Naturally? Naturally. — The USDA To Work On What ‘Natural’ Means
Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody’s gotta get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don’t, you throw the ball to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That’s different.
Costello: That’s what I said.
The confusion and nonsensical back and forth found in the classic Abbot and Costello Who’s On First sketch is exactly what it feels like when trying to figure out just what exactly the natural label means on your package from the deli. Actually following the USDA debate over definitions for things like “natural” or “naturally raised” can lead to perturbation, too. Up until recently there actually hadn’t been very much debate. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has one definition, while the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has another.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service says meat and poultry can be labeled “natural” if they are only minimally processed and don’t have any artificial flavorings, colorings, preservatives, or other chemical additives. Who knows what minimally processed means. On the other hand, the Agricultural Marketing Service says that “naturally raised” means the meat must come from animals raised with no hormone growth promoters, no antibiotics, and no animal by-products.
A commenter on Marion Nestle’s post on the same subject explains that the term “natural” is referring to the meat, while “naturally raised” refers to the livestock. Somehow, knowing this doesn’t absolve the USDA from the confusion its perpetrated on consumers. However, according to a federal register notice, this discombobulated terminology will soon be tackled (or see the actual docket). Well, at least the term “natural” will be. They are collecting commentary and seeking assistance for defining the conditions under which it will permit the voluntary claim “natural” to be used in the labeling of meat and poultry products.
I am not too hopeful; The USDA said the same thing two years ago.
Why not combine both definitions into one super meaningful label? It would only make too much sense for the term natural to encompass both the life and post-living treatment of animals.
Furthermore, what does it mean when the word natural is found on non-meat products? Is this also voluntary? Who regulates that label, if anyone? It’s doubtlessly confusing to consumers.
The definitions of terms commonly found on packaging should be clear, well-known to consumers, and definitely well-regulated. One thing is for certain, this concerned consumer will be watching and waiting for the (much needed) developments on label legislation.
September 16, 2009
Tags: agriculture, farmers, marketing, USDA Posted in: Politics, Science & Technology
Leave a Reply