Comments on: USDA to define “natural”

By: Nan Cornehl

Nan Cornehl — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:51:09 +0000

I just read that seaweed liquid could be injected into “natural chicken” I have a deathly allegy to this. Now do I quit eating chicken?

By: Naturally? Naturally. — The USDA To Work On What ‘Natural’ Means | Food Bubbles

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:42:50 +0000

[...] A commenter on Marion Nestle’s post on the same subject explains that the term “natural” is referring to the meat, while “naturally raised” refers to the livestock. Somehow, knowing this doesn’t absolve the USDA from the confusion its perpetrated on consumers. However, according to a federal register notice, this discombobulated terminology will soon be tackled (or see the actual docket). Well, at least the term “natural” will be. They are collecting commentary and seeking assistance for defining the conditions under which it will permit the voluntary claim “natural” to be used in the labeling of meat and poultry products. [...]

By: Natural Beef

Natural Beef — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:58:19 +0000

While I applaud the USDA and any other group trying to set commonly accepted standards, I believe it misses the point. In my opinion the best way to ensure your beef is healthy and sustainable is to know the grower, visit their farm, see the butcher shop it is sent to. What we need to do is remove the anonymity that supermarkets have brought, where we don’t know where our food comes from or what happens to it before we get it.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:06:44 +0000

Melissa – I agree in that I hope producers (large or small) look out for the animal’s health. Sometimes giving animals certain vaccinations etc. is simply used as a preventative similar to why kids take vitamins, and flouride in toothpaste. Therein “lies the rub.” The concern with only using atibiotics “when needed” potentially becomes a labeling(sp?) problem.

By: Melissa Bastian

Melissa Bastian — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:54:47 +0000

FoodRenegade: YES!

Melissa: I’m not sure that farmers who simply administer medicinal antibiotics to those animals who are validly ill with an infection would be penalized – I certainly hope not. Indeed, I hope this would be targeted at the much larger-scale factory farm practice of administering a constant stream of antibiotics for preventative reasons and to boost growth – an extremely problematic practice.

By: Melody

Melody — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:08:01 +0000

I agree with Anthro: just list in plain English how the meat is raised and prepared! I like as many specific facts on my food as possible. =)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:02:17 +0000

Has the USDA defined “pasture-raised” yet? Also, does data exist on the size of the pastured meat sector?

By: Anthro

Anthro — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:05:49 +0000

“Natural” is too vague a word to define as can even be seen by the comments here; it means something different to almost each reader. Why not just do away with it. Can the label just say, “Raised and processed without hormones or antibiotics. No added ingredients.”

After all, a chicken is natural by definition whether or not it has been given drugs, or treated cruelly.

Whatever they come up with, I hope they take on the rest of the food industry. I have this argument with the coop all the time. Their chicken says, “no hormones or antibiotics…..” but these are forbidden by law, so it seems a bit disingenuous. I take FoodRenegade’s point, but it’s not clear to me that the asterisk wording only refers to processing. I’ll read it again soon.

There’s an easy way around all this: GO VEG(etarian)!

By: Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:12:09 +0000

My only concern for this is for those farmers and ranchers who raise their animals ethically and sustainably, but who still believe in consciencious application of antibiotics.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:42:24 +0000

@KYFarmersMatter Sounds reasonable, but why call it natural when the average population thinks it means free of any additivies whatsoever. Have to come up with a better, more accurate term.