Blog

Natural and Organic Craziness: It's not just food

My wife likes to buy cosmetics products from a company called Paula's Choice.  One of the things she likes about the company is that it reports on the scientific testing it does on its own products and that of its competitors. 

In any event, my wife alerted me to an interview with the company's owner, Paula Begoun, which I found fascinating.  It seems the cosmetics world is grappling with many of the same issues as the food world.

Paula was interviewed on radio by another cosmetic's industry insider: Karen Yong.  Here are some excerpts from the transcript when the discussion turned to "natural" and "organic" cosmetic products:

Paula Begoun:. . . On the other side of the coin one of the things many cosmetic companies have to deal with is the fear mongering around the evilness of cosmetic ingredients which I've written about extensively and I know you have opinions on.

How are the cosmetics companies, the Lauders, the Shiseidos dealing with this fear mongering that the organic natural cosmetic world is putting out there.

Karen Young:It's frightening and it's probably the biggest thing that I'm confronted with right now. I'll try to narrow it down a little bit because as you know it's a huge category.

Paula Begoun:Wait, you're not frightened about the ingredients, you're frightened by the influence…

Karen Young:The press.

and

And the other piece of that as you alluded to is the whole natural organic green-washing thing, which is so confusing that even those of us who are supposed to understand what's going on here, it's really, really difficult.

Paula Begoun:I'm often shocked by the women really do believe – I get asked it all the time. “Should I be scared of what I'm using. Is it killing me? And I'm using this natural product.” And I know what those products contain. That's what we do for a living here at Paula's Choice is we review everybody else's products and look at what the formulas are and what they contain and what they can and can't do for skin.

00:20:36And lots of natural ingredients that show up in natural products are bad for skin. And I'm looking at this woman telling me I'm so scared other products are killing me and I'm going, yeah, I know, but you're breaking out, your skin is red. I know what you're using isn't protecting you from aging, or sun damage, and on and on. And they're frightened of everybody else's ingredients except the company that is dong the fear mongering.

00:21:00Of course, they never tell you what problem ingredients their products contain, but, yeah, it's an insane – so, how are the Lauders and the Shiseidos, I mean, Lauder is not going to give up. They're not going to go all natural. They know that all natural isn't going to fly for skin. And lord knows an elegant product without silicone is almost impossible. And there's nothing wrong with those ingredients. What are they doing about this aside from I know that the industry went away from parabens.

and

Paula Begoun:Actually, you know, it's interesting, because one of the things that happens when you start making “all natural products” is you increase the need for higher levels of preservatives.

Karen Young:Preservatives!

Paula Begoun:And there aren't any so-called natural, although even the natural preservatives when you have to increase it that much, then you're getting irritation. Preservatives kill things. That's what they do.

Karen Young:Absolutely.

00:24:37You're getting irritation and possibly you're making it more difficult to stabilize the formula.

Paula Begoun:You know, we're just reviewing a product line that, you know, we haven't run into this in a long time. A lot of the natural product lines, while the formulas may have issues in terms of irritating ingredients and jar packaging and fragrance, and I'm going to ask you about jar packaging in just a second, but one of the things that we haven't run into in a very long time is a company claiming that it's all natural but it actually isn't, it actually uses synthetic ingredients.

00:25:15This is one of the first times in a while I would say in the past, I don't know, three, four years that we actually ran into a company that is lying through their teeth. Their products are about as natural as polyester. Do you see that – do you run into that in your research?

Karen Young:Yes.

Paula Begoun:Yeah, you see that, too.

Karen Young:Because as you know there is no definition for natural. It's completely arbitrary. You can use the word anyway you like. And consumers, as you mentioned earlier, consumers are incredibly confused about what does natural mean and what does organic mean. I mean, that theoretically is defined by the FDA and consumers really don't understand that either.

Natural Parody

A colleague sent me a link to the following video.  I found it funny, if not misinformed at times.  The irony, of course, is that many people also believe things about organic food that also aren't true.  The organic labels causes people to ascribe all kinds of mystical properties to a food.  It is also worth pointing out that, at least for meat, "natural" can't be slapped on anything - it has to be "minimally processed", among other things, according to the USDA.  In any event - it's good for a few laughs

Effects of sub-therapeutic antibiotics on efficiency of hog farms

From a recent article appearing in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics by USDA economists Nigel Key and William McBride:

A substantial share of U.S. hog producers incorporate antimicrobial drugs into their livestock's feed or water at sub-therapeutic levels to promote feed efficiency and weight gain. Recently, in response to concerns that the overuse of antibiotics in livestock could promote the development of antimicrobial drug-resistant bacteria, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopted a strategy to phase out the use of antibiotics for production purposes. This study uses a stochastic frontier model and data from the 2009 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey of feeder-to-finish hog producers to estimate the potential effects on hog output and output variability resulting from a ban on antibiotics used for growth promotion. We use propensity score nearest neighbor matching to create a balanced sample of sub-therapeutic antibiotic (STA) users and nonusers. We estimate the frontier model for the pooled sample and separately for users and non-users—which allows for a flexible interaction between STA use and the production technology. Point estimates for the matched sample indicate that STA use has a small positive effect on productivity and production risk, increasing output by 1.0–1.3% and reducing the standard deviation of unexplained output by 1.4%. The results indicate that improvements in productivity resulted exclusively from technological improvement rather than from an increase in technical efficiency.

Now, that doesn't mean sub-therapeutic antibiotics should be used in animal agriculture, but this does provide one estimate of the benefits that can be compared against the potential costs that might arise as a result of resistance, etc.

FDA Won't Define "Natural" Anytime Soon

Given some of my previous commentary on "natural" food claims and the surrounding litigation, I found this post by  Michael J. O’Flaherty interesting:

FDA once again has “respectfully declined” to define the term “natural” when used in food labeling.  In a January 6, 2014, letter from Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, to three federal judges handling civil litigation brought against manufacturers over “natural”-type claims made for foods containing bioengineered ingredients, FDA denied their requests essentially to define “natural” formally.  The relevant cases are:

  • Cox v. Gruma Corporation (California Northern District Court, Case Number 4:2012cv06502, filed December 21, 2012);
  • Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co. (California Northern District Court, Case Number 3:2012cv05185, filed October 5, 2012); and
  • In re General Mills, Inc. Kix Cereal Litigation (No. 12-249, administratively terminated by U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J., order entered November 1, 2013).

Ms. Kux’s letter offers several explanations for FDA’s reticence:

  1. First, FDA believes it would not be appropriate for the agency to define “natural” except through a public process that would allow stakeholders the opportunity to express their views: “[W]e would likely embark on a public process, such as issuing a regulation or formal guidance … we would not do so in the context of litigation between private parties.”
  2. FDA says it cannot define “natural” without coordinating with USDA: “[D]efining the term ‘natural’ on food labeling necessarily involves interests of Federal agencies other than FDA, including the United States Department of Agriculture …”
  3. Any attempt to define “natural” would have to consider far more than the narrow question posed by the courts (i.e., whether genetically engineered foods are “natural”), and FDA simply does not have the resources for such a major undertaking at this time.  FDA notes that it would need to consider the relevant science, consumer perceptions, the First Amendment, and all of the many other technologies used in food production and processing today.  “At present, priority public health and safety matters are largely occupying the limited resources that FDA has to address food matters.”