Almost two thirds of respondents want the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop a more precise definition, with less than 1% believing the FDA’s 1993 guidance* is sufficiently clear.
But there is also strong support for an industry-led approach that would see trade associations co-ordinate efforts to develop some voluntary guidance – perhaps reflecting a belief that the FDA is unlikely to oblige – at least anytime soon.
Finally, a significant minority of respondents is simply fed up with the word being used on food packaging at all and suggests it is avoided altogether.
Readers were given four options to select from in response to the question: Do we need a clearer definition of 'natural' for food marketing?
- Yes. The FDA should come up with a formal definition
- Yes. The industry should develop voluntary guidance
- No. The FDA's 1993 guidance is sufficient
- No. The term is meaningless and manufacturers should stop using it
Here's what you thought:
* The FDA has yet to establish a formal definition for the term 'natural' on food labels but follows a 1993 policy that states: “[FDA] has not objected to the use of the term [natural] on food labels provided it is used in a manner that is truthful and not misleading and the product does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances.”
There were 248 respondents to this poll.
Click here to read more about natural claims.