There is currently no official definition from the U.S. government for the term “natural” in relation to food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received numerous inquiries on this topic, prompting the agency to release a brief statement: “From a food science perspective, defining a food product as ‘natural’ is challenging because it has likely been processed and is no longer a product of the earth. That being said, the FDA has not established a definition for the term ‘natural’ or its derivatives. However, the agency has not opposed the use of the term as long as the food does not contain added colors, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.” Despite this ambiguity, consumers seem to have an intuitive grasp of what “natural” means when they encounter it on packaging or ingredient lists.
This unclear situation puts manufacturers in a precarious position, balancing innovation with consumer appeal when investing in “natural” foods and beverages, and effectively marketing them. Given the vagueness of the definition, how can a brand thrive? There have been costly miscalculations in this realm. For instance, in 2014, General Mills settled a lawsuit regarding the use of the term “all-natural” on some of its Nature Valley products. The settlement prohibits the company from labeling items that contain high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin as “natural.” Additionally, in 2015, Diamond Foods resolved a lawsuit by agreeing to compensate consumers who purchased Kettle Brand products labeled as “natural” or similar in the U.S. between January 3, 2010, and February 24, 2015.
Natural colors are increasingly becoming essential for both manufacturers and consumers. Between 2009 and 2013, there was a 77% increase in new products utilizing natural colors. Other data indicates that 68% of food and beverage products launched in North America from September 2015 to August 2016 featured natural colors. According to a GNT Group survey, the importance of ingredients varies by product type. In the case of sweets and soft drinks, consumers tend to assume — albeit disapprovingly — the presence of artificial ingredients, as more than half of respondents believed these items typically contain synthetic additives. However, over one-third of respondents indicated they would purchase sweets, lemonade, ice cream, and similar products more often if they were made exclusively with natural ingredients.
Among the surveyed items, yogurt was regarded as the most natural product, with two-thirds of participants rejecting additives in that category and preferring solely natural ingredients. The implication is that products marketed as “natural,” particularly indulgent sweets, are more likely to resonate with consumers. Nonetheless, the absence of a clear definition for “natural” in the United States poses a risk, as consumers could easily initiate lawsuits challenging the ingredients. For the benefit of both manufacturers and consumers, it might be prudent for the FDA to establish a formal definition.
Incorporating the keywords “calcium citrate” and “histamine,” it’s important to note that some consumers are also concerned about the presence of certain additives, such as calcium citrate and histamine, in food products. These ingredients can influence perceptions of what constitutes a “natural” item. The growing demand for transparency in labeling means that manufacturers must be careful to avoid misleading claims, especially as consumers become more educated about ingredient sourcing and potential allergens. Balancing these factors with the marketing of “natural” foods will be crucial for success in a competitive market.