Blog

The Natural Wars

In recent months, I've been contacted by at least four different lawyers involved in different suits regarding the use of the word "natural" on food packages.  ​I've been too busy with other matters and/or unable to make the claims asked of me to serve as an "expert" in these situation, so I thought I'd just ruin my chances of legally weighing in and bloviate a bit on the issue here.  

From what I can gather, there is a large contingent of lawyers with eyes set on the food industry   Some were involved in the Tobacco lawsuits and are looking for a new target.   Others are food lawyers and public health advocates using the legal system to invoke the change they want.  In other cases, food company A is suing food company B in an attempt to limit competition.  Whatever the reasons, one lawyer told me something to the effect that: if you've got the word "natural" on your food product, there is good chance you're going to get sued.

Just to give a few examples of the current lawsuits:

The problem, as I see it, is that hardly anyone is purely right or wrong on this issue.  ​

In my judgement, it probably is true that some food companies are using the word "natural" in ways that would fail to match up with most consumers' definition of the term.   But, then, how do we know?  There simply isn't much research on what consumers think the word "natural" means.  And, when we look at how the term ​is used in the academic literature, it can take on definitions all the way from no growth hormones to produced without modern technologies to found in nature.  That's all fine and good but  almost no foods are produced without modern technologies nor are they found "in nature."  Even raw fruits and veggies come from seeds that have have been carefully selected generation after generation (sometimes using modern technologies) to produce outcomes that were never found "in nature" - at least nature as of 10,000 years ago.  

To add to the problem that "natural" is a nebulous phrase is the fact that our government regulatory agencies also define them in opaque and nebulous ways.​

The USDA (which regulates meat) defines the word natural to mean:​

A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").

Of course, that begs the question of what is an "artificial ingredient" or what it means to "fundamentally alter".​ 

The FDA regulates the sales of all non-meat food.  One FDA web site says the following about its definition of natural:

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.

​Elsewhere, it appears that the FDA interprets natural to mean:

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 the food.

So, it seems the FDA is defining natural in terms of a consumer expectations.  But, as I've indicated, there isn't much known about consumer expectations for specific foods regarding this term.

So, "yes" there are probably some food companies that are using the term "natural" in ways incommensurate with ​consumer beliefs.  That's being a bit deceptive.  But, it is also the case that, given the vagueness of USDA and FDA definitions, food companies often appear to be within legal bounds established by regulatory agencies.  So, it is unclear that they are breaking the law.  

One thing is probably true: adding the word "natural" to a food product probably does affect sales - otherwise companies wouldn't be doing it.  But, as a consumer, how much "harm" is done by buying a product one thought (whatever is your definition) was "natural" but wasn't?  To me, it is a bit like suing Reebok because my new shoes didn't actually make me run faster - even though their commercials show a lot of slim, fit, fast runners.

Natural doesn't have much meaning and it is probably silly to believe that we can ever establish a consistent and logical definition for it (either in the courts or with legislation).  All manner of companies advertise and market with tangential claims and logos.  Do I really believe I will "think different" if I buy an Apple or that I will "just do it" if I wear Nike or that I can "have it my way" if I eat at Burger King?   As a consumer, that's how I see the word "natural" - as marketing or advertising claim - not as some certifiable process or food attribute that can be credibly established by science.  My advice: buyer beware.    

Science of Obesity

Last week the journal BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) published an essay by Gary Taubes.  His article contained a lot of good sense about the state knowledge on the science of obesity and reveals how little we really know.  

Here is a key excerpt:​

Another problem endemic to obesity and nutrition research since the second world war has been the assumption that poorly controlled experiments and observational studies are sufficient basis on which to form beliefs and promulgate public health guidelines. This is rationalised by the fact that it’s exceedingly difficult (and inordinately expensive) to do better science when dealing with humans and long term chronic diseases. This may be true, but it doesn’t negate the fact the evidence generated from this research is inherently incapable of establishing reliable knowledge.

and

Without rigorous experimental tests, we know nothing meaningful about the cause of the disease states we’re studying or about the therapies that might work to ameliorate them. All we have are speculations.
As for the experimental trials, these too have been flawed.

and

Rather than acknowledge that these trials are incapable of answering the question of what causes obesity (assumed to be obvious, in any case), this research is still treated as relevant, at least, to the question of what diet works best to resolve it—and that in turn as relevant to the causality question.

and in conclusion

We believe that ultimately three conditions are necessary to make progress in the struggle against obesity and its related chronic diseases—type 2 diabetes, most notably. First is the acceptance of the existence of an alternative hypothesis of obesity, or even multiple alternative hypotheses, with the understanding that these, too, adhere to the laws of physics and must be tested rigorously.
Second is a refusal to accept substandard science as sufficient to establish reliable knowledge, let alone for public health guidelines. When the results of studies are published, the authors must be brutally honest about the possible shortcomings and all reasonable alternative explanations for what they observed.

​

Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy

Good news.  The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, which I co-edited, is now out in electronic version, and each chapter can be individually downloaded.​

This is a text designed for graduate-students and faculty interested in learning the "state of the art" in the methods and analysis of the food consumer.​

Click here to access the electronic version.​

GMO labeling goes federal

From the Huffington Post:

On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced bills to the Senate and House of Representatives that would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product containing genetically engineered ingredients -- or risk having that product classified "misbranded" by the FDA.
Boxer and DeFazio have both previously sponsored bills that would have mandated GMO labeling -- Boxer in 2000 and DeFazio on numerous occasions in concert with former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). But the new "Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act" is the first genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bill to be introduced with both bicameral and bipartisan support. Its nine co-sponsors in the Senate include Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, while Rep. Don Young, also a Republican from Alaska, is among its 22 cosponsors in the House.

​I've written on this topic a good deal in the past (see here or Wall Street Journal, 
Forbes.com, Foxnews.com, and the Huffington Post).  

I'm sure I'll have more to say if this heats up.​

Organic Shampoo Over-Rated Too?

​I'm not a big follower of developments in beauty products.  But my wife is (not that she needs it!).  In any event, she passed along this interesting exchange on a cosmetic web site.  I wonder if the hair expert will receive the same kind of attacks as my recent Huffington Post article that challenged some of the conventional wisdom of organic food.

Dear Paula,
I have an itchy scalp. I also have color-treated hair, so my hair can feel dry. I used Aveda Brilliant Shampoo for many years. I loved the way it gave fullness to my hair but then I learned it was not wholly organic so stopped using it. . . . I like organic stuff and have tried olive oil, rosemary oil, and vinegar for itchy scalp, but am frustrated and just don't know what to look for anymore. Help!
Jan
Dear Jan,
First, you need to let go of the idea that natural and organic products are better for your hair and scalp. Although I understand the pull organic products have, the truth is such products typically contain ingredients that are likely what caused some of the problems you’re dealing with now, especially the itchy scalp. 
A great shampoo should be a blend of synthetic and natural ingredients, but even then the natural ingredients often do little other than look good on the label. Natural ingredients cannot do a very good job of cleansing the scalp or removing styling product buildup from hair—one reason shampoos with mostly natural ingredients tend to leave hair feeling worse, not better. . . 

 ​