Washington—The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received over 7,000 comments in response to its request for comments on use of the term “natural” in food labeling, and several dairy, food and other organizations want the agency to proceed with rulemaking on a definition for the term.

FDA last November had announced the establishment of a docket to receive information and comments on the use of the term “natural” in food labeling, including foods that are genetically engineered or contain ingredients produced through the use of genetic engineering. The comment period ended Tuesday.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) “strongly encourages” FDA to establish a regulatory definition for the term “natural.”

A regulation that “clearly defines the criteria for ‘natural’ labeling claims will eliminate the potential for consumer confusion and provide fair and consistent direction to the food industry,” IDFA said in its comments to FDA.

IDFA “strongly supports” FDA recognizing and maintaining the longstanding use of the term “natural cheese,” which should be exempt from the “natural” claim criteria. The term “natural cheese” has been widely used for many decades to identify cheeses made directly from milk and distinguish those products from processed cheeses.

Federal regulatory agencies, including both FDA and USDA, consistently make a distinction between “process cheese” and “natural cheese” as different classes of cheese, IDFA pointed out. These agency positions reinforce that consumers similarly understand this distinction and do not view the term “natural cheese” as a “natural” claim; rather, it is part of the statement of identity.

FDA should not limit “natural” claims to only raw agricultural commodities or single-ingredient foods, IDFA said. FDA has previously recognized that processed foods can appropriately be considered “natural.” Moreover, limiting “natural” claims to only agricultural commodities would contradict the long history in which USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has recognized that “natural” claims are appropriate on foods that are minimally processed.

Nor does the term “natural” imply that the food has only one ingredient, IDFA continued. Limiting “natural” claims to single-ingredient foods “would be arbitrary and unreasonable.”

IDFA also recommends that, in assessing whether an ingredient is “natural,” FDA consider the source of the ingredient (i.e., its natural or artificial status) rather than its function. This same criterion should be applied to colors, flavors, preservatives and other ingredients.

For example, natural preservatives, such as salt, sugar, spices or fermented compounds, should continue to be able to be used in products labeled as “natural” because their source is natural, IDFA said. Also, colors derived or extracted from natural sources, such as fruit or vegetable juice or annatto, are appropriately considered “natural” ingredients.

The definition for “natural” should permit the addition of vitamins and minerals to a food in accordance with existing FDA requirements on the fortification of foods, IDFA stated.

Also, the methods used in agricultural production, including genetic engineering, use of pesticides, animal feeds, antibiotics, or hormones, and animal husbandry practices, should not be considered in determining whether a food or ingredient is “natural,” IDFA added.

As a producer of organic, minimally processed dairy products for over 20 years, Straus Family Creamery supports FDA’s efforts to establish a regulated “natural” label and clear up consumer confusion over the term.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) also believes that FDA should define the term “natural.”

“The key reasons to do so are to alleviate potential consumer confusion, to promote fair and consistent dealings among food manufacturers, and to provide a consistent and uniform regulation that can be relied upon by courts and regulatory bodies at both the state and federal levels,” GMA said. “The lack of a regulatory definition has led to widespread industry and consumer confusion, and consumer mistrust.”

In general, GMA believes that a primary consideration in whether an ingredient qualifies as “natural” is the nature (natural or synthetic/artificial) of the ingredient and the process it undergoes. These principles should be used to evaluate whether ingredients that function as colors and preservatives can be included in “natural” foods.

“Natural” should not just be limited to raw agricultural commodities, “unprocessed foods,” or single-ingredient foods because “this is far too restrictive,” GMA said. “Multi-ingredient foods that consist entirely of materials derived from a natural source and that have undergone acceptable production or processing should be eligible to bear a ‘natural’ claim.”

Organic vs. Natural The use and oversight of the term “natural” are of “significant importance” to the organic sector because of the association that consumers make between the “organic” label and labels utilizing the term “natural,” the Organic Trade Association (OTA) said. FDA’s decision on how to define and regulate the term “natural” will “have a real impact on the organic label.”

Many to most consumers incorrectly believe that “organic” and “natural” have similar meaning or at least share several attributes,” the OTA noted. Consumer survey data “clearly indicate that consumers are confused by the term ‘natural’ and they are misled by its use.”

FDA has the statutory obligation to protect consumers from misleading claims on food labels, so the OTA agrees that something should be done. OTA believes the most workable approach for FDA to take is to clarify through guidance its preference that, except where already provided for in FDA regulations, the term “natural” should not be used on food labels.

Instead, the OTA urged FDA to focus its efforts on identifying and defining the “single attribute” claims that may be used on food labels (e.g., “no artificial colors or flavors”, “no synthetic ingredients”, “minimally processed” or “produced without the use of GMOs”) and engage in labeling guidance for the use of each of those single claims on labels andmarketing materials.

FDA must not extend the meaning of “natural” to include production methods, and the term “natural” should not be allowed on or associated with ingredients or food products that were genetically modified through the use of modern biotechology, the Organic Trade Association said. Terms and subsequent definitions used to describe or define the term “natural” must not conflict or be inconsistent with the same terms and definitions found in the USDA organic regulations.

Should FDA decide to revise its policy and define “natural” beyond its current scope or the scope of the FSIS policy, then advocates and FDA should proceed through program establishment and rulemaking and ensure that processes are set up that include verification and enforcement mechanisms, including third-party certification, similar to the National Organic Program (NOP) for “certified organic,” the OTA said.

Since “organic” is “heavily focused on pre-harvest,” the Natural Products Association (NPA) believes that “natural” should be concerned with whether the food product was naturally sourced and whether natural processes were used in its refinement.