Inside D.C.

Food labeling needs to be “natural”

The issue of whether a consumer has the “right” to know if a food product contains a genetically modified (GM) ingredient by mandating GM labeling of foods is consuming a lot of newsprint and electrodes these days.  Opponents contend such a label “demonizes” a food by implying there’s something unsafe about biotech; proponents contend the public has the right to know everything that’s in every food product.

Say what you will about HR 1599, the industry-supported bill introduced by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R, KS) and G.K. Butterfield (D, NC) – along with a bipartisan gang of 21 colleagues – that would formally enshrine FDA as the arbiter of all things legal and appropriate on a food label, while preempting over two dozen state legislative efforts, not mention various state ballot initiatives to label everything “GM.”  However, one provision of the bill is sorely needed:  A federal definition of the term “natural,” if only because it’s so used and abused in food labeling.

The basic tenet of federal food labeling policy and regulation is that anything printed on a label or used in a commercial sales promotion cannot be false or misleading to the consumer.  This is where undefined “natural” causes angst.  There is no federal definition of what “natural” means when it comes to human food.  (I specify “human” food because there is a federal regime by which livestock/poultry feed and pet foods may be legally labeled as “natural” in specific circumstances.)

Some food companies increasingly add “natural” to a food label, likely aware third party research shows the term appeals to consumers.  It translates in the consumer collective consciousness to a product state of grace akin to “non-GM” or “organic,” i.e. safer for the environment, healthier, etc.

“Natural” is one bit of food company advertising I find comical, confusing or aggravating.  For instance, I chuckle when a food ad actor declares proudly the product he/she is hustling is either made from or is, of and by itself, a “natural, farm-raised” food.  There’s that “natural” thing again, and what makes me laugh is the claim of “farm-raised.”  If not a farm, from where else could that “natural” food or ingredient come?

Then there’s the whole practice of “labeling by exception.”  This roughly translates to all those “raised without…” claims you see.  The “raised without…” claim needs to convey necessary information to a consumer, not confuse him/her.  For instance, I’ve heard chicken companies proclaim their birds don’t receive “growth-promoting hormones.”  This is true, but it’s because there is no FDA-approved “growth-promoting hormone” for chickens, meaning no chicken in the country receives “growth-promoting hormones.”  Is this “misleading” to consumers?

Then there’s the whole antibiotic issue.  The family of drugs is called antimicrobials, and antibiotics are a subset of that family.  For some animals, there are antimicrobials called “ionophores,” drugs developed specifically for that species with no use in human medicine.  So if you’re not using a drug that’s also used in human medicine, but you’re using an ionophore – which has the same effect on the bird – aren’t you sorta kinda playing fast and loose with the whole “raised without antibiotics” declaration?

Organic food companies can’t make health or environmentally friendly label claims for their products given the science is roughly split down the middle on whether organic is actually healthier or more environmentally friendly than conventional food production.  There being no scientific consensus, getting the federal government to bless such a claim would be tough if not impossible.  However, I’d not be surprised to walk into a grocery store and find a product on the shelf making such claims.

It seems to me we work against ourselves by getting too “creative” with label claims hoping to differentiate products or appeal to a particular niche market.  As someone on TV used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.”