As of now, there is 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 regarding this issue, prompting the agency to release a brief statement. It notes, “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, the FDA has not established a definition for the use of the term ‘natural’ or its derivatives. Nonetheless, the agency has not opposed the use of this term as long as the food does not contain added colors, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.”
Consumers, however, continue to navigate this ambiguity and seem to have an inherent understanding of what “natural” signifies when they encounter it or see it listed among ingredients. This perplexing situation places manufacturers in a precarious position, balancing innovation with consumer appeal as they invest in creating “natural” foods and beverages and subsequently market them. Given the lack of a clear definition, how can brands thrive in this space?
There have been notable costly mistakes in this realm. In 2014, General Mills settled a lawsuit regarding the use of the term “all-natural” on some Nature Valley products. The settlement prohibits the company from labeling products containing high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin as “natural.” Additionally, in 2015, Diamond Foods reached a settlement compensating consumers who purchased Kettle Brand products labeled as “natural” 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% growth rate for new products utilizing natural colors. Furthermore, statistics indicate that 68% of all food and beverage products launched in North America from September 2015 to August 2016 incorporated natural colors. According to a GNT Group survey, the significance of ingredients varies by product. For sweets and soft drinks, consumers generally assume—though they do not approve—of artificial ingredients, with over half believing these products typically contain synthetic additives. However, more than one-third of respondents indicated they would purchase sweets, lemonade, ice cream, and similar items more frequently if they were made solely with natural ingredients.
Yogurt emerged as the most natural product among the group, with two-thirds of respondents rejecting additives in that category and favoring products with only natural ingredients. The key takeaway is that a product marketed as “natural”—particularly indulgent sweets—is likely to resonate better with consumers. However, the absence of a defined meaning for “natural” in the U.S. poses a risk for manufacturers, as consumers can easily initiate lawsuits challenging the ingredients. For the benefit of both manufacturers and consumers, it would be prudent for the FDA to establish a clear definition.
In this context, products that emphasize nature’s bounty, such as those enriched with calcium citrate, could stand out in the market. By integrating elements like nature’s bounty calcium citrate into their offerings, brands may enhance their appeal to health-conscious consumers who prioritize natural ingredients. As the demand for clarity and authenticity grows, those that can effectively communicate their commitment to nature’s bounty and natural integrity are likely to gain a competitive edge.