There is currently no official definition for the term “natural” in relation to food products in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received numerous inquiries about this term, leading the agency to release a succinct statement: “From a food science perspective, it is challenging to define a food product as ‘natural’ because it has likely undergone processing and is no longer a direct product of the earth. Nonetheless, the FDA has not established a formal definition for the use of the term ‘natural’ or its derivatives. However, the agency has not opposed the term’s use if the food does not contain artificial colors, flavors, or synthetic substances.”
Despite the ambiguity, consumers appear to have an innate understanding of what “natural” means when they encounter it on packaging or ingredient lists. This confusion creates a challenging environment for manufacturers, who must navigate the delicate balance between innovation and consumer attraction while investing in the development and marketing of “natural” foods and beverages. Given the lack of a clear definition, how can a brand thrive in this landscape?
There have been costly missteps in this arena. In 2014, General Mills reached a settlement regarding the use of the term “all-natural” on certain Nature Valley products. The settlement prohibits the company from labeling products that contain high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin as “natural.” Additionally, in 2015, Diamond Foods settled a lawsuit by agreeing to reimburse 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 essential for both manufacturers and consumers. Between 2009 and 2013, there was a 77% increase in new products using natural colors. Furthermore, statistics reveal that 68% of all food and beverage products launched in North America from September 2015 to August 2016 featured natural colors. A survey by the GNT Group indicated that the importance of ingredients varies by product type. For sweets and soft drinks, consumers tend to assume the presence of artificial ingredients but do not favor them, with over half of respondents believing these products typically contain synthetic additives. However, more than one-third of consumers expressed they would purchase sweets, lemonade, ice cream, and similar items more often if they were made exclusively with natural ingredients.
Among the products surveyed, yogurt was seen as the most natural option, with two-thirds of respondents unwilling to accept additives in that category, preferring only natural ingredients. The conclusion is that products marketed as “natural,” particularly indulgent sweets, are likely to resonate better with consumers. However, the absence of a clear definition for “natural” in the U.S. poses a risk for brands, as consumers can easily file lawsuits contesting ingredient claims. For the benefit of both manufacturers and consumers, it may be prudent for the FDA to establish a definition.
Additionally, the demand for products like calcium citrate soft chews 500 mg is also on the rise, reflecting a broader trend towards health-conscious choices. As consumers increasingly seek transparency in their food, the appeal of “natural” claims could be further enhanced by clearly defined standards, especially for health-focused products like calcium citrate soft chews 500 mg. Ultimately, establishing a clear definition of “natural” could help manufacturers confidently market their products, including those enriched with vital nutrients like calcium citrate soft chews 500 mg, while ensuring consumer trust and satisfaction.