Confusion abounds over ‘natural’ foods
The U.S. has a confused-consumer epidemic — more shoppers are seeking foods labeled “natural” despite not fully understanding what the claim means.
The percentage of people who regularly buy food labeled natural has grown from 59 percent in 2014 to 62 percent in 2015, yet confusion abounds, according to research out Wednesday from Consumer Reports. The study shows the majority of people don’t know what they’re paying for when it comes to natural labels. At the same time, pressure is mounting to define a term that’s never been legally regulated.
At least 60 percent of people believe a natural label means packaged and processed foods have no genetically modified organisms, no artificial ingredients or colors, no chemicals and no pesticides, according to the study by Consumer Reports. And 45 percent think that natural is a verified claim. It’s not.
In fact, none of those attributes is necessarily true, because use of the word is not regulated. At least, not yet.
The report comes as the Food and Drug Administration takes a closer look this year at how the term is used, whether it should be defined and how. A public comment period is taking place through May 10, according to the FDA website.
Defining ‘natural’
“Natural” is a seemingly straightforward word that’s taken on an increasingly confounding meaning as our food preferences and definition of health evolve. The FDA does not formally define the word, meaning its use isn’t regulated by any law.
A “longstanding policy” interprets it to mean nothing artificial or synthetic has been added to a food that wouldn’t normally be expected in that food, according to the FDA website. But the policy isn’t intended to address food production, processing or manufacturing methods.
Organizations, including Consumer Reports and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have been urging the FDA to define the term in recent years, as shoppers have moved away from processed and packaged foods and food companies have pledged to phase out artificial ingredients.
The lack of federal oversight, some say, is leading shoppers to make valuebased decisions that end up being meaningless.
“The problem with having all these misleading labels is it creates a lot of green noise in the marketplace,” says Urvashi Rangan, director of food safe-
See NATURAL, Page 6D
The protection offered by middleschool whooping cough vaccines fades with each passing year, leaving teens vulnerable to infection as they age, a new study finds.
The shot protects 69 percent of 11and 12-year-olds in the first year after vaccination, but within four years just 9 percent of these children have sufficient protection from the infection, according to a study published Friday in Pediatrics.
The findings help explain why the U.S. has seen a resurgence of whooping cough despite high vaccination rates, said study co-author Nicola Klein, co-director of Kaiser Permanente’s Vaccine Study Center. Cases have climbed since the introduction in the 1990s of a new, weaker vaccine. The CDC recorded 48,277 cases and 20 deaths in 2012 — the most since 1955.
Children receive five doses of whooping cough vaccine by the time they begin kindergarten, and receive another booster at age 11 or 12. The CDC also recommends that adults
See COUGH, Page 6D