Search results: natural label

It’s the first Sunday of the month and time for my monthly Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle.  In this one, I deal with the annoying “natural” on food labels, a term that the FDA prefers not to define.

Q: I am doing legislative research on food policy for one of my state’s senators on the definition of “natural.” As things stand, it’s difficult for consumers to understand what “natural” means on food labels. How should the FDA define this term so it is accurate and not misleading?

A: I was traveling in New England when your question arrived, and it sent me right to the nearest Hannaford supermarket. Hannaford makes this research easy. Sections everywhere in the store are labeled “organic and natural.”

Organic is no problem. Certified organic products must be made with ingredients raised or grown without artificial fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic modification.

But what are we to make of Honey BBQ All Natural Potato Chips containing 20 ingredients, among them monosodium glutamate, yellow food color, and undoubtedly genetically modified corn and soy, but “no hydrogenated fats and gluten free”? Or Healthy Natural Dog Food containing meat by-products and other such things but “no artificial preservatives, colors or fillers”?

The Food and Drug Administration is not much help. Its answer: “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA … has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances.”

If you have made it through all the not’s in this non-definition, you can begin to understand how the FDA can allow high-fructose corn syrup to be “natural.” Even though enzymes, synthetic or not, are required to convert cornstarch to this mixture of glucose and fructose, it does not contain artificial colors or flavors.

But the products I mentioned do. Yellow No. 5 is an artificial color. You must assume that the corn or soy in any “natural” product is genetically modified unless the label says GMO-free or Certified Organic. You may be someone who has a hard time considering GMO ingredients “natural.”

In the last decade, new products marketed with “natural” claims have proliferated, and it’s easy to understand why. Marketers love the term. “Natural” sells products, not the least because consumers consider it a synonym for healthful and, often, for organic. Anyone would rather buy “100 percent natural seltzer water” – “calorie-free, no sugar, no sodium, gluten-free” (things never found in water) – than plain seltzer.

While “natural” does not necessarily mean “healthy” or even “healthier,” it works splendidly as a marketing term and explains why many junk-food manufacturers are switching from expensive organic ingredients to those they can market as “natural.”

The FDA isn’t fixing this situation because, according to a statement in response to a petition by Center for Science in the Public Interest, it’s “not an enforcement priority.”

Manufacturers of highly processed foods could not be happier with this nondecision.

In the absence of regulation, enter litigation. In recent years, advocacy groups have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to ban “natural” claims on foods containing ingredients that seem unnatural, especially those genetically modified. Judges tend to say it’s the FDA’s problem and are calling on the agency to define the term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for meat and dairy products, has attempted to clarify what it means by “natural.” Its Food Safety and Inspection Service says meat and poultry can be labeled “natural” when they are minimally processed and have no artificial flavorings, colorings or preservatives. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service says “naturally raised” means the meat must come from animals produced with no hormone growth promoters, no antibiotics and no animal by-products.

How about all of the above? And if the public really can’t tell the difference between “natural” and “organic,” the closer the definition of “natural” is to that of “organic,” the less confused they will be.

Perhaps you could advise the senator to begin with the organic standards. And then toss in working definitions that exclude anything synthetic, artificial and more than minimally processed.

You should expect food industry lobbying against this idea to be fierce. But the public will be better served if the compromises in defining “natural” come at the end of the negotiations rather than at the beginning.

Marion Nestle is the author of “Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics,” “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books. She is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University, and blogs at www.foodpolitics.com. E-mail:food@sfchronicle.com

FoodNavigator.com has issued a collection of its recent articles on “natural” and processing.  At issue is the meaning of “natural,” which many people perceive as equivalent to organic or healthy.  As I’ve said before, it isn’t.

Natural has no regulatory meaning.  The FDA merely says (note obfuscating double negatives):

From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.

That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

One thing is clear: “natural” sells food products.

Selling processed foods in a whole food world? Authenticity is key: Consumers increasingly are choosing whole and unprocessed foods – so is it the end of the line for processed food manufacturers? Not if they move with the times, say ingredient suppliers.

Who is driving the clean label agenda, and what does ‘clean’ really mean? Attempts to link clean-labeling policies with the healthy eating agenda have been so successful that research now shows shoppers equate ‘healthy’ with ‘natural’ or ‘minimally processed’ foods.

