What does natural mean, anyway?

Consumer Reports and the social action group, TakePart, are using the results of a recent study on consumer perceptions of "natural" on food packaging to attempt to have the word banned.
Alternative understandings of the term were expressed by 1,000 shoppers. Of those participating, 60 per cent deliberately look for the word, with two-thirds believing it means products don’t contain "artificial ingredients, pesticides or genetically modified organisms — including artificial growth hormones, antibiotics or drugs in meat."
Further, 80 percent think using "natural" on the label should mean those things because, Consumer Reports hypothesizes, consumers believe "products labeled natural are better for them than products without that claim." They also found that 90 percent of participants want foods containing GMOs to be labeled, showing they meet government-set safety standards.
Urvashi Rangan, executive director of the Food Safety and Sustainability Center at Consumer Reports, declared the word "misleading, confusing, and deceptive." She added, "We want to clean up the green noise in the food label marketplace so Americans can get what they want — truthful labels that represent important and better food production systems."
The two organizations have a petition and further information at takepart.com/food-labels.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) supports voluntary labelng, as advised by the FDA. The group’s most recent statement on "natural" labels, endorsing the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) policy, came in response to The Guardian’s request for a comment about the Consumer Reports survey. USDA’s definition simply states products must "contain no artificial ingredients" and be "minimally processed."
Coverage of the Consumer Reports survey by Fox News referred to a previous, two-year attempt by the FDA to create a precise standard that ended in failure because it was "too complex."
Class-action lawsuits are also putting on the pressure, according to The Guardian, with several manufacturers already removing "natural" from packaging as a result. With $40 billion worth of "natural" food sold every year, according to Nielsen, the industry may be forced to find its own way.
- Say no to "natural" on food labels – Consumer Reports
- ‘Natural’ food is big business; too bad it’s meaningless – The Guardian
- Consumer Reports wants to ban misleading "natural" food labeling – Fox News
- Consumer Reports survey calls attention to FDA "natural" food labeling practices – hamptonroads.com
Do you agree the term “natural” on food labels is misleading to consumers? Should “natural” be banned as a product claim? Is there a role for retailers in clearing up the confusion?
Join the Discussion!
23 Comments on "What does natural mean, anyway?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Natural” is right up there with “organic” and “lite” as a relatively meaningless term. If we believe the government should protect its citizens from the evils of marketing executives, then yes, it should be banned. If we believe shoppers are smart enough to read a label, no. Manufacturers would do well to make labels clear, then we wouldn’t be looking at regulation.
“Natural” is misleading. In our house, we believe if it comes in a can, bottle or box it is not natural. Simple.
There’s no doubt about it. It’s a totally bogus term, which can easily be seen when you look at the ingredients on those “natural” products. I’m glad to see a mainstream publication that consumers trust making this noise. It’s long overdue.
I think we could say the same about terms like “low-fat” (lower than WHAT?), but the “natural” term is by far the worst.
Whole Foods uses the word “conventional” to describe non-organic fruits and vegetables. But almond butter is either described as organic or “natural” (which means not organic). That’s an industry-wide game.
I’m glad that Consumer Reports, which has to be struggling in the age of social media, Google and customer reviews, has found a voice.
Look out, this is a major lightning rod for me.
First, natural is nothing more than a marketing term with absolutely no meaning except in meat processing where it has a minimal connotation. Other than that, natural means found on this planet, which includes arsenic, uranium and toxic waste. It’s a term used by manufacturers to make their products sound better than they are to uneducated or casual shoppers. So yes, natural is misleading, it should be banned, and yes, it will never happen.
The GMA is a front group for manufacturers that DO NOT want transparency in labeling and want profits before everything. Their members have donated millions to defeat/fight off GMO labeling efforts and are leading the law suit with partner Monsanto against the state of Vermont for passing a GMO labeling bill. So when they say “voluntary” they really mean no restrictions and business-as-usual.
Its not the retailer’s role to clear up confusion. Let the manufacturer do that. Our role as a retailer is to sell as much product as possible by any legal means. There isn’t enough room on a label to clear up confusion, and it would hurt sales if consumers knew too much. If it comes from nature, then the product is natural. Motor oil is natural. Most chemicals are derived from natural sources. I think some people get confused with terms like natural, organic, healthy, etc. Retailers are the middlemen connecting manufacturer and consumer. Each has their own agenda and the laws of supply and demand will determine what goes on a label and how it is explained. With the growth in natural food store market share, it would appear this process is working out quite well.
