Washington Insider: Is It Natural?

The urban press, including the New York Times, has a hard time with agricultural basics including what is milk, and even what is meat. Recently it reasoned that one bright spot in an otherwise lackluster market for packaged foods, beverages and consumer products has been merchandise promoted as "natural." And, since consumers mistrust ordinary supermarket goods and are paying premium prices for "natural" goods, from fruit juices and cereals to shampoos and baby wipes. The Times sort of argues that something consumers are demanding should be clearly definable and defined.For example, it says that "a spate of lawsuits and consumer advocacy efforts show, one person's "natural" is another person's methylisothiazolinone." It suggests that this confusion is the government's fault. The problem, consumer groups and even some manufacturers say, is that there is no legal or regulatory definition of what "natural" is. And, it reasons—wrongly—that the debate in many ways echoes the tussling in the 1990s over the word "organic," when food makers played fast and loose with the term and frustrated consumers tried to make sense of it all.And, so, the Times says, USDA, tasked with creating an "organic" program, was pestered by consumers, farmers, manufacturers and states as it developed a definition, guidelines and a "certification" process— not a standard, but a certificate.Today, the Times thinks, while regulators are weighing whether to define the term "natural," the lack of clarity for over the past decade has resulted in a freewheeling, and litigious, environment.On one side are companies eager to cash in on consumers' willingness to pay higher prices for natural products by slapping "all natural" labels on them. At times, the claims have stretched the limits of credulity — like "All Natural" 7Up, Pop-Tarts "Baked with Real Fruit" and Crystal Light "Natural" lemonade. (Some labels like these were eventually changed.)"The lawsuits you see are only a fraction of the claims that are made," said David Biderman, a partner at Perkins Coie who defends food companies in class-action lawsuits. Behind the scenes, Biderman said, plaintiffs' lawyers are sending letters to companies and threatening to file lawsuits over labels they argue are misleading or violate consumer protection laws. Those letters, Biderman said, are often rejected, go away or are resolved with a small payment.Whether the lawsuits are necessary, or a nuisance, depends on whom you ask.Corporations, lawyers say, have been reluctant to allow a case to go to trial and risk having a legal definition of "natural" emerge — which might set standards companies would have to meet. As a result, the bulk of the lawsuits filed over the past decade have been settled, dismissed or, more recently, stayed by judges who hope regulators will step in with a definition."We're really getting into splitting hairs about what is natural and what's not," said Maia Kats, the director of litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public advocacy group has been involved in a handful of lawsuits over so-called natural products.A survey of consumers in 2015 by Consumer Reports magazine showed that at least 60% of respondents believed "natural" on packaged and processed foods meant they contained no artificial colors or ingredients and no genetically modified materials."About two-thirds of consumers surveyed think that natural on a food package means no pesticides were used," said Charlotte Vallaeys, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports. "They're confusing it with organic," which prohibits nearly all pesticides from use on food products.The fact is that for terms like "natural" or even "healthy" it is extremely difficult -- maybe impossible --to come up with exclusive definitions. In late 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration sought feedback from consumers and the industry on whether it should define and regulate the word "natural" on food labeling.More than 7,600 comments flooded in. Some consumers wanted the word banned from all food labeling. Others asked that the term be defined simply-whatever that might mean."We recognize that consumers are trusting in products labeled 'natural' without clarity around the term," Scott Gottlieb, the commissioner of the FDA said. "Consumers have called upon the FDA to help define the term 'natural' and we take the responsibility to provide this clarity seriously. We will have more to say on the issue soon." We will see.Still, lawyers say that until regulators come up with a definition, the not-so-natural dance among consumers, manufacturers and lawyers will continue.Well, maybe Consumers Union is right—if you can't define a term, don't allow it. It is pretty hard to imagine what a completely natural processed food would look like. Maybe FDA should give up the pretense, and simply ban it—unless some genius finds something far more meaningful, Washington Insider believes.