What is in this article?:
- Should products with GMOs be considered 'natural?'
- 'Natural' needs tiers, similar to organic
The latest lawsuit against misleading "natural" claims on Frito-Lay snacks points to a new trend: consumers want natural defined as non-GMO. But can the "natural" claim ever achieve true non-GMO status?
More About:
A class action lawsuit against PepsiCo's Frito-Lay snacks business in late December rounded out last year's bevy of "all natural" claims lawsuits. According to the California-based claimant, the company is misleading consumers by using the "made with all-natural ingredients" label on Tostitos and SunChips snacks, which actually contain genetically modified vegetable oils and corn.
Frito-Lay joins the ranks of food manufacturers such as ConAgra, Kashi, Bear Naked and Alexia Foods, who were sued last year for similar complaints. As each lawsuit unfolded, and as genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives gained steam, a new trend arose. It's becoming increasingly clear that many consumers believe the "all natural" or "100% natural" marketing claims should equate to non-GMO.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has loosely defined "natural" as containing "nothing artificial or synthetic" that would not normally be expected to be in the food. But the GMO complaint is a new one for natural, and one that just 10 years ago wasn't on the radar—for consumers or the government.
"Historically, 'natural' has not meant non-GMO," said Mary Mulry, Ph.D., president of FoodWise, Inc. a natural, organic and specialty foods consultancy. "I think that has shifted over the past few years as people have become more aware of GMOs."