Search results: natural label

I’ve written repeatedly about the problem of “natural” on food labels, but the issue just doesn’t go away.  It won’t, until the FDA decides to rule on what it means.

Now Consumer Reports has done a survey of public understanding of the term.

The survey reveals that 62% of respondents want foods to be “natural.”   When they see the claim on a food package, they believe it has been verified independently.  Oops.

They also believe that “natural” means no artificial ingredients (correct, according to the FDA’s non-definition) or GMOs (incorrect).  The survey confirms the idea that many people think “natural” is the same as “organic,” which it is not.

Consumers, says Consumer Reports, are naturally confused.  And why wouldn’t we be, given the products labeled as “natural” (see the examples collected by Consumer Reports).

The FDA is currently collecting its own comments on this issue.  You can weigh in until May 15.  Please do. 

The FDA is extending the comment period for the meaning of “natural” on food labels until May 10, 2016.  This, it says, is

In direct response to requests from the public…Due to the complexity of this issue, the FDA is committed to providing the public with more time to submit comments. The FDA will thoroughly review all public comments and information submitted before determining its next steps.

The “complexity of this issue?”  Isn’t it obvious what “natural” means when applied to food—minimally processed with no junk added?

Not a chance.  “Natural” is too valuable a marketing term to forbid its use on highly processed foods.  To wit:

Here, as the agency explains, is what complicates the meaning of “natural”:

The FDA is taking this action in part because it received three Citizen Petitions asking that the agency define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one Citizen Petition asking that the agency prohibit the term “natural” on food labels.  We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.”

Are foods containing genetically modified ingredients or HFCS “natural?”

The FDA says

It has long “considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic  (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.

However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. The FDA also did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefit.

Specifically, the FDA asks for information and public comment on questions such as:

• Whether it is appropriate to define the term “natural,”
• If so, how the agency should define “natural,” and
• How the agency should determine appropriate use of the term on food labels.

If you want to weigh in on this, you now have until May 10 to do so.  Go to http://www.regulations.gov and type FDA-2014-N-1207 in the search box.

Here are the background documents:

• Federal Register Notice: Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments; Extension of the Comment Period.
• “Natural” on Food Labeling

May your holidays be happy, healthy, and natural, of course.

I’m always indebted to Food-Navigator-USA for spot-on commentary on current food politics.  Here, for example, is Elaine Watson on the FDA’s amazing decision to take comments on the meaning of “natural” on food labels.

Having studiously avoided this food labeling minefield for years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has surprised many in the trade by seeking comments on the definition of a word that has launched a thousand class action lawsuits (well almost): ‘natural’.

Her piece is worth reading for its excellent reporting and interviews with industry stakeholders.

About “natural,” the FDA has said:

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.

Now petitions have induced the FDA to seek comments, the first step in its standard rulemaking processes.

Specifically, the FDA asks for information and public comment on questions such as:

—Whether it is appropriate to define the term “natural,”

—If so, how the agency should define “natural,” and

—How the agency should determine appropriate use of the term on food labels.

“Appropriate” in this context translates as:  Should high fructose corn syrup be considered “natural?” (The FDA said yes in 2008).   How about GMOs? (the FDA’s position on GMOs is that they are not materially different from any other kind of food).

To file comments on these and other questions,

• For electronic submissions, go to Regulations.gov and search for docket number FDA-2014-N-1207.
• For submissions by mail, use the following address. Be sure to include docket number FDA-2014-N-1207 on each page of your written comments.  Division of Dockets Management, HFA-305, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

Ordinarily I don’t pay close attention to early congressional legislative initiatives until they seem likely to be passed by both houses and signed by the President.

But the House seems likely to pass the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (HR 1599) tomorrow, and what’s happening with it is worth a look.  Opponents call the bill the “Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act.”  (Update July 23: the House passed the bill with a vote of 275 for and 150 against, with the help of African-American representatives).

The purpose of HR 1599 is to block states—like Vermont, for example—from requiring labels on GMO foods [see details below at *].

How it works is best seen in the amendments that will be considered tomorrow.  Of the 14 amendments proposed, the House Rules Committee will allow discussion of these four.

• Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore:  if a U.S. company or subsidiary labels a product as containing GMOs in any foreign country, it must label the equivalent product the same way in the United States.  (Defeated 122 to 303)
• Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif: ensures tribal sovereignty to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GMOs on tribal lands. (Defeated 196 to 227)
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn: prohibits use of the term “natural” on GMO foods. (Defeated 163 to 262)
• Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine: strikes the entire bill and creates a USDA non-GMO certification program and label. (Defeated by voice vote)

In an op-ed in the Boston Globe, Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jim McGovern say “Let consumers decide for themselves.”