‘Natural’: The most meaningless word on your food label?  Consumers, the marketers all tell us, want foods that are ‘wholesome’, ‘authentic’, and above all ‘natural’, although few of them can articulate what this means.

‘Processed’ foods are often high in sodium – but what’s a processed food? About 75% of the sodium in our diets comes from processed foods. It’s a regularly cited figure – but what exactly is a ‘processed’ food? Consumers might be surprised.

Processing is a dirty word – but we’ll need more of it to feed the world. Processing has become a dirty word, but we are going to need more processing, not less, in order to feed a growing population, according to professor and head of food science at Penn State University John Floros.

FDA: get to work!

I love “free-from” labels (no sugar, no salt, no GMOs, no gluten, etc).  My first question is always “OK, so what IS in them?”

But “free-from” works for marketing, as these articles show.

Special Edition: The rise of free from

What is driving the free from trend – grain-free, gluten-free, lactose-free, egg-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, fat-free and even free from additives, animal products and unrecyclable properties – and will it have legs?

Research shows consumers perceive free from (and clean label) products to be healthier and are synonymous with the wider trend of sustainability and social responsibility. However, the big challenge for producers remains to create products that have the same texture, taste and mouthfeel as regular products. Despite their desire for more natural foods, consumers are not prepared to sacrifice these ideals.

We examine the ingredients being developed to accommodate the consumer’s growing penchant for healthy snacking driving the growth of alternatives to traditional snack ingredients.

• Potassium bromate in bread: Outlawed in Europe, but considered safe in America: Bread has been baked for millennia using the same basic ingredients – flour, yeast, salt and water. However, what many Americans may not know is that some of their breads may also contain ingredients that are banned in many countries, including the EU and Canada… Read
• Will low FODMAP be the new gluten-free?  Industry trend watchers have hinted that interest in following a Low FODMAP lifestyle could grow in popularity to rival the gluten free trend… Read
• Overcoming the challenge to create vegan baked goods without compromising on taste and texture: Verity Clifton, applications technologist at specialist ingredients company Thew Arnott, looks at the challenges facing food makers of vegan products regarding texture and sugar… Read
• When product innovation, legal compliance and marketing collide: The labeling challenges of the vegan trend: Marjolein Regelink, international regulatory advisor at food labelling compliance expert Ashbury Labelling, looks at the challenges of labeling snack products like vegan chocolate… Read
• ‘The sky’s the limit’ for Kelloggs’ vegan jerky: The US cereal and snack giant unveiled Leaf Jerky at Natural Products Expo East in Baltimore, Maryland, earlier this month, mooted to appeal to vegan, vegetarians and flexitarians alike… Read
• Kind Healthy Snacks fingers synthetic dyes for retail failure of its Fruit Bites: Kind is pulling its line of better-for-you fruit snacks – made without dyes – from store shelves because of poor sales, noting kids ‘prefer to eat snacks that resemble candy gems.’.. Read
• At IBIE, Bartek hopes malic and fumaric acid can win over mass-scale artisan bread: The Canadian acidulant producer presented its ingredients at the International Baking Industry Exposition (IBIE) for the first time, following a refreshed marketing approach and private equity acquisition… Read
• Mondi, BASF & COROOS create prototype stand-up pouch from recycled plastic: Mondi, BASF and COROOS, a European company in the preservation of fruits, vegetables and pulses have produced a stand-up pouch that is safe for food contact, partly made with raw material, derived from chemically recycled plastic… Read

This is one of Food Navigator’s collection of articles, videos, and podcasts on single topics, in this case “clean” labels, clearly a hot trend.

Special Edition: Where next for clean label?

How is the ‘clean-label’ trend evolving? Is it still about avoiding certain ‘artificial’ or ‘artificial-sounding’ ingredients, or is it now part of a broader conversation about GMOs, animal welfare, sustainability, and business ethics? What do consumers understand by ‘clean’ food? And how will they view innovations from monk fruit produced from microbes, to ‘meat’ and ‘milk’ made without raising animals?

