The ubiquitous term “natural” on food packaging is “misleading” European consumers, according to a cross-party coalition of 31 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). 

The MEPs have joined forces in a letter addressed to European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides that urges the development of a clear “natural” definition and stringent legislation to regulate the use of this term for food products.

“The EU is currently lacking a legal definition of the term ‘natural’ for foodstuff. Consequently, the claim is often used by food manufacturers to promote food characteristics that diverge consistently from the final product composition,” the letter warns. 

“We fear that missing a clear definition of the term ‘natural’ for food products will not put consumers in the conditions to make conscious and healthier choices.”

The letter emphasizes that consumers, in general, connect with the term “natural.” The term has positive associations related to food origin, minimal processing and the absence of additives. Without a proper definition, the coalition is concerned that consumers are basing their choices on incorrect assumptions. 

The letter concretely called on the European Commission to further tackle this issue by ensuring:

• The EU food law foresees criteria to use the term “natural” on labels to ensure proper information to consumers. 
• Information as the origin of the ingredients and the real composition of the products are easily recognizable by the consumers. 
• Natural-labeled products are GMO-free, free of synthetic substances and 100 percent biodegradable. 

The MEPs described the situation as “urgent” as there are several examples of misleading uses of “natural” out on the market today, which do not align with European regulations. 
The coalition highlights several passages of EU regulation, which demonstrate the intention to protect the consumer from misinformation. 

For example, Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods statistics that food labeling criteria shall “aim to avoid a situation wher nutrition or health claims mask the overall nutritional status of a food product.”

The same regulation also provides a general definition of “natural” for food claims. According to the Annex, a product can be labeled as natural when it fulfills the conditions for the use of a nutritional claim. 

The Regulation focuses on providing information on the quantities of nutrients present in food but does not set specific labeling criteria that food producers should follow when informing consumers on products’ properties. 

The concept is further stated in Article 7 of the Regulation on Food Information to Consumers that stipulates that information on food products “shall not be misleading” as for their characteristics, including their nature, as well as their identity, properties, and country of origin, among others. 

Hindering the Commission’s goals
MEPs call out the term’s misuse, claiming it could “threaten the achievement of the goals set in the Farm to Fork Strategy.” 

The Commission aims to promote sustainable food consumption and facilitate the shift to healthy, sustainable diets by establishing a set of legislative proposals to enforce rules on misleading information.

The letter further points out that Kyriakides had previously expressed her commitment to protecting consumers’ health and information by establishing a new sustainable labeling framework reflecting the shift towards a new food system. 

“The Commission risks to fail in addressing not only the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy objectives but the general EU food law goals, if it decides to leave this considerable gap of our food labeling framework unconsidered,” the MEPs warn. 

Labeling under fire
In other moves to keep consumers informed, watchdogs recently highlighted that food systems have been more vulnerable to food fraud during COVID-19.

Dairy terminology was recently banned from plant-based dairy alternative products in a bid to keep the consumer more informed. However, industry fired back, calling the move a threat to consumers’ right to information and companies’ right to fair competition.