By Suaida Firoze
Suaida Firoze is a senior at Clark University studying Economics and Business Management.
At what point does food become a product? Or can it still be considered food after the numerous processes it undergoes to ultimately become processed food?
The U.S. food industry is under constant scrutiny because of the controversial practices that go into making processed food. What consumers refer to as “junk food” has become the cause of extreme obesity around the nation. Yet, junk food tends to be much cheaper than naturally grown organic produce.
Suaida Firoze is a senior at Clark University studying Economics and Business Management.
At what point does food become a product? Or can it still be considered food after the numerous processes it undergoes to ultimately become processed food?
The U.S. food industry is under constant scrutiny because of the controversial practices that go into making processed food. What consumers refer to as “junk food” has become the cause of extreme obesity around the nation. Yet, junk food tends to be much cheaper than naturally grown organic produce.
However, setting aside the health effects of regularly eating genetically modified and processed food, there has been debate has gone into the labeling of food. Oftentimes, consumers find themselves confused when they read nutrition information on labels because the complicated terms can be very difficult for an average person to understand. As reported in a recent U.S. News and World Report article, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated, "Because of the changing landscape of food ingredients and production, and in direct response to consumers who have requested that the FDA explore the use of the term 'natural,' the agency is asking the public to provide information and comments on the use of this term in the labeling of human food products." [1]
The publication of Melanie Warner’s book Pandora’s Lunchbox over two years ago only added to the series of debates on the topic and the variety of books that aim to enable consumers to make more informed choices about what they were putting into their bodies. Warner, a former reporter in the food industry, tries to warn people of the harms of extremely processed food through a simple text designed to be easily understood by any reader. The book covers topics ranging from how American cheese slices are made to how the soybean has been completely modified in order to sustain millions of people worldwide. She, too, like many others before and after her, vouches for more transparent food processing practices and asks consumers to think critically of the food they consume on a daily basis. [2]
Recently, the FDA has called for the public’s opinion on its most recent agenda to determine what food products would comprise of those labeled as “natural.” The FDA took up this issue after it received three petitions from citizens calling for it to take action upon this ‘natural’ food label once and for all.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), in their petition, asked the FDA to expand the meaning of ‘natural’ by allowing it to be used even if the food contained ingredients or other products derived from biotechnology. Meanwhile, the FDA received a petition from the Consumers Union who requested that it completely stop using the term “natural,” as it was extremely misleading for consumers. Previously, the FDA had said, “We stated that at that time we would not be engaging in rulemaking to define ‘natural,’ but that we would maintain our policy not to restrict the use of the term ‘natural’ except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors. We further stated that we would maintain our policy to interpret the term ‘natural’ as meaning that ‘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.’” [3]
It is time that the FDA becomes involved in this heavily controversial practice. It attempted to make this definition less ambiguous back in 1991, but unfortunately made no progress. [4] Having received very different petitions, it has now opened up this debate for public feedback as to whether it should define the term ‘natural’ and, if so, how, as well as how it should determine its appropriate use on food labels. [5]
While this step does not guarantee a concrete solution to this problem, it does set a standard for future enforcements in food labeling. It could also prevent the numerous consumer class action lawsuits that regularly take place due to misleading labels on food products. Due to the FDA’s previously issued ambiguous definition of the term “natural,” many manufacturers would, essentially, take a risk while labeling their products, an issue that the agency could soon eliminate. [6]
Regardless of the results of this initiative, this is a move in the right direction for the U.S. food industry. Consumers have bought food labeled as ‘natural’ for decades believing it to be a healthy option and have been misled to their lack of awareness and loopholes in regulations of such language. If the FDA does ultimately define the term “natural,” as well as other terms and food production processes, in the future, the U.S. food industry will be able to tackle all the problems that currently occur due to unhealthy heavily processed foods being marketed as relatively healthy. This initiative also gives consumers an opportunity to be aware and actually make a difference in the types of food they want to consume, an important part of progress toward a healthier society.
[1] Preidt, Robert. "FDA Wants Public Comment on Use of Word 'Natural' on Food Labels." U.S. News Health. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 19, 2015. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/11/11/fda-wants-public-comment-on-use-of-word-natural-on-food-labels.
[2] Polis, Carey. "'Pandora's Lunchbox': New Book Reveals How Processed Food Took Over The American Meal." The Huffington Post. February 26, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/pandoras-lunchbox-processed-food_n_2741231.html.