To the casual observer, ‘cleaning up’ our food sounds like an eminently sensible thing to do. But where is the clean label trend going, and is ditching every ingredient you can’t pronounce really the key to fixing the ‘broken’ food system (as Panera implies in a recent ad) or improving the health of people and the planet? .. Read

• CLEAN LABEL 2.0: Natural flavors and preservatives, pesticide residues, and Non-GMO in the spotlight: Think ‘clean label’ just means ditching ‘artificial’ ingredients and avoiding anything attracting negative press (warranted or otherwise)? Think again. Today, brands are also questioning whether ‘natural’ flavors, preservatives and sweeteners are really ‘clean,’ whether Non-GMO claims should only apply to what’s in the final product, and whether pesticide residues – even at trace levels – belong in ‘natural’ or ‘clean label’ foods. So where will this all lead?.. Read
• Clean label: What works, what doesn’t, where is it headed, and what are the legal vulnerabilities?: The clean label movement may have started as industry’s response to consumers who wanted foods and beverages made without artificial or “chemical” sounding ingredients, but overtime as brands continued to one-up each other, the concept morphed and metastasized to represent so much more… Read
• SmartLabel gains traction as a tool for brands to meet consumers’ mounting clean label demands: While SmartLabel is still in its relative infancy, manufacturers are flocking to the technology to help them provide the in-depth information that today’s consumers want as part of the clean label movement, but which might not fit on product packaging… Watch now
• Arctic Zero’s new social media video campaign shows how ‘clean label’ is more than just ‘free-from’: With the launch of four new varieties, Arctic Zero produced a video to tell consumers the story of how the ingredients were sourced… Watch now
• Soup-To-Nuts Podcast: Clean label 2.0 and other top marketing strategies for natural products: When it comes to marketing products in the natural channel it seems like there are as many strategies as there are products; but just like how not all products resonate with all consumers, not all marketing strategies do either. .. Listen now
• BioChecked founder: ‘We knew non glyphosate certification was going to be something people look for’: After observing trade shows, lab test requests, and online forums on food and health, BioChecked executive director Scott Prentice and his team thought the timing was right to launch a ‘non glyphosate’ certification… Read
• Campbell Soup backs ‘potassium salt’ petition: A more consumer-friendly name will ‘advance public health goals’: Campbell Soup has joined a growing number of food manufacturers backing a citizen’s petition from NuTek Food Science asking the FDA to allow ‘potassium salt’ as an alternate name for potassium chloride on food labels… Read
• Spindrift CEO: ‘We have all the makings of a brand that can be disruptive’: Multinationals are investing in – or snapping up – smaller, more entrepreneurial brands in the natural and organic food and beverage space faster than you can say ‘because that’s where the growth is’. So will Spindrift – which is on a mission to disrupt the sparkling water category – be next on Big Food’s shopping list?.. Read
• Propylene glycol in the spotlight as Hint Water is targeted in ‘all-natural’ lawsuit with a new twist: Propylene glycol (PG) is an FDA-approved synthetic substance widely used as a solvent in ‘natural flavors’- which are clearly defined in law. But would consumers expect to find it in a product marketed as ‘all-natural’ – a term that doesn’t have a clear legal definition? Not according to a class action lawsuit filed against Hint Inc this week… Read
• Consumer interpretation of clean label trend varies by generation: As the concept of clean label continues to evolve and transition from an industry term to one consumers understand and seek, companies should take a more sophisticated approach to the trend by accounting for how different generations prioritize and interpret it, suggests research from C&R Research. .. Read
• Clean label reformulations can buffer frozen food sales’ slow but steady decline: A slow decline is forecasted for total frozen food sales, which includes frozen dinners/entrees, pizzas, side dishes, and appetizers/snacks, according to Packaged Facts’ latest numbers… Read
• In the age of clean label, are consumers in developed markets losing interest in fortified foods? With clean label now “the most dominant trend in food and drink,” many food and beverage manufacturers are moving away from fortifying foods with minerals, vitamins and other nutritious ingredients, says Euromonitor International… Read
• Clean label trend opens up new application opportunities for citrus fiber: The quest to rid product labels of phosphates, carrageenan, titanium dioxide, mono- and di-glycerides and other substances gracing food marketers’ ‘unacceptable ingredients’ lists has created new growth opportunities for Fiberstar’s citrus fibers, which are sourced from byproducts of the juicing industry… Read

This is one of FoodNavigator-USA’s special edition collections of articles on similar themes, in this case food labeling and lawsuits over labeling issues.  These are a quick way to get up to speed on what’s happening from a food industry perspective .  FoodNavigator introduces this collection:

Food and beverage companies have faced a tsunami of false advertising lawsuits over the past five years. But how big of an issue is this for the industry, who has been targeted, and what strategies are working, both for plaintiffs and defendants in these cases? In this special edition, we also look into labeling issues and trends, from healthy, Paleo and grass-fed claims to NuTek’s potassium salt petition.