Americans want more information, not less. What we need is one law that makes GMO labeling mandatory across the country and establishes a single national standard that eliminates confusion and puts consumers in charge.

This debate isn’t about the safety of GMOs. It’s about consumers’ right to know what’s in the food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.

It’s interesting to see who is for this bill, and who against. One major proponent is the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which joined 475 other members of the industry “front group,” the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, in signing a letter in support.

Those opposed include the National Organic Coalition and the Just Label It campaign.   Also opposed are Food Democracy Now and the National Farmers Union, along with a long list of farm, consumer, and environmental groups.

Even if the House passes the bill, nobody in the Senate seems interested in it as yet.  So maybe this is all just theater.

But I read it as acknowledgment by the GMO industry and its food product supporters that the labeling issue is not going to go away.  Therefore, they had best try to preempt it by passing a law they can live with and making sure that states do not pass their own, stronger bills.

Stay tuned.

*Addition: I received a request to unpack the bill and state its terms.  HR 1599:

• Calls for premarket notification of new GMOs introduced into the food supply.
• Says the process of GMO is not sufficient to require labeling.
• Says non-GMO labeling cannot imply that non-GMO is safer.
• Blocks voluntary non-GMO labeling.
• Prevents states from requiring GMO labeling.
• Allows the term “natural” on labels of GMO foods.
• Establishes a non-GMO certification program requiring process controls and preemption of state laws.

Update, July 27: According to OpenSecrets.org, representatives who voted against GMO labeling received three times as much money from agribusiness as those who did not.  OpenSecrets calls this a “cash crop.”

Vermont has issued GMO labeling rules.  They seem straightforward.  Here are the ones that I think matter:

1.  Unpackaged GMO foods must post labels

• Raw: “produced with genetic engineering.”
• Processed: “produced with genetic engineering,” or “may be produced with genetic engineering.”

2.  Packaged GMO foods must be labeled by the manufacturer

• Raw: “produced with genetic engineering”
• Processed: “produced with genetic engineering,” or “partially produced with genetic engineering” (<75% GMO) or “may be produced with genetic engineering (if they aren’t sure).”

3.  If the food is GMO, it cannot be labeled “natural”

4.  The font can’t be any smaller that of Serving Size in the Nutrition Facts label

It’s hard for me to imagine why the biotechnology industry, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and so many food companies think that saying “may be produced with genetic engineering” means the end of civilization as we know it, so much so that they pour millions of dollars into fighting it.

Now they are taking Vermont to court to try to block implementation of these rules.

Otherwise, the rules go into effect July 1, 2016.

That will be fun to see!

Food Navigator—USA’s Elaine Watson just put together a special edition on the revamping of the Nutrition Facts label.  Her title: Radical overhaul or a missed opportunity?

To understand what’s happening with food labels, you can start with the FDA’s home page on its proposed revisions.  The comment period has ended.  You can read the comments that have been filed on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts panels, and those filed on the proposed changes to the standards for serving sizes.  These are fun to read; opinions, to say the least, vary.

But back to Food Navigator, which collects in various pieces on the topic in one place.  The “Radical overhaul” piece contains a summary of the major provisions.  Others in the series are also useful (I’m quoted in some of them):

Does vitamin D belong on the Nutrition Facts panel?

FDA proposals to list “added sugars” on the Nutrition Facts panel have already generated heated debate, so it’s perhaps unsurprising that its plan to include vitamin D is proving equally controversial…

Should ‘added sugars’ be listed on the Nutrition Facts panel?

A row is brewing over the merits of including ‘added sugars’ on the Nutrition Facts panel, with critics arguing that our bodies don’t distinguish between ‘naturally occurring’ and ‘added’ sugar – and neither should food labels – and supporters saying it will help consumers identify foods with more empty calories.

 Nutrition Facts overhaul is a missed opportunity for long chain omega-3s EPA and DHA, says GOED

The FDA’s overhaul of the Nutrition Facts panel misses a public health opportunity by prohibiting firms from even highlighting long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA on the panel, says GOED.

What are the biggest contributors of added sugars to the US diet?

Check out this analysis of NHANES data to see where our added sugars are coming from plus read new comments about the ‘added sugars’ labeling proposal from Ocean Spray cranberries and others.

