “natural” on
food labels can be determined by the FDA.
Australia’s regulations
In Australia, food labelling is regulated
by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Code which sets out the
legislated food standards. Unfortunately, while the code addresses nutritional
and health claims, it is mute on the use of the words like “natural”, “pure”,
or “fresh” in food labelling. Not even process claims such as “pasteurised” or
“halal” are regulated by the Code.
Health and nutrition content claims
The FSANZ code states that a product can
only make claims of having a health or nutritional value if a clear
relationship between the food and the health/nutrition attributes has been
established according to the code’s standards. For example, if the product
label carries a ‘good source of calcium’ claim, the food should contain at
least the amount of calcium specified in the Standard.
Claims to a product being ‘natural’
Since the use of the term “natural” is
currently not strictly defined by the FASNZ code, its use in food labelling is
by default regulated by The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) - Australia's competition regulator and national consumer law champion.
Consumer laws in Australia stipulate that
labels must not false or misleading. This is essentially a negative test, which
leaves consumers, manufacturers and retailers without a clear explanation of
what is required when using the term “natural”. ACCC only notes that “consumers
may view what is ‘natural’ differently to manufacturers and food technologists”
and as such, “thought should be given to what the consumer would think” when
using the term.
Conclusion
Australia like its US counterpart is
somewhat lagging behind other jurisdictions like the UK and Israel on
regulation of natural food product labelling. FSANZ is reaching out to overseas
governing bodies, including in the US, to help develop the Australian Code and
Standards, offering hope that a clearer position can be taken on the matter.
That lack of clarity, consistency and
transparency is something to consider the next time you’re considering paying
as premium for a packet of corn chips, lollies, beverage or breakfast cereal
etc marketed with “natural” ingredients.
Dr
Paul Cribb is an award-winning Scientist, Mentor & Coach to leading
Fitness Professionals. Paul is the
creator of mp-body.com and The Metabolic Nutrition
Coaching Systems - the first ever science-based, research-proven, nationally
accredited coaching program.
References:
Addressing Consumer Confusion Surrounding
"Natural" Food Claims. Parasidis E, Hooker N, Simons CT. Am J Law
Med. 2015;41(2-3):357-73.
How the nutrition food label was developed,
Part 2: the purpose and promise of nutrition claims. Taylor CL, Wilkening VL. J
Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Apr;108(4):618-23.