• FOOD LITIGATION 101: Are you up to speed?  There have been hundreds of class action lawsuits directed against food and beverage companies in recent years over everything from evaporated cane juice to Non-GMO claims. But has the false advertising litigation trend peaked, and if not, what are the new areas of vulnerability for food companies? .. Read
• More farm-related claims to appear on pack, Innova Market Insights forecasts: Now that clean label has moved on from being a trend to becoming “the new rules of the game,” Innova Market Insights predicts more brands will rely on ‘farm to fork’ claims and bucolic imagery as a differentiator… Read
• Paleo certification requests have doubled annually, scheme embraced by ‘household names,’ says Paleo Foundation: Demand for Paleo-certified products are on the rise. But is the diet – and the certification scheme – based on sound science? We chat with Paleo’s critics and proponents to get the inside scoop… Read
• Dairy from cows fed GM feed is not ‘all-natural’, alleges lawsuit vs Dannon – but will it fly?  Has the FDA’s probe into ‘natural’ claims on food labels put a stop to the tidal wave of false advertising lawsuits engulfing food manufacturers? Not if a new complaint against Dannon is anything to go by, which also delves into the thorny issue of GMOs, another area currently being scrutinized by regulators. .. Read
• Future of Nutrition Facts, menu labeling & food safety are unclear under Trump, CSPI says: While President-elect Trump’s position on food policy is relatively unclear still, changes to the exhaustively researched and intensely debated Nutrition Facts label, menu labeling rule and food safety regulations could all be on the chopping block under the new administration, warns a top nutrition policy expert… Read
• Comments in FDA docket reveals consumers’ shifting perceptions of ‘healthy’: If the FDA’s decision to wade into the ‘natural’ debate seemed like an act of sadomasochism, its decision to re-examine the criteria underpinning ‘healthy’ claims on food labels looks set to be equally painful, judging by the first wave of public comments filed in the docket… Read
• FDA hints at how conventional foods can make structure/function claims: For the first time, FDA weighs in on what marketers must have on hand to support claims about conventional foods’ direct impact on consumers’ bodies. .. Read
• Soup-To-Nuts Podcast:The rise & future potential of grass fed claims: Grass-fed claims on products are a beacon for consumers who are health-conscious, want minimally processed food and care about animal welfare, and as such manufacturers increasingly are using them on products across categories and channels to drive up sales sharply… Listen now
• ProTings closes $1.2m financing round, changes name to Protes after spat with Original Tings: Brooklyn-based pea protein chip pioneer Proformance Foods has closed a $1.2m financing round led by a leading CPG company, and changed its brand name from ProTings to Protes following a trademark dispute with B&G Foods, which owns the Original Tings brand… Read
• Vox Pop: Consumers had this to say about GMO labeling…On the heels of President Barack Obama signing into law a federal bill requiring the disclosure of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on packaged food and beverage products, we at Beverage Daily and FoodNavigator-USA asked consumers at a downtown Chicago farmers market what they thought of GMOs… Watch now
• Are ‘GMO-free’ (as opposed to ‘non-GMO’) claims legally defensible? As the Non-GMO Project states on its website, ‘GMO-free’ claims are “not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology” coupled with cross-contamination risks. In future, however, that could change as testing methods become more sophisticated, predicts Clear Labs, a Californian start-up which recently hit the headlines after identifying human and rat DNA in hamburgers [albeit within safe parameters]… Read
• Label Insight: Your SmartLabel landing pages could become more important than your website or facebook pages: While the SmartLabel initiative has been dismissed by some as an elaborate conspiracy by big food companies to avoid mandatory on-pack GMO labeling statements, it will ultimately have far broader significance – and potentially a huge impact on how consumers view all food and beverage products – predicts product data and image platform Label Insight… Read
• House approves federal GMO labeling bill that nullifies Vermont law: The US House of Representatives has voted to pass a federal GMO labeling bill (306:117 votes) that would pre-empt and nullify all state-led GMO labeling laws including the one that has just come into effect in Vermont. .. Read
• Hampton Creek to settle worker classification lawsuit: Just Mayo maker Hampton Creek – one of a growing number of food companies sued for allegedly misclassifying workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees – is settling its case in order to avoid the hassle and expense of protracted litigation, court documents show… Read
• Kellogg, Post & General Mills urge courts to toss ‘meritless’ sugar lawsuits: Kellogg, General Mills and Post Foods have urged the courts to ditch high-profile lawsuits over the sugar content in their cereals, on the grounds that their claims are pre-empted by federal law and that no reasonable consumer would find their labels to be false or misleading… Read
• Dole Foods 9th Circuit ruling reignites all-natural lawsuit, ’emboldens plaintiff’s bar’: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed (in part) a lower court’s ruling that Dole Foods’ ‘all natural fruit’ labeling likely isn’t deceptive, resurrecting a four-year-old lawsuit, and giving fresh ammunition to plaintiff’s attorneys pursuing ‘all-natural’ cases… Read
• Parties clash over Welch’s ‘made with real fruit’ fruit snack label claims: Reasonable consumers may well be misled by the packaging of Welch’s fruit snacks, a magistrate judge has concluded, prompting a lengthy rebuttal from the defendants in court documents filed this month. .. Read
• Shoppers aren’t confused by our labels, Chobani tells court: ‘Plaintiffs count on a consumer who is a veritable fool’: A false advertising lawsuit alleging that Chobani’s labels are confusing and deceptive, paints American consumers as credulous fools unable to apply common sense when they go shopping, argues the yogurt maker in court documents urging the judge to toss the case… Read
• GMA to FDA: Sodium reduction guidance must be re-worded or industry will face a tidal wave of ‘frivolous litigation’: Two years isn’t enough time for food manufacturers to make the kind of reductions in sodium that the FDA is asking for, says the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which also urges the agency to tweak the wording of its guidance in order to avoid “a wave of frivolous litigation.”.. Read
• American Bakers Association backs ‘potassium salt’ petition: It sounds more clean label: The American Bakers Association (ABA) has joined the CSPI, Unilever, and other food manufacturers in voicing its support for a citizen’s petition asking the FDA to permit ‘potassium salt’ as an alternate name for potassium chloride on food labels, while the Salt Institute remains resolutely opposed… Read

