Home » About Us » Blog » What's In a Name? Use of the Term "Natural" Where GMOs are Involved Has Big Implications for Food Labeling

    What’s In a Name? Use of the Term “Natural” Where GMOs are Involved Has Big Implications for Food Labeling

    September 5, 2011 •  2 comments.

     •  Blog, News
    Written by of Triple Pundit September 2nd, 2011

    Product labeling is an area where loopholes and corporate social responsibility (CSR) seem to converge. It is precisely these loopholes that make it easy for companies to engage in a degree of greenwash but there is a thin line between ‘greenwash’ and ‘misleading the consumer.’ A recent lawsuit against ConAgra proves this point. The American food giant that owns several brands like Healthy Choice, Wesson, Slim Jim, & Banquet has been under attack for alleged false labeling.

    The Food Safety News reports that its Wesson brand of cooking oil has been slapped with various lawsuits for claiming to be “all natural.” This deceptive marketing suit was brought against ConAgra in June by Millberg LLP. It could actually make food manufacturers think twice about bandying about the word ‘natural.’ Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend, all of which have the ”100% natural” claim on their labels. However, the products include a number of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

    The problem of course does not reside only with Wesson. There are thousands of processed food items that line grocery shelves that have the ‘natural’ label but are known to contain GMOs. 85% of US corn and 91% of soybean is genetically modified – both of these are common ingredients in processed food either by themselves or in the form of derivatives like soya lecithin, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch etc. 90% of Americans want full disclosure on their food products which may mean that every major food company needs to overhaul its labeling policies.

    This is a very significant breakthrough for anti-GMO campaigners because it shows how much consumer choice actually affects companies. This is also a case for those companies and governments pushing for introduction of GMO in their countries. India is currently in the midst of signing off on a bill that will enable the free production of GMO fruit and vegetables. This would be a potentially calamitous move due to the lack of labeling laws in India as well as the fact that the country by and large still follows a bulk-bin system of buying produce.

    Con Agra might be able to wriggle its way out of the suit. Its recent disclosure report revealed that it spent $100,000 in the second quarter on lobbying government officials on agriculture programs, ethanol regulations, etc. According to the report it filed, the company lobbied the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget, apart from Congress. I wonder how much of this went towards GMO lobbying.

    Food companies can no longer hide behind ambiguous labels like ‘natural’ because food essentially is natural! The label itself is an oxymoron. With the advent of the suit on Con Agra, it is necessary for other companies to question their methods of labeling and/or food sourcing so that they are not open to liabilities. Currently under US laws, GMOs are not required to be labelled but labeling a product ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ when it does contain GMO is misleading to the consumer. Surely that is illegal?

    If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”
    Eric Schlosser, author, Fast Food Nation

    This article originally appeared on Triple Pundit:People, Planet, Profit as seen here.

      2 Responses to “What’s In a Name? Use of the Term “Natural” Where GMOs are Involved Has Big Implications for Food Labeling”

      1. Like the quote at the end, most of the food I buy isn’t called “natural”.
        Since all ingredients must be shown on a package, why are GMO’s not required.
        I have stopped eating corn and soy all together. Its a shame, because I enjoy them both. The best we can hope for is that the consumer demands to be informed. If boycotting a product is needed,then maybe changes will be made. The backlash from High Fructose Corn Syrup is being seen. Its now a good marketing point for companies. “Now made with no HFCS” on the label. This is on many items in the store now. Maybe “No GMO” labels will be the next trend.

      2. Akhila, wondering if you have a source for the ‘90% of Americans want full disclosure labelling’ statement? Thanks! I’d like to use that stat!

      Leave a Reply