As Americans hunger for healthier food, new efforts to define the term turn messy
Chicago Tribune
By Mike Hughlett | Tribune staff reporter
Federal meat regulators this month are soliciting public comments on a label they believe will better define “natural” meat. The label, dubbed “naturally raised,” would attest that a cut of meat came from an animal free of antibiotics and growth hormones.
Here’s a comment from Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist at Consumers Union: “It’s not quite as bad” as regulators’ definition of “natural” itself.
Ouch. Welcome to the complicated battleground over a seemingly simple word. “Natural” is an increasingly important claim to American consumers searching for healthier food.
Read the comments submitted by The Cornucopia Institute to the USDA on its rule proposal for defining natural by clicking here.
Yet the word has long had a fuzzy regulatory definition, a condition that’s increasingly under fire and not only from advocacy groups such as Consumers Union, but from some foodmakers, too, including several chicken producers and Downers Grove-based Sara Lee Corp.
Both of the nation’s main food regulators, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, are in the midst of significant reviews over what constitutes “natural.” Even consumer advocates admit they don’t have an easy job.
“Defining natural is very difficult and messy,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest. Indeed, everything from soda pop to potato chips has been marketed as natural.
Jacobson’s group, which tracks food labeling and nutrition issues, at least thinks it knows when a product is not natural. And it’s taken to task companies it believes are misusing the natural label, including Northfield-based Kraft Foods Inc.
A year ago, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued Kraft for marketing its Capri Sun beverage as all-natural. The suit was dropped after Kraft said it was reformulating Capri Sun and dumping the all-natural phrase.
High-fructose corn syrup, a key ingredient in Capri Sun, was the critical element in the dispute, as it has been in several other dust-ups over natural claims. Jacobson’s group argues that while corn is natural, high-fructose corn syrup is man-made.
The sugar industry, the corn-sweetener business’ main rival, not surprisingly agrees, and a big fight over the issue is pending before the FDA.
The term “natural” is not to be confused with “organic,” a designation that is defined in much more detail by food regulators. USDA rules implemented in 2002 lay out specific production methods for foods to be called organic; animals can’t generally be treated with growth hormones, for instance.
“We consider it a meaningful label,” said Consumer Union’s Rangan.
Increasing appetite
The market for both organic and natural products is booming. Between 2004 and 2006, sales of natural food and beverages — including organics — increased 33 percent, according to a report last fall by Mintel International, a consumer research outfit. Meanwhile, the number of new food and beverage products claiming to be all-natural or organic soared from 1,665 in 2002 to 3,823 in 2006, according to Mintel.
That increasing demand is driven partly by consumers’ increasing worries about food safety, the Mintel report said. “The desire for safe and pure foods, free from additives and preservatives, is a major driver when consumers consider choosing natural over mainstream food products.”
But natural doesn’t necessarily mean safe, even if consumers think it does, say some food technology experts. “We can’t define [natural] in terms of food safety,” said Roger Clemens, a spokesman for the Chicago-based Institute of Food Technologists and a professor at the University of Southern California.
Kathy Glass, a scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Food Research Institute, agreed. The “natural” tag, she added, “is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.”
Regulatory definitions don’t help matters. The FDA has no formal definition for natural. It hasn’t objected, though, to the use of the word for products that contain no artificial colors or flavors, or synthetic substances.
The USDA, which regulates meat and poultry, has a definition: Natural products have no artificial flavors or colors, or synthetic ingredients or chemical preservatives — and they are “minimally processed.”
But that definition deals only with an animal after it’s been slaughtered. Many consumers believe natural meat also entails how an animal lived, said Rangan of Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine.
Last summer, 89 percent of consumers surveyed by Consumer Reports said “natural” meat should come from animals whose diet was natural and free from drugs and chemicals. In the same survey, 83 percent said those animals should also be raised in a “natural environment” — not hemmed in small pens, for instance.
