FDA seeking comment on defining “natural” foods: Will GMOs be included?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

From granola bars to juice boxes, products all along our grocery aisles are labeled as “natural.” But don’t believe everything you see because there’s a catch. Currently, there’s no federally-mandated definition for “natural” foods, meaning that food suppliers can slap that label on products indiscriminately with few penalties. That could change soon.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now seeking comment on how that term should be defined, which seems to indicate the regulatory agency is extending its reach into the murky world of food labeling.

The FDA does look at egregious labeling errors when it comes to the natural designation and has sent out warning letters on a case-by-case basis. It makes that call on a non-legally binding definition: “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.”

Given the constantly changing landscape of food ingredients, this definition doesn’t answer many questions, including whether or not items containing genetically-engineered ingredients or high fructose corn syrup should be labeled as “natural.” Various consumer groups and federal courts have reached out to the FDA to gain clarity on these two points, leading the FDA to seek comments on an updated definition for “natural” foods.

Any “natural” definition determined by the FDA wouldn’t be legally binding in itself, though it would provide a standard for enforcement. While many advocates say the request for comments are a step in the right direction, the agency still makes no promises as to if or when there will be a hard definition.

Read full, original post: The Government May Finally Define ‘Natural’ Food

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-30-2026-01_11_07-PM
How U.S. teamed with Russia to block global human AI weapons oversight
generated-1790707585414
Facts & Fallacies podcast: America's health care system is broken. A doctor explains how to fix it
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-03_15_09-PM
Viewpoint: Chipotle-inspired lesson: 10,000 sick customers suggest that processed foods can be safer than fresh ones
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-29-2026-12_16_42-PM
Social media influencers are driving food misinformation across Europe
Screenshot-2026-09-29-at-11.06.43-AM
Astrology, homeopathy, vaccine rejectionism, creationism: Why pseudoscience thrives as science advances
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-23-2026-02_36_39-PM
Viewpoint: After firing the entire National Science Board, Trump reshapes funding initiatives. Here’s the good and the bad.
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-2-2026-02_03_32-PM
How much of a problem is AI’s water use?
Screenshot-2026-09-28-at-1.16.38-PM
Defying public perceptions, U.S. cancer deaths plunged 35% since 1991
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-18-2026-04_15_29-PM
Viewpoint: Kennedy’s ‘bad science’: MAGA embrace bolsters HHS secretary’s influence and popularity
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.