Not So “Natural” Food

So, you’re in the supermarket and you see two packages of chicken: one is “all natural” chicken, the other is chicken that’s been “enhanced” with flavoring, coloring, tenderizing agents and seaweed extract (carrageenan).  No brainer: all natural chicken.

But, in fact, those two products could be exactly the same. “Natural” is a voluntary food label that probably does not mean what you —  and many other consumers — think it does.  Both products in the example above would qualify under the current policy for labeling “natural” products.

Presently, to qualify as “natural” meat or poultry, the product (1) may not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and (2) must not be more than “minimally processed.” So-called enhancements are permissible as long as they have a natural source — sugar, corn (as a preservative), seaweed (to retain moisture), beets (for coloring).

More concerning, in my opinion, is that food labeled “natural” may derive from animals that were fed antibiotics, treated with hormones (if cattle or sheep) and/or raised in very unnatural factory farming conditions.  (To date, the FDA has not approved any genetically modified livestock for consumption, but the “natural” labeling policy does not exclude those meats either.) In fact, the USDA-approved “natural” label has nothing whatsoever to do with an animal’s diet, living conditions or health while it was alive. The label pertains ONLY to what happened to the meat after slaughter.

The “minimally processed” requirement is less concerning, but still problematic. The focus is not how much the end-product differs from true, single ingredient poultry or meat, but rather on the complexity of the food processing. As a result, new processing innovations for bringing purer single ingredient products to market may be prohibited from using the “natural” label, while simpler traditional processes that result in a significantly altered product get the ok.

Finally, the Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), the agency which enforces the current policy, reviews each label on a case-by-case basis and may bend the rules at its discretion. So, the end result is a label which provides little information about the quality of the product.

The good news is that FSIS has recognized the incongruence between its policy and consumer expectation, and it wants to know what YOU (yes, you!) think the new policy should be.

You can submit comments here by November 13, 2009.

In the meantime, when buying “natural” meat or poultry, look for the fine print; it must explain what the producer considers “natural” about it. And  here’s the quick dirt on some other USDA labels:

• “naturally raised” – animals may not be given growth hormones; animal by-products may not be used in feed; SOME antibiotics are permissible and many of the same concerns about living conditions exist.
• “USDA certified organic” – animals used for meat, eggs and dairy may not be given antibiotics or growth hormones; no animal by-products in feed; livestock must have outdoor access
• “free range” or “free roaming” – animals have outdoor access
• “no hormones administered” – beef producer provided the USDA sufficient documentation that the cattle were raised without hormones
• “no antibiotics administered” – producer provided the USDA sufficient documentation that the animals were raised without hormones

The Not So “Natural” Food by MushBrain, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at mushbrain.net.