The USDA’s proposal for a new “naturally raised” label is intended to address such consumer sentiments, as well as speak to concerns in the meat industry, said Billy Cox, a USDA spokesman. Some companies that specialize in naturally raised animals want such a label in order to distinguish their product.
The voluntary label, as proposed, would also assure consumers that they’re buying meat from animals that never consumed feed containing animal byproducts.
The USDA unveiled the label proposal in late November and is gathering public comments through Jan. 28 before eventually drafting a final rule. Rangan acknowledged that “naturally raised” is an improvement over USDA’s “natural” definition.
But it still doesn’t address the issue of raising animals in confined — and therefore unnatural — quarters, she said.
The “naturally raised” label wouldn’t replace USDA’s current definition of natural; it’s aimed more at serving as a marketing tool for companies and consumers. But the agency is reviewing its overall definition of natural, too, Cox said.
Battle lines emerge
Contentiousness over that definition is also pitting companies against each other.
For example, three chicken producers — Foster Farms, Sanderson Farms and Gold’n Plump Poultry — last year formed the “Truthful Labeling Coalition” to battle poultry giants Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride over natural claims. (A fifth chicken firm, Perdue Farms, joined the group last month.)
The group is petitioning the USDA to abandon its position that chicken can be called “natural,” even if it’s been injected with a broth of saltwater or seaweed. Such broths are allowed because they are composed of natural ingredients such as salt.
Both Tyson and Pilgrim’s Pride use the practice on one line of natural products, though they also market a natural chicken without the broth. Rivals such as Sanderson Farms, as well as some consumer advocates, say adding the broth is on its face not natural because it imparts more salt than a chicken naturally has.
Lampkin Butts, president of Sanderson Farms, said the main reason for the salt-based baths is “economic.” Chicken producers pump in salt broth of up to 15 percent of a chicken’s weight, thus giving consumers less bird per pound for their money, he said.
But Tyson and Pilgrim’s Pride say they’re motivated not by economics: Tyson says that in some cases a salt marinade can lower costs to consumers.
Instead, both companies say some consumers prefer marinated chickens, finding them more tender and juicy. Tyson says it conducted a national study and found that the majority of consumers find it acceptable that salt and other natural items are added to products labeled natural.
Another natural scrap in the meat market involves sodium lactate, a natural preservative that is widely used on meats.
In 2005, the USDA changed its policy and said corn-derived sodium lactate is acceptable for meat labeled natural, in essence putting it in a similar category as salt, spices and other natural preservatives. But in October 2006, Hormel Foods petitioned the USDA to return to its original position on sodium lactate.
Hormel uses sodium lactate, but not on foods it markets as natural. It argued that sodium lactate is a preservative, regardless if it’s derived from corn. And only certain natural items spelled out in USDA’s regulations — such as salt or spices — can serve as natural preservatives. Sodium lactate isn’t among those specifically spelled out.
Thus, Hormel claimed that the USDA’s 2005 policy shift was inconsistent with the agency’s own rules and that sodium lactate could not be classified as a natural preservative.
The USDA reversed itself in late 2006, a move that in turn helped prompt Sara Lee last year to petition the agency. Sara Lee, which markets some of its bread, meat and cheese products as a natural, argued that corn-derived sodium lactate is natural, in the same league as salt.
Sara Lee also petitioned the FDA and asked it and the USDA to harmonize their definitions of natural. “The goal is uniform consistency in the marketplace,” said Mike Cummins, a Sara Lee spokesman.
– – –
Battle over a word
The Food and Drug Administration has no formal definition but hasn’t objected to the use of the word for products that contain no artificial colors or flavors or synthetic substances.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates meat and poultry, defines as natural those products that are “minimally processed” and contain no artificial flavors or colors, or synthetic ingredients or chemical preservatives.
Both agencies are reviewing their definitions of natural.
“Natural,” said Kathy Glass, a scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Food Research Institute, “is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.”
Sources: FDA and USDA