As it promised in response to a petition from the KIND fruit-and-nut bar company (as I discussed in a previous post), the FDA is now asking for public comment on what “healthy” means on food package labels.

You might think that any food minimally processed from the plant, tree, animal, bird, or fish would qualify.

But “healthy” is a marketing term for processed food products (not foods).  

As Politico Morning Agriculture reminds us, things got complicated when KIND, which makes products from whole nuts, said its bars deserved to be called “healthy.”

In 2015, KIND received a warning letter from FDA arguing the company violated federal rules by using “healthy” on its packages. KIND then petitioned the agency, and, after an exchange about why the current definition is outdated, FDA decided to reverse course. For example, it requires that a food be low-fat to be labeled “healthy,” a standard that a nut-based bar doesn’t meet, while products like fat-free puddings do.

The FDA’s rules now say:

The term “healthy” and related terms (“health,” “healthful,” “healthfully,” “healthfulness,” “healthier,” “healthiest,” “healthily” and “healthiness”) may be used if the food meets the following requirements: 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)

OK.  I know you can’t read this (you can look for it here). The point is that to qualify as “healthy,” a product has to be low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; relatively low in sodium; and contain at least 10% of the Daily Value per serving for vitamins A or C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber (with some exceptions).  There are also rules for levels of nutrients added in fortification.

The FDA wants input on whether all of this makes sense in the light of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines and the KIND petition.

