If I had a nickel for every time I see the word “natural” on a restaurant menu describing some kind of meat, well, I’d have at least a dollar.
As I have written elsewhere, it’s a meaningless label: no standard definition for this term exists except when it is voluntarily applied to meat and poultry products. Since 1982, the USDA defines “natural” meat as free from artificial flavoring, colors, chemical preservatives, or synthetic ingredients, but the claim does not have to be verified. Contrary to what many people think, it does not govern whether the animals were fed antibiotics or hormones.
On Dec. 12, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service will hold a public meeting in Washington, D.C., to consider whether more stringent guidelines for the word “natural” and its use on food product labels should be established. It is looking for comments: you can submit them via the links here.
If the debate over the “grassfed” label is a question of diet vs. lifestyle, then “natural” is just about post-slaughter treatment, period. You might want to tell the FSIS, for example, that you don’t think “natural” should cover “enhanced poultry,” which is soaked in or injected with a saline solution, or products treated with sodium lactate or processed in chlorinated chillers. These are actual examples of products that can be labeled “natural” currently, according to a Lexington Herald-Leader article.
Personally, I think it’s an abomination that “natural” can be applied to meat that has been raised completely “unnaturally” — in battery cages, in their own waste, eating types of food for which their digestive systems are not designed. But I don’t think consumers like me are who the USDA’s current petitioner had in mind when they asked the agency to revisit the label.
Who wants the definition to be strengthened? Hormel Foods, maker of Spam. You can download and read the company’s extended letter to the USDA, in which it protests that August 2005 revisions to the label weakened it (as if that were possible) and will only confuse consumers.
In a nutshell, Hormel wants the agency to stick to the original definition more strictly, and ban all artificial, heavily processed ingredients even if they are certified organic — like beet sugar:
As demonstrated above, the reference to the National Organic Policy for a list of allowable ingredients for meat and poultry products bearing natural label claims is internally inconsistent. It both prohibits and allows the presence of artificial flavorings, artificial colorings, and other artificial or synthetic ingredients. Further, the allowance of the presence of corn-derived sodium lactate in meat and poultry products bearing natural label claims also creates internal inconsistency as chemical preservatives are initially prohibited by the Policy.
And lest you think Hormel has gotten religion when it comes to its processes and ingredients, read a little further and you’ll learn that it still wants the label to exempt
Processing aids, such as anticaking or antifoaming agents, [which] have functions in foods that are considered to be physical rather than chemical. Their presence in the final product is insignificant and they have no functional effect in the finished food. Examples include, but are not limited to, calcium silicate, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, dimethylpolysiloxane and sodium aluminosilicate.
Bottom line? Send a comment to the USDA — and know what you’re getting when you choose meat that’s “natural.”
Food, Farming, & Food Politics events calendar
Humor:
December 8th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Something else to watch out for: exemptions for “food safety” additives. The Federal Register Announcement (link below) has this:
“In recent years, the longstanding policy on “natural” has been challenged by advances in food processing and in packaging methods, e.g., the use of techniques such as high pressure processing, food ingredients that are regulated to provide multiple technical effects, and modified atmosphere packaging. The value and integrity of the 1982 policy is challenged further by new uses of ingredients that have previously been used for flavoring purposes, for example, as antimicrobial agents. While the food safety purpose of using antimicrobial agents is important, their effects raise questions as to whether they can be used in products labeled “natural.” ”
And this:
“4. Do food safety and consumer protection benefits of using what historically may have been considered more than minimal processing techniques and antimicrobial agents outweigh conflicts with the meaning of “natural?” In recent years, FSIS has put a great deal of emphasis on improving food safety. In some ways, however, some definitions of “natural” might unnecessarily undercut this objective. For example, some definitions of “natural” could discourage the use of antimicrobials, which are used to reduce and prevent the growth of Listeria monocytogenes in foods. The Agency seeks comment on how it best determines an appropriate and rational balance between the need to ensure the safety of the food supply and the need to ensure that labels are truthful and not misleading.”
Perhaps the FSIS is looking to exempt “food safety” additives (e.g., a spray-on virus that destroys a certain family of bacteria) from being subject to rules about the “natural” label? If so, we’ll suddenly learn about the wonderful food safety properties of “calcium silicate, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, dimethylpolysiloxane and sodium aluminosilicate.”
Federal Register link: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-9546.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/yzbfya