- Instead of crafting an official definition for the term "natural" or banning its use altogether, the FDA may consider regulating the term by not regulating it and allowing anyone to use it, according to an opinion piece in Forbes.
- Banning use of the term may not be a viable option because it could violate companies' First Amendment rights, the piece written by Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl Schneider said.
- If everyone can use the term and the FDA doesn't draw a line between "natural" and "unnatural," everything could be deemed "natural," and the claim might eventually lose all competitive edge.
This argument has merit, especially as "natural" lawsuits continue to mount against various food and beverage manufacturers. Consumers and the courts are becoming exasperated that cases go unresolved, and the FDA doesn't appear to have the time or resources to dedicate to this issue fast enough.
The problem is that the claim could take a long time to lose its relevance and commercial advantage, even if it appeared on just about every product at once. Consumers still look for clean ingredients lists and minimal processing regularly, and "natural" remains one of the most sought-out claims that could suggest those product features. Other surveys have found that consumers would also pay more for these natural ingredients, which could make "natural" a more profitable claim to include on packaging.
But a key issue with the FDA finally posing an official definition for "natural" is that politics could overtake science, according to the Forbes editorial. In debates ranging from GMO labeling to antibiotics use, louder voices with stronger messages can sometimes beat out scientific proof in the minds of consumers, regulators and legislators. Even without a strong scientific backing, these arguments may even influence federal or company policies.