05 Apr O&N now believes “encouraging people to go organic is more important” -Sustainable Food News
The Organic & Natural Health Association (O&N) said Tuesday it is abandoning its plan to create a new food standard and certification program for the marketing claim ‘natural.’
The Washington, D.C.-based trade group’s executive director, Karen Howard, said “a new ‘natural’ certification seal would not be in the best interest of consumers and could contribute to further confusion.”
O&N had planned to create a definition of ‘natural’ comparable to the definition of ‘organic,’ in that all food labeled ‘natural’ could not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), artificial preservatives, colors, flavoring or sweeteners.
In October, O&N released results of a national survey confirming “more confusion in the marketplace” among consumers over the food marketing claims ‘natural’ and ‘organic.’ The survey of 1,005 U.S. consumers found that about 33 percent of U.S. consumers do not make a quality distinction between the two terms.
In response to the survey results, O&N said that, in some cases, its definition of “natural” would require additional criteria “beyond organic standards.” For example, beef products labeled as “natural” would have had to meet the requirements of the USDA’s national organic standards but also be grass-fed and pastured to earn a ‘natural’ designation.
At its inaugural national conference in Cape Coral, Fla., last week, O&N decided not to pursue its ‘natural’ labeling and certification program, saying that the term ‘natural’ “should not be used in the form of a certification or seal, and therefore should not be listed on product labels. It should only be used as a term to describe specific attributes of products in marketing and promotional materials.”
O&N now believes “encouraging people to go organic is more important,” and will focus its efforts on the USDA’s existing certified-organic program, “and do whatever we can to strengthen that program.”
“Consumers expect organic standards from any product that claims to be ‘natural,’ so we have to make organic better,” said Howard. “‘Natural’ is not a label claim and we will stand by that position as we continue to educate consumers about the importance of organic food choices and why it matters for their health.”
To that end, O&N said it will support the work of IFOAM Organics International‘s next phase of sustainable agriculture development, called Organic 3.0, which takes into account the role agriculture plays in the global issues of hunger, inequity, energy consumption, pollution, climate change, loss of biodiversity and depletion of natural resources.
Having abandoned its ‘natural’ labeling efforts, O&N now “fills a void in today’s market for a trade group that is dedicated to serving the needs of suppliers, retailers and consumers who seek truthful, unbiased and credible information, based on the latest health- and nutrition-based science and research, about organic and natural products,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), on Wednesday.
Last week, Consumer Reports magazine released a report that showed 62 percent of shoppers said they usually buy foods labeled ‘natural,’ but nearly two-thirds believe they’re produced without genetically modified organisms, hormones, pesticides, or artificial ingredients. And, last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) revoked its marketing claim standards for ‘grass-fed’ livestock and meats and the ‘naturally raised’ claim for livestock and meat.
Also late last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it was extending the comment period for the use of the marketing claim ‘natural’ on food labels, including foods that are genetically engineered.
The agency said that “due to the complexity of this issue,” it has added three months to the originial Feb. 10 deadline for submitting comments. Just over 3,000 comments have been submitted since the FDA’s initial request for comments on Nov. 10. The comment period will now end on May 10.
It has been about 25 years since the federal agency considered establishing a definition for ‘natural’ when used on food labels. The FDA said the renewed interest is due, in part, to a “changing landscape of food ingredients and production.”
“Because of its widespread use, and the evidence that consumers regard many uses of this term as non-informative, we said, back in 1991, that we were considering establishing a definition for this term,” the FDA said. “We said that we believed that defining the term ‘natural’ could remove some ambiguity surrounding use of the term that results in misleading claims.”
Source: Sustainable Food News