What does "natural" mean to you?

The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) surprised everyone this week by announcing that they are now taking comments on the use of the term "natural" on food labeling.  It's about time.   

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) who is tasked with the job of monitoring false advertising has been proven so ineffectual that people began reaching out directly to the courts years ago.  Now according to the FDA they have been asked to weigh in by judges to provide guidelines for outstanding cases.

So what does natural mean?  In 1993, the FDA issued non-binding guidance saying "natural means that 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 in that food."

But that doesn't take into consideration GMO's and use of pesticides, nor processing methods such as thermal technologies, pasteurization or irradiation.  

Since Mintel reported last year that two-thirds of US adults think foods labeled "natural" are healthy, and people are willing to pay more for foods perceived as healthy, it's an important marketing tool. 

The Food Labeling Modernization Act, currently in committee, would prohibit the use of the word natural for any food that includes a synthesized ingredient. But the Grocery Manufacturers Association has stated its intention to push the FDA to define natural as inclusive of GMO ingredients.  Given that most staple crops in the US (i.e. corn, soybeans and beet sugar) are grown from GM seed, that ship may have already sailed. (Lukovitz, 2015)

So what do you think?  Are you buying foods labeled as "natural?"  And paying more for them?  What does the term mean to you?  What should it mean?  Where does GMO fit in?

Lukovitz, K. (2015, November 11)  Surprise: FDA To Review Use Of 'Natural' Food Claim.  mediapost.com.  Retrieved November 12, 2015, from

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/262369/surprise-fda-to-review-use-of-natural-food-clai.html

So why isn't the FTC doing something about vitamin and supplement advertising?

According to their website the mission of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC for short) is "to prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers..."  Really?  You could have fooled me. 

On December 16, 2013, the Annals of Internal Medicine published an editorial accompanied by two original studies and a review of existing research entitled "Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements."  Why?  Because they don't work.  (Forbes, 2013)

This is hardly new news.  Evidence has been mounting for years.  In 2009, the Wall Street Journal published Jennifer Corbett Dooren's article "Vitamins Fail to Reduce Health Risks for Women," detailing the results of what was then the largest multivitamin study in postmenopausal women conducted to date.  The results of the NIH sponsored study were published in the Feb. 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, and they showed taking vitamins and supplements resulted in  "no meaningful benefit."  (Dooren, 2009)

In 2011, Peter Murray writing for SingularityHUB published an article entitled "Studies consistently fail to show benefits of dietary supplements -- experts think it's time to reevaluate," which discussed several studies (Iowa Woman's Health and SELECT) which actually showed increased mortality and prostate cancer for those who took vitamins/supplements versus those who didn't.  (Murray, 2011)

And then there's my personal favorite, posted by Alice on her wholegrainalice  blog in September 2011 entitled "Vitamin Pills Don't Work," which lists, with references, all of the studies published which not only failed to show positive effects for vitamins but also unearthed some negative ones.  (Alice, 2011)

As far as I know the only study to date that has showed a positive result was the 2012 Centrum study of multi-vitamins on healthy 50+ male doctors.  And given the selectivity of the participants included in the study, I think their advertising should carry a  legal disclaimer  -- which of course it doesn't.   (Rabin, 2012)

But that doesn't begin to compare with the hundreds of false ads we see daily for these products.  Ads that lead to $30 billion in sales in 2011.  Even while the public continues to get sicker.  What's the point of funding government agencies to protect consumers when they are clearly not doing anything of the kind?

The FDA says it doesn't regulate vitamins and supplements because they are not drugs.  Really?  If people are taking them to prevent disease and increase longevity then it sounds like they are drugs to me.  But hey,  I'm an advertising maven so I say it's time for the FTC to step in where the FDA has let us down and protect the public from these false claims.  Isn't that what they're supposed to be doing?

http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc

Forbes, T. (2013, December 17)  Journal Recommends 'None-A-Day' Multivitamins. mediapost.com.  Retrieved December 17, 2013, from, http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/215706/journal-recommends-none-a-day-multivitamins.html

Dooren, J. (2009, February 10)  Vitamins Fail to Reduce Health Risks for Women.  wsj.com.  Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123423307340266303

Murray, P. (2011, October 31)  Studies consistently fail to show benefits of dietary supplements -- experts think it's time to reevaluate.  singularityHUB.com.  Retrieved October 31, 2011, from

http://singularityhub.com/2011/10/31/studies-consistently-fail-to-show-benefits-of-dietary-supplements-%E2%80%93-experts-think-its-time-to-reevaluate/

Rabin, R. (2012, October 22)  Curbing the Enthusiasm on Daily Multivitamins.  nytimes.com.  Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/curbing-the-enthusiasm-on-daily-multivitamins/?_r=0

Note to NAD about Coors Light – Really?

The National Advertising Divison (NAD) of the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council has referred Miller Coor’s ad claims for Coor’s Light to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for review.  The claims in question are: “the world’s most refreshing can,” “beer on the inside, science on the outside,” and “smoother, more refreshing pour.” 

Apparently these claims imply that the Coor’s Light can is technologically superior to others and therefore provides more refreshing beer.  Really?  I thought it was all meaningless gibberish.  And MillerCoors has declined to provide substantiation because they too consider the claims to be puffery. (Bachman, 2013)

But, what I want to know is why either organization is wasting their time on something like this when they should be looking at the health claims being made by unhealthy foods which are fueling the obesity crisis. 

Bachman, K. (2013, August 13)  MillerCoors Rebuffs Ad Industry Review of Coors Light Claims.  adweek.com.  Retrieved August 14, 2013 from,  http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/millercoors-rebuffs-ad-industry-review-coors-light-claims-151826

Is it time to ban retouching in cosmetics ads?

7/28/11

The Dove Evolution spot does a great job showing that even two hours of hair and make-up isn’t enough to avoid who knows how many hours of retouching in order to create the perfect women we see in most beauty ads. Which begs the question, are these ads misleading?

Cosmetic companies have always taken the stance that beauty advertising is aspirational. And surely no normal woman thinks there are enough beauty products in the world to turn her into a supermodel. But is it fair to show a digitally enhanced result when product efficacy is a key selling point? Personally, I’ve held back on trying any number of new wrinkle creams because I don’t believe that they actually work. And showing me a photo of an abnormally beautiful women, retouched or not, doesn’t help convince me.

But, in the UK, advertising watchdogs are taking notice. This week comes word that L’Oreal has been forced to pull ad campaigns featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington due to complaints lodged with the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). To quote the ASA: “on the basis of the evidence we had received we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve.” (Sweney, 2011)

So my question is why is the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the US advertising watchdog, silent on this issue? Are we just assuming that people will exercise common sense when they view these ads? Or should we be holding advertisers to higher standards as they appear to be doing across the pond? What do you think?

Sweney, M. (2011, July 27). L’Oreal’s Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington ad campaigns banned. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned