Consumer Reports says FDA should get rid of ‘natural’ food label

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

A recent Consumer Reports National Research Center nationally representative survey(PDF) of 1,000 adults finds that more people purchase “natural” foods than organic foods—73 percent versus 58 percent. Nearly 70 percent of the people in the survey believe that organic foods are more expensive than “natural” foods. “We’ve seen time and again that majority of consumers believe the ‘natural’ label means more than it does,” says Urvashi Rangen, Ph.D., the director of the Consumer Reports Food Safety & Sustainability Center, “and by buying ‘natural’ foods, they may think they’re getting the same benefits as organic, but for less money.”

The term “natural” is organic’s imposter. Consumers attribute all sorts of benefits to the term—no antibiotics, no artificial colors, no GMOs, no synthetic pesticides. Organic means all those things but “natural” does not. In fact, there is no standard definition for “natural” foods at all.

“It’s time for the ‘natural’ label to go away,” says Rangan. “There’s a lot of evidence that consumers are confused about what the claim ‘natural’ actually means. And our surveys clearly show that consumers are being misled. The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility to ban the use of the term on processed food packaging, or define it so it means what consumers expect it to—100 percent organic.”

And now we have a real opportunity to make that happen. In November 2015, the FDA asked for public comments on the use of “natural” on food labels, prompted in part by Consumer Reports’ efforts to ban the term. . . .

Read full, original post: The Difference Between Labels on Organic and ‘Natural’ Foods

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

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-Apr-20-2026-11_17_18-AM-2
10,000 scientists gone: Trump’s cuts create an unprecedented brain drain
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-23-2026-09_20_20-PM
Kennedy’s CDC blocks publication of study that shows vaccines reduce hospitalizations by 50%, then misrepresents why
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-22-2026-04_31_20-PM
‘Irresponsible decision’? On mandatory military flu shots, Hegseth chooses ‘freedom’ over health
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-20-2026-12_28_36-PM
Vaccine skepticism is a growing global problem
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-3.54.04-PM
AI disinformation stress test: Challenges and response strategies
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-4.10.32-PM
Viewpoint — ‘Completely unethical’: RFK, Jr.’s medical ignorance deprives melanoma cancer-sufferers of a life-saving therapy
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-11-2026-11_58_46-AM
The Trump administration has run out more than 4,000 National Institutes of Health employees. Here are the consequences
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-17-2026-03_30_52-PM
Food labels, decoded: What they really mean
images
The never-ending GMO debate: Pros and cons
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-2-2026-03_22_54-PM
Why ‘support supplements’ for GLP-1 users are mostly a waste of money
Screenshot-2026-04-15-at-1.22.58-PM
Anti-biotechnology activists smear hybrid wheat breakthrough that could surge yields in poorer countries
glp menu logo outlined

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