In its inimitable FDA-speak:

While FDA is considering how to redefine the term “healthy” as a nutrient content claim, food manufacturers can continue to use the term “healthy” on foods that meet the current regulatory definition. FDA is also issuing a guidance document stating that FDA does not intend to enforce the regulatory requirements for products that use the term if certain criteria described in the guidance document are met.

If I correctly understand the meaning of “does not intend to enforce the regulatory requirements,” the FDA, while waiting for your comments, will allow manufacturers to call products “healthy” as long as the products:

(1) Predominantly contain mono and polyunsaturated fats regardless of total fat content; or

(2) Contain at least ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per serving of potassium or vitamin D.

In other words, if your food product is made with a low saturated fat oil and contains potassium or vitamin D, it is by definition “healthy.”

Correction, September 29: An FDA official wrote to say that I didn’t quite get this right.  

Actually, if a food exceeds the low fat requirement currently in our definition, we will not take any enforcement or compliance action as long as the food meets all of the other requirements in the definition, namely that it is low in saturated fat, cannot exceed the specified levels of cholesterol and sodium, and contains at least 10 percent of the daily value for beneficial nutrients.  

Second, we are not saying that foods must contain potassium or vitamin D to be labeled as “healthy.”  We are simply indicating that potassium and vitamin D can be substituted for the beneficial nutrients now listed in the current regulations, in line with the new Nutrition Facts label regulations.

My apologies to the FDA for misunderstanding the notice.

The FDA’s request is good news for KIND bars.

But it smacks of “nutritionism”—the use of these two single nutrients (as well as others on the short list of beneficial nutrients) as indicators of quality in processed food products (and don’t get me started on vitamin D, which is a hormone, not a vitamin, and best obtained by getting outside in the sun once in a while).

Understand: this effort is not about semantics; it is about marketing.

Would you like to weigh in on what you think qualifies a food as “healthy?”  Here’s how:

• Federal Register Notice for the Guidance for Industry 
• Federal Register Notice for the Request for Information
• Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products
• Blog: Making Sure ‘Healthy’ Means What It Says on Food Packages
• “Healthy” on Food Labeling 

Guest Blog

The FDA’s new rules for food labeling are finally here

The changes are a step toward better health and less obesity, especially in children

By Marion Nestle on May 24, 2016

The FDA’s announcement of final rules for its overhaul of labels on food packages is a signature accomplishment of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign to end childhood obesity within a generation.

In 2010, in setting the agenda for Let’s Move!, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity called for improving the clarity, accuracy, and consistency of food package labels to enable parents and children to make healthier food choices.  The Task Force noted that more than half the adult public used food labels to decide what to buy, but that the current labels had hardly changed since the FDA’s regulations of 1993.

The FDA actually began work on revising the food label in 2005 with a request for public input on updating serving sizes, and it began formal rulemaking in 2008.  The FDA proposed rules and issued its last call for comments in 2014.

I attribute this nine-year process to details and politics.

First, the details. The Federal Register notice on the food label takes up 943 pages, and it takes another 170 pages to explain the changes in serving sizes.

FDA’s fact sheet on the changes explains the politics.  Most changes are relatively uncontroversial: the greater emphasis on calories, the removal of calories from fat, the requirement for “dual column” labels for “per serving” and “per package,” the updating of serving sizes to more closely reflect actual intake, and the rewording of the Daily Value footnote.  As Michelle Obama put it, ”you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator, or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you’re buying is actually good for our kids.  So that’s a phenomenal achievement.”

Indeed it is, especially in light of a political climate in which the food industry and Congress do all they can to undermine public health measures in school food and child nutrition programs.

Mrs. Obama alluded to the ongoing political controversy: “most important of all, this label will tell you how much sugar in your snack was added during processing, and how much of it comes from ingredients like fruit.”

The new food label distinguishes between intrinsic sugars in food and those added in manufacturing; it also sets a Daily Value for the maximum amount of sugars recommended for diets of 2,000 calories a day.  I credit the Center for Science in the Public Interest for this accomplishment; it petitioned FDA for these changes in 2013 (its first added sugar petition was in 1999).

The Washington Post got right to the core of the controversy: “Why the sugar industry hates the FDA’s new Nutrition Facts label.” Americans consume roughly twice the amount of sugar recommended for good health, and sugars are rampant in processed foods.  All it takes is one 16-ounce soft drink to reach the 50-gram daily maximum.