Former FDA commissioner: Nutrition Facts overhaul doesn’t go far enough

FDA proposals to overhaul the Nutrition Facts panel on food labels don’t got far enough, says former FDA commissioner David Kessler, M.D.

Behavioral scientists: Changing serving sizes on Nutrition Facts label could have unintended consequences

FDA proposals to change the way serving sizes are calculated to better reflect real-life eating behavior could encourage some people to eat even more unless the wording is changed, says one expert group.

Until phosphorus gets on the USDA’s radar, labeling policy won’t change: NKF

While phosphorus is an essential nutrient found naturally in some foods such as egg yolk and milk, it is increasingly added to packaged foods via a raft of phosphorus additives, and some experts believe it should be listed on the Nutrition Facts panel.

Canada’s proposed Nutrition Label changes emphasize calories, sugar

Health Canada is proposing changes to nutrition labels that would make them easier for consumers to read.

RD: There’s a health continuum for every food; what pillars do you want to stand on?

Rachel Cheatham, RD, founder of nutrition strategy consultancy FoodScape Group, talks food labeling at the IFT show.

Is your product ready for nutrition label changes?

“A 16-ounce drink and a two-ounce bag of potato chips are a single serving. If it’s bigger than that, from 200 to 400%, then you need to declare two columns of information—one for the serving size and one for the whole container.”

Proposed nutrition labels more effective than current labels: survey

Consumers find proposed labels easier to read in less time.

How much do consumers use (and understand) nutrition labels?

New research from the NPD Group is questioning how many US consumers even routinely check nutrition labels anymore.

 FDA’s proposed nutrition label changes emphasize calories, serving sizes

If approved, the new labels would place a bigger emphasis on total calories and update serving sizes, while also drawing attention to added sugars and nutrients such as Vitamin D and potassium.

CRN, NPA submit comments on FDA’s proposed changes to food, supplement labels

Both the Council for Responsible Nutrition and the Natural Products Association have submitted a comments on FDA’s proposed revisions for food and dietary supplement labels.

The FDA’s next step is to deal with the comments and issue final rules.  By when?

Eventually.  Stay tuned.

August 1 is the deadline for filing comments on FDA’s food label proposals.

Two were released yesterday, one for and one against.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) organized a statement in support of listing added sugars signed by 280 scientists, physicians, and public health officials (including me).

The press release says:

In a letter submitted as a public comment for the agency’s first label update since 1994, the signatories point out that sugar overconsumption contributes to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other ailments….Many food and beverage manufacturers add excessive amounts of sugar to their products, including those that they market as healthy options. In our current food environment, many people are unknowingly and unavoidably consuming excess sugar. Given our soaring rates of chronic diseases and the link between sugar and these diseases, citizens have a right to know how much sugar has been added to their foods.

People who signed the letter include many from Healthy Food Action, a national network of health professionals founded by Dr. David Wallinga.  I am a co-author of the statement with UCS staff and Dr. Robert Lustig.

In contrast, the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), an organization of nutrition scientists to which I belong, produced a strong statement against labeling added sugars.

ASN also has concerns that the inclusion of added sugars on the label may divert attention away from total calories and other important contributors to weight gain. The inclusion of added sugars on the label may confuse consumers and create the perception that naturally occurring sugars are somehow more beneficial because they are “natural” and do not have health effects similar to added sugars…There is no supporting evidence that indicates that the inclusion of added sugars on the food label will translate into the American public reducing caloric intake from added or total sugars or total energy intake…it is important to consider potential unintended consequences of  reformulation as well. When sugar is removed from a solid food product…The replacement is often fat and/or starch which could lead to a product with higher calories per serving. ASN encourages FDA to carefully consider potential adverse consequences of this proposed determination, including gaining input from food scientists…An investment in consumer education… is likely to be most productive for consumer understanding relative to added sugars, and would assure that consumers do not experience increased confusion, which they may encounter if added sugars are declared on the Nutrition Facts label.

These comments, which read as though written by sugar trade association groups, were signed by the president of ASN.  Although the statement letter gives no indication of the process by which these comments were developed, I’m told it was prepared by ASN’s public policy committee.

If so, it would help to know whether members of the committee have financial ties to the sugar industry or to food companies that use sugar in their products.

I wonder how much of the ASN membership agrees with this position on Added Sugars.   I certainly don’t.

The FDA is taking comments on label proposals until August 1 (see info at end of post).  Here’s mine on voluntary vitamin D labeling.