“Natural” is laughable. There is not much more to add to the opening comments by my colleagues. But, just imagine what food marketers would claim on their products if there were no restrictions on labeling. Truth is not the objective here.
Does the retailer have any responsibility for this? Of course not. Unfortunately, the responsibility goes to the government.
The term “natural” has been emptied of real value as marketers have taken over its subjective redefinitions. The confusion is too widespread to right this ship anytime soon.
That is why companies like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods are doing so well. They’ve elevated the competition to the higher level of the brand.
Trader Joe’s branded products contain no GMOs and the company ensures their customers are fully aware of that. Whole Foods was built on organic foods, and despite some challenges around the certification bodies and questionable practices, Whole Foods has established trust and credibility as a brand to transcend these issues.
The short answer is yes, it is often misleading. Because there is no regulation, what one company calls natural may not meet the standard that another uses. Like other terms that have been mentioned, natural has become a marketing term rather that a term that denotes what people expects it to mean.
Claiming something is “natural” is just as potentially misleading as someone saying they’re an “expert!” (dangerous but cheeky comment on a discussion board used by many great retail experts—just kidding, everyone.)
Argue with Webster. The word “natural” is in the dictionary and some cause-oriented activitists want to ban its use by food companies. See how important freedom of speech is for corporations? Why should a company not be allowed to use a dictionary word to describe its product, as long as the product meets the dictionary definition, unless of course government regulators have so messed with the dictionary definition that it no longer means what everybody thinks it means. In that case, the activists really want to ban the action by government regulators. How interesting.
From my January column, “OUR ‘NATURAL’ DISASTER”…
NEW DEFINITIONS
Natural: Made on this planet, without any intervention by humankind. This opens up the possibility of food processing by space aliens, but so what?
Unnatural: Not a product of the earth. Made and processed on the moon, another planet, or in outer space.
Supernatural: Made by a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Supernatural foods may also be labeled as paranormal, magical, occult or mystical, but only in California.
Preternatural: Food that is beyond what is normal or natural; containing cosmic dust particles that cure pink eye.
Au naturel: Fruits and vegetables harvested in France by naked people.
Natural gas: Foods containing supernatural cauliflower, brussels sprouts, dried beans, broccoli, cabbage or bran.
Please feel free to start using these terms immediately on all your packaging, and promoting them to consumers.
You’re welcome.
Natural, organic, lite—They all mean the same thing, but who knows what that is. The government labeling regulations are so misleading that we are never sure what we are getting is what we wanted. You have to feel for people like Tony who makes a living by trying to understand and abide by these misleading requirements.
Yes, it is misleading to consumers. The label “natural or “all natural” means that a product probably doesn’t contain a lot of processed foodstuffs, artificial colors, additives or flavors. However, the FDA has no specific definition for “natural” or “all natural” labels. As a result, it is difficult for consumers to separate highly processed foods from those that aren’t.
What can retailers do? Stop using these terms on their store brands and explain to shoppers why. That might give private label a marketing edge over name brands. They would appear more credible to shoppers.
Of all the food labeling issues this is probably the least problematic. Consumers can read the ingredient list and decide for themselves if it fits their expectation of “natural”. The real consumer deception issues lie (no pun intended) with the so called “dietary supplements”.
So what’s the opposite of natural? “Polluted, modified, and combined with noxious, possibly carcinogenic preservatives?” Now there’s a label worth watching for. Possibly I would be inclined to buy products labeled “Tastes good”.
The terminology has been hopelessly fowled up to the point of meaninglessness.
Whether or not it is misleading is dependent upon the individual consumer and their collective knowledge. Why would we expect the retailer to clear this up? Do we expect the retailer to police the CPG companies? There is no incentive for the CPG companies to be truthful until they are pressed to the wall to do this.
The “thought-police” on this point are wasting the time of consumers and the industry, alike. The only folks they are supporting are their benefactors within the Trial Lawyers guild.
There are three aspects of a communication: connotative, denotative and definitive. Words like “natural”, “best”, “miracle” and others used to maximize and/or minimize the effects of any experience are more commonly called “the sell” when used in advertising.
When the consumer is fooled into believing an adjective or adverb is in fact a real content or characteristic, who’s fault is that? In a free market trade system, the fault is with the one that makes the mistake, as in the consumer. If suppliers are forced to divulge the absolute contents associated with a product or service, this world will be very different, starting with the disclosure of a dollar’s true value.