[3] "Use of the Term ‘‘Natural’’ in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments." Federal ERulemaking Portal. November 12, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-0001.
[4] Lorenzetti, Laura. "The Government May Finally Define 'Natural' Food." Fortune. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/fda-natural-food-label/.
[5] "FDA Requests Public Comments on ‘natural’ Food Labeling." Lexology. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d5c7d3ed-aabf-4a4f-b66c-2594e70a1acb.
[6] "FDA Requests Public Comments on ‘natural’ Food Labeling." Lexology. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d5c7d3ed-aabf-4a4f-b66c-2594e70a1acb.
Photo Credit: Flickr User Michael Stern
The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
The publication of Melanie Warner’s book Pandora’s Lunchbox over two years ago only added to the series of debates on the topic and the variety of books that aim to enable consumers to make more informed choices about what they were putting into their bodies. Warner, a former reporter in the food industry, tries to warn people of the harms of extremely processed food through a simple text designed to be easily understood by any reader. The book covers topics ranging from how American cheese slices are made to how the soybean has been completely modified in order to sustain millions of people worldwide. She, too, like many others before and after her, vouches for more transparent food processing practices and asks consumers to think critically of the food they consume on a daily basis. [2]
Recently, the FDA has called for the public’s opinion on its most recent agenda to determine what food products would comprise of those labeled as “natural.” The FDA took up this issue after it received three petitions from citizens calling for it to take action upon this ‘natural’ food label once and for all.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), in their petition, asked the FDA to expand the meaning of ‘natural’ by allowing it to be used even if the food contained ingredients or other products derived from biotechnology. Meanwhile, the FDA received a petition from the Consumers Union who requested that it completely stop using the term “natural,” as it was extremely misleading for consumers. Previously, the FDA had said, “We stated that at that time we would not be engaging in rulemaking to define ‘natural,’ but that we would maintain our policy not to restrict the use of the term ‘natural’ except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors. We further stated that we would maintain our policy to interpret the term ‘natural’ as meaning that ‘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.’” [3]
It is time that the FDA becomes involved in this heavily controversial practice. It attempted to make this definition less ambiguous back in 1991, but unfortunately made no progress. [4] Having received very different petitions, it has now opened up this debate for public feedback as to whether it should define the term ‘natural’ and, if so, how, as well as how it should determine its appropriate use on food labels. [5]
While this step does not guarantee a concrete solution to this problem, it does set a standard for future enforcements in food labeling. It could also prevent the numerous consumer class action lawsuits that regularly take place due to misleading labels on food products. Due to the FDA’s previously issued ambiguous definition of the term “natural,” many manufacturers would, essentially, take a risk while labeling their products, an issue that the agency could soon eliminate. [6]
Regardless of the results of this initiative, this is a move in the right direction for the U.S. food industry. Consumers have bought food labeled as ‘natural’ for decades believing it to be a healthy option and have been misled to their lack of awareness and loopholes in regulations of such language. If the FDA does ultimately define the term “natural,” as well as other terms and food production processes, in the future, the U.S. food industry will be able to tackle all the problems that currently occur due to unhealthy heavily processed foods being marketed as relatively healthy. This initiative also gives consumers an opportunity to be aware and actually make a difference in the types of food they want to consume, an important part of progress toward a healthier society.
[1] Preidt, Robert. "FDA Wants Public Comment on Use of Word 'Natural' on Food Labels." U.S. News Health. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 19, 2015. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/11/11/fda-wants-public-comment-on-use-of-word-natural-on-food-labels.
[2] Polis, Carey. "'Pandora's Lunchbox': New Book Reveals How Processed Food Took Over The American Meal." The Huffington Post. February 26, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/pandoras-lunchbox-processed-food_n_2741231.html.
[3] "Use of the Term ‘‘Natural’’ in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments." Federal ERulemaking Portal. November 12, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-0001.
[4] Lorenzetti, Laura. "The Government May Finally Define 'Natural' Food." Fortune. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/fda-natural-food-label/.
[5] "FDA Requests Public Comments on ‘natural’ Food Labeling." Lexology. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d5c7d3ed-aabf-4a4f-b66c-2594e70a1acb.
[6] "FDA Requests Public Comments on ‘natural’ Food Labeling." Lexology. November 11, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d5c7d3ed-aabf-4a4f-b66c-2594e70a1acb.
Photo Credit: Flickr User Michael Stern
The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
