Organic or Natural: What's the Difference?

Today's food and beverage manufacturers cannot rely on consumer brand loyalty, especially with rising grocery prices pinching consumers. In addition to watching their pocketbooks, though, today's consumers are increasingly health-conscious, and to catch their attention, manufacturers are marketing products with lower sweetener content, switching from high fructose corn syrup to sugar, and cutting back on artificial coloring. Consumers want to believe they are buying something better than they may have bought a couple years ago.

One area of consumer confusion, however, is the difference between the terms “organic” and “natural”—and which government entity regulates their use on food labeling.

In the early days of the organic movement, the “natural” category was a marketing effort to get consumers to pay attention to products that were 95 to 100 percent naturally derived (although not from organic ingredients, which were rarer then). As organic foods become more common these days, the organic industry is spending more money and time to educate consumers that there is a difference between “organic” and “natural.”

Organic: the stricter term

USDA regulates the use of the term “organic” under the following guidelines:

•  “100 % organic” means that the item is made of one source, such as milk, meat, or produce.

•  “Organic” applies to foods made with multiple ingredients that are themselves 95 to 100 percent organic.

•  “Made with organic ingredients” applies to foods that use organic ingredients for at least 70 percent of their content. This label can be placed on the front of the item's packaging.

•  “Contains organic ingredients” means that the food contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients.

Organic also carries with it a certain connotation about “quality of life”: humane animal husbandry and sustainable farming practices that are good for the environment.

Natural: undefined by choice

The reason the term “natural” seems vaguer is that it is. To USDA, “natural” applies to meat and poultry and signifies that the product has been minimally processed and contains no artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives. Non-chemical preservation techniques such as smoking and roasting are allowed, as is grinding since it doesn't fundamentally alter the item's identity.

The Food and Drug Administration, on the other hand, allows “natural” to be used on a wide array of foods and beverages, but purposefully does not officially define the term. FDA's unofficial guideline is that the product should not contain any synthetic or artificial ingredients, such as color.

The problem with this policy is that it is open to interpretation. Consider corn sweeteners: at what point in corn starch's processing does it cross over from being natural to becoming synthetic? This spring, in an emailed response to a letter from FoodNavigator-USA, an FDA official stated that high fructose corn syrup could not be considered natural because of all its processing. The Corn Refiners Association immediately challenged such a backdoor way of setting policy. More and more manufacturers are calling for FDA to officially define “natural” to avoid such disputes.

Why should the consumer care?

Consumers like the idea that their food is grown by people who care about the environment, food quality, and animal welfare. But buying organic can certainly be expensive: organic foods command price premiums, sometimes costing double what their non-organic counterparts cost. And while more and more grocery stores are carrying organic items, the average shopper does not want to spend more time shopping to seek out an organic source of their favorite cereal and so on. In these cases, the “natural” label has a lot of pull on consumer attention. The food and beverage industries should be working under clear labeling regulations that put all manufacturers on the same page.

Additionally, should consumers pay the added premium for organic when perhaps natural will suffice? For instance, organic sugar costs at least 10 percent more than regular sugar. There is no health benefit to consuming organic sugar—all its processing removes whatever contaminants could be in the soil or plant. Therefore consumers should know that they are paying more for organic sugar to support the farming methods of the grower rather than to benefit their own health. That may be a choice the consumer wants to make when buying sugar, but then again it may not.

In many cases, consumers are really calling for healthier alternatives to many over-processed foods. A reliable, transparent “natural” labeling system would be a major benefit to consumers and the food and beverage industries alike. Please contact us if you have further questions or comments on this topic.

McKEANY-FLAVELL COMPANY, INC.