Natural Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does

Natural is one of several slippery terms on packaging. Image via Shutterstock.

Ask for an a synonym to pure and there’s a good bet it’s “natural”.

However, much like the anti-vaxxer movement and sections of the public decrying homosexuality, the food industry’s interpretation of the supposedly pure word is different from what you’d expect.

In the States, judges sought to get a definition on the somewhat slippery adjective after 200 class-action suits were filed in the last few years against food manufacturers, charging them with misuse in marketing such edible oxymorons as “natural” Cheetos Puffs, “all-natural” Sun Chips, “all-natural” Naked Juice and “100 percent all-natural” Tyson chicken nuggets.

They couldn’t find one.

"The plaintiffs argue that many of these products contain ingredients – high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavours and colourings, chemical preservatives and genetically modified organisms – that the typical consumer wouldn't think of as 'natural'," says Michael Pollan, a professor of journalism at Berkeley University writing an analysis for the New York Times says.

A failed appeal for clarity followed – “food labelled 'natural' should have 'nothing artificial or synthetic' in it 'that would not normally be expected in the food'” was the FDA’s only advice.
While the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code regulates the use of specific health and nutrient content claims, it also doesn’t regulate or define these loose terms.

"'Natural' claims are particularly persuasive to Australian consumers but there are no enforceable food standards regulating the use of the term," say the authors of a recent paper exploring the subject.

Unfortunately, the long-awaited Health Star Rating system won’t be much help, either. The HSR System was designed to interpret nutrient information and give you an overall picture of the nutritional profile of a food, not to judge how 'natural' or 'pure' a product is.

GALLERY: When health studies contradict each other