Big Food just spent upwards of $22 million in Washington state to prevent voters there from approving a ballot measure that would have required genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) in food from being labeled, claiming that changing labels would cost consumers hundreds in their grocery bills.
But apparently, changing labels is only "costly" when food companies don't want to do it. According to a recent story in TheWall Street Journal, the very same companies that spent millions to defeat the GMO labeling law in Washington—PepsiCo, Campbell's Soup, and Kellogg's among them—are now changing labels on products anyway, removing the word "natural" from dozens of products.
According to the article, "A growing number of food and drink companies…are quietly removing these claims from packages amid lawsuits challenging the 'naturalness' of everything from potato chips to ice cream to granola bars. Attorneys say at least 100 lawsuits have been filed in the past two years challenging the natural claims of Unilever PLC's Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg Co.'s Kashi, Beam Inc.'s Skinnygirl alcohol drinks, and dozens of other brands."
The article notes that many of the lawsuits are filed by consumers challenging the use of the word "natural" on products containing GMOs and other food-processing aids, including high-fructose corn syrup and caramel coloring, a product processed in a way that introduces potentially carcinogenic contaminants into the final product. The lawsuits usually allege that labeling these foods "natural" is deceptive and misleading.
More from Rodale News: The 6 Worst Natural Ingredients
PepsiCo has paid $9 million as a result of one such lawsuit against its Naked juice brand, and Unilever paid $5 million to settle claims about "natural" as a label on its Ben & Jerry's brand of ice cream. General Mills is currently dealing with three lawsuits, two of which are related to "natural" claims made on its Nature Valley granola bars' labels.
Rather than fight lawsuits, other companies are simply removing labels before the term gets to be an issue. The article cites a Datamonitor report showing that "natural" food introductions decreased roughly 10 percent between 2009 and 2013.
The Food and Drug Administration has never officially defined the term "natural," so foods labeled as such don't have to meet any stringent criteria. In many of these lawsuits, the food companies have asked to delay a judge's ruling until the agency finally steps in. Some judge's concede to those requests, while others feel that the courts are a perfect place to decide this issue.
But the ease with which companies can drop the "natural" label from their products makes arguments against GMO labeling particularly specious. A constant refrain in Washington state, as well as in California during that state's vote on a similar GMO labeling law, was that changing food packaging places an undue burden on industry and would raise food prices. Yet, one industry spokesperson told the Journal that companies are "constantly updating" their packaging and wouldn't comment on the sudden disappearance of "natural" on her company's product labels. That same company spent $2.4 million against GMO labeling in the lead-up to Washington state's vote.
Still, this backlash against "natural" food labels from consumers and corporations alike could spell the end for a poorly defined, meaningless label that has always duped shoppers into thinking, as Ronny Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association, once put it, "as good as organic, only cheaper."
If you want truly "natural" food, stick with organic. Natural as a label for foods is not only misleading, but often the foods contain…
• GMO ingredients, made from corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, and sugar beets
• Pesticide residues
• Unhealthy "natural" food additives like high-fructose corn syrup
• Meat from animals dosed with antibiotics and growth hormones