The Sugar Association, the trade group for producers of sugar cane and sugar beets invokes science as the reason for its intense opposition: “We are concerned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that is not grounded in science, and could actually deter us from our shared goal of a healthier America.”

The Association argues, correctly, that the sugars that occur naturally in fruits are biochemically identical to those added in manufacturing.  But this argument misses how added sugars dilute the nutritional value of food products.  Much research supports the health benefits of eating fruit, whereas added sugars raise risks for obesity and other chronic conditions.

The Sugar Association does not really care about science.  It cares about what will happen to sales if people read labels and reject products with added sugars.  This, of course, is one of the purposes of Added Sugars on food labels.

The Association has reason to worry.  Since 1999, per capita consumption of sugars has fallen in the United States, although it still exceeds the 10 percent of calories recommended by the World Health Organization last year.  The new label should accelerate that downward trend.

An even greater worry is that labeling added sugars might encourage manufacturers to reduce the amounts in their products.  The FDA’s listing of trans-fatty acids on food labels in 2006 led to an immediate reductionin the use of hydrogenated oils as ingredients in food products.  I expect to see grams of sugars decline by the time these rules take effect in May 2018 (small food producers get until May 2019).

I see the new label as a political win for public health and Let’s Move!  But let’s keep this in perspective.  Healthful diets are based on foods, not food products.  We would all be healthier eating foods that do not come with Nutrition Facts panels, and saving most of those that do for once-in-a-while occasions.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Recent Scientific American Articles by Marion Nestle

• What Science Says about Eating Right
• Eating Made Simple

The terms “healthy” and “natural” help to sell food products.  They are about marketing, not health.

This makes life difficult for the FDA, which has the unenviable job of defining what the terms mean on food labels.

In a victory for the maker of KIND bars, the FDA has just said that the bars can be advertised as healthy—and that the agency will be revisiting its long-standing definition of the term.  This is what that definition says now:

You may use the term “healthy” or related terms as an implied nutrient content claim on the label or in labeling of a food that is useful in creating a diet that is consistent with dietary recommendations if the food meets the conditions for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and other nutrients…In addition, the food must comply with definitions and declaration requirements for any specific NCCs [Nutrient Content Claims].

The chronology :

• March 2015: FDA issues a warning letter to KIND stating that product labels make nutrient content claims without meeting the requirements for making such claims.
• December 1, 2015: KIND files citizen petition asking FDA to permit use of “healthy” because nuts, even though higher in fat than FDA permits, are healthy.
• April 20, 2016: FDA says KIND products now meet labeling requirements
• May 10, 2016: KIND announces that the FDA has reversed its stance and will allow it to use “healthy.”

As reported by Food-Navigator-USA (in a remarkably thorough account of these events),

Dr. Susan Mayne, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA, said: We do not object to the specific statement that you would like to place on your bar wrappers, on the condition that there will be no other nutrition-related statement, such as express or implied nutrient content claims, on the same panel of the label…We agree with you that our regulations concerning nutrient content claims are due for a reevaluation in light of evolving nutrition research.”

What this sounds like is that FDA will be soliciting comments on the meaning of “healthy.”   It also sounds like the FDA agrees that fat is not an appropriate criterion.  But will the FDA set a limit on sugars?  KIND bars are sweetened.

This looks like the FDA will request comments as the start of its interminable rulemaking process.

In the meantime, here’s the Wall Street Journal’s video explanation of the absurdity of the current rules.

Natural

The FDA is further along in that process for “Natural.“  The comment period closed and Politico Pro Morning Agriculture reports that more than 5000 came in.  These have not yet been posted, but Morning Ag has some.  It says opinions vary.  Widely.

• FDA should prohibit using the term.
• Acceptable post-harvest processing and production methods [including GMOs]
• No chemicals, no additives, and no kitchen chemistry
• Some forms of processing can be used – and indeed may be necessary.
• ‘Natural’ means that this product contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients.

I’ve commented many times in the past on the ongoing debates about “natural.”

I repeat: When it comes to food labels, “healthy” and “natural” are marketing terms.  Their purpose is to sell food products.

Caveat emptor.