I am speaking with Scott Barton about global food politics and corporate opportunism. “Attendance is open to all and the spirit, as always at Symposium events, will be as co-operative, lively and inclusive as possible.” Register here. This is at 2:00 p.m. East Coast time.
Here we go again: what does “natural” mean?
I did an interview with Alexandra Zissu who asked me to define “natural” as applied to foods. Here’s what I told her:
I think of “natural”–that most overused and deliberately misleading term–to mean foods as nature intended: no hormones, no antibiotics, no additives, no preservatives, no artificial colors or flavors, and only minimally processed (washing and cutting is OK, treating with nitrates or enzymes is not).
I’ve written about this issue in previous posts. The FDA still hasn’t done anything to define the term for food labels. I think it should.
What’s your definition?
Added question: Are GMO foods “natural?” California courts say no.
Update August 11: Several people have written in to say the California ruling is as yet unsettled. The website for what’s happening with Prop. 37 is here. One reader writes:
The judge ordered that this text in the ballot materials:
In addition, the measure prohibits the use of terms such as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” and “all natural” in the labeling and advertising of GE foods. Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to all processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.
Be changed so”all processed foods” reads “some processed foods.”
How this will be interpreted remains to be seen.