July 17, 2014

TO:  FDA

FROM:  Marion Nestle, Professor, New York University

RE:  Proposed revision to Nutrition Facts Panel: VITAMIN D

This is to argue against permitting food companies to voluntarily label added “Vitamin” D on the Nutrition Facts panel.  Doing so will not promote—and may possibly harm–public health.

Rationale

• “Vitamin” D is not a vitamin; it is a hormone synthesized by the action of sunlight on skin.  For this reason alone, it does not belong on the food label.
• Vitamin D fortification must be understood as a form of hormone replacement therapy.   As such, it raises questions about efficacy, dose, and side effects that should be asked about all such therapies.
• Fortification and supplementation provide hormone Vitamin D by the oral route.  This is not physiological.  Active vitamin D is synthesized in the body through a series of reactions that begin with the action of sunlight on skin.  Sunlight on skin produces ample Vitamin D, is regulated to promote synthesis as needed and avoid toxicity, and may lead to synthesis of other useful biological components; the unphysiologic oral route does not produce the same benefits.[i]
• As a hormone, Vitamin D is found naturally in very few foods (e.g., fish); in them, it is present in small amounts.  It is present in most foods as a result of fortification.
• Permitting Vitamin D to be listed on food labels will encourage fortification, undoubtedly of foods that would not otherwise necessarily be recommended.  To cite just one example: Yum Bunny Caramel Milk Spread fortified with vitamin D at 10% of the DV.  This product is half sugars by weight, marketed as “a good source of calcium and vitamin D,” and clearly aimed at children. See: http://www.yumbunny.com/about-us.   Whether such products should be considered “good sources” also deserves scrutiny.
• The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that evidence is insufficient to determine how Vitamin D supplementation (and, therefore, fortification) affects fracture incidence.[ii]^,[iii],[iv] 
• Data from the Women’s Health Initiative also are consistent with largely inconclusive findings about hormone Vitamin D supplements and bone health.[v]
• The Institute of Medicine (IOM) does not consider deficiency of Vitamin D to be a serious problem in the United States, except among certain population groups.  Instead, because of widespread fortification and supplementation, it is concerned about the possibility of adverse consequences from overconsumption through supplementation or fortification.[vi]
• Many scientific debates about hormone Vitamin D are as yet unresolved.[vii]^,[viii]  
• The lack of compelling research has permitted Vitamin D to become “trendy.”  It is advertised on boxes of fortified cereals, has its own pro-supplement advocacy group, and generates millions in annual supplement sales.[ix]

In the absence of stronger evidence for benefit from fortification, and some evidence for possible adverse consequences, the FDA should not contribute to further commercialization of this misnamed hormone by permitting it to be listed on food labels.

References

[i] Wacker M, Holick MF.  Sunlight and Vitamin D: A global perspective for health. Dermato-Endocrinology 2013;5(1):51–108.

[ii] Cranney A, Horsley T, O’Donnell S, Weiler H, Puil L, Ooi D, et al.  Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 158. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2007.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38410. Accessed February 5, 2013.

[iii] Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, Ip S, Lau J, Lee J, et al  Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 183. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2009.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32603/. Accessed February 5, 2013.

[iv] Chung M, Lee J, Terasawa T, Lau J, Trikalinos T. Vitamin D with or without calcium supplementation for prevention of cancer and fractures: an updated meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):827-38.

[v] Prentice RL, Pettinger MB, Jackson RD, Wactawski-Wende J, LaCroix AZ, Anderson GL, et al.  Health risks and benefits from calcium and vitamin D supplementation: Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and cohort study.  Osteoporosis Int.  2013;24(2):567-580.

[vi] Institute of Medicine.  Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Vitamin D.  Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.

[vii] Rosen, Clifford J,  Abrams, Steven A,  Aloia John F. et al.  IOM Committee members respond to endocrine society vitamin D guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1146-1152.

[viii] Holick, Michael F,  Brinkley Neil C, Heike, A et al  Guidelines for preventing and treating vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency revisited.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1153-1158.

[ix] Much growth in vitamin sales driven by vitamin D.  Nutr Business J. 2009;14(6/7):5.

Here’s how to file comments:

The proposed revisions are to:

• Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
• Serving Sizes 

The FDA makes it very easy to file comments. It provides:

• All necessary information in one place.
• A short guide and checklist

File comments here

• Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Docket FDA-2012-N-1210  Comment here now
• Serving Sizes: Docket FDA-2004-N-0258  Comment here now