The U.S. organic industry is booming, posting a new record in 2015 with total organic product sales hitting $43.3 billion, up 11% from the previous year’s record level and far outpacing the overall food market’s 3% growth rate, according to the Organic Trade Association’s 2016 Organic Industry Survey. That’s great news, and the industry has benefited from a long-standing regulatory definition of what’s required to make an organic claim.
 
Meanwhile, with no formal regulatory definition, there is healthy skepticism and understandable confusion among consumers about use of the term “natural” on food products. According to a May blog post from the Hartman Group, “while the ideal of ‘natural’ continues to evoke positive associations and an image of simple, real food that is free from artificial ingredients, consumers are increasingly primed to react to the term as a marketing gimmick.”
 
Consequently, consumers have basically taken it upon themselves to define natural for themselves. Hartman’s 2014 Organic and Natural Report indicated the attributes consumers associate with the term: 55% believe natural means no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives; 45% absence of growth hormones, 44% absence of GMOs, 43% absence of antibiotics; 42% real, pure and absence of pesticides.
 
“They look for a combination of subtle cues,” the company said of consumer buying habits. “Ingredient lists and nutrition facts panels should align with the consumer’s ideal of natural and healthy foods and beverages.”
 
Trade groups like the Natural Products Association (NPA) and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) have recently submitted comments to FDA, asking the agency to develop a regulatory definition for the term “natural.”
 
Dan Fabricant, PhD, CEO and executive director of NPA said natural should mean no chemicals, additives, and should only involve minimal processing. “A national standard is the best, most cost-effective and least-confusing way to deliver on this commitment for American consumers. To have hundreds of different state and local requirements would be counterproductive and expensive.”
 
Which processing techniques companies could utilize and still claim the term natural, and how genetic engineering fits into the equation, will be important points of discussion throughout any rule-making process.
 
Ultimately, working to alleviate confusion among consumers seems like a natural and necessary course of action.