Studying the words on a container of food can be a daunting experience for the health-seeking consumer, with the food ingredients and nutrition facts listed on the packages.
The bigger words on the front of the label trumpet attributes such as low fat, high fibre and no cholesterol.
Even snack foods try to give the impression they are healthy, or at least healthier than the competition.
It came to light last month that two food classes are more in competition than at first glance. A couple of speakers at a gathering of Canadian organic producers, processors and retailers said products called “natural” are a great threat to organic markets.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers commit to enhancing competitiveness
Canadian ag ministers said they want to ensure farmers, ranchers and processors are competitive through ongoing regulatory reform and business risk management programs that work.
They said there is confusion in consumer minds about the difference between organic and natural. Many people believe there is little difference.
But there is.
Foods that carry the organic label are produced by farmers and processors in specific ways that have been certified. There are inspections by third parties and an audited paper trail to confirm compliance. Organic farmers do not use chemical pesticides, fertilizer or genetically modified seed and must follow programs to improve their soil.
There is a difference of opinion about whether this makes the food healthier, but some see value in this system and is willing to pay extra to get it.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency defines a “natural” food as one that has not undergone processing that significantly altered its physical, chemical and biological state. It should not be cooked, smoked, deboned, ground, or flaked. It should not have added flavour or vitamins.
So a raw vegetable or chicken breast can be called natural, but that tells the consumer nothing about the conditions under which these foods were produced.
There is also meat from “naturally raised” livestock, which should mean animals do not receive hormones or antibiotics, but no third party or government enforces a strict code.
The problem is CFIA’s definition is likely not what is in consumers’ minds when they read the word “natural.”
The U.S. Center for Science in the Public Interest addressed this in a report called Food Labeling Chaos.
The organization notes that in the United States, where the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s definition of natural is similar to CFIA’s, the market for natural foods grew by 10 percent to $12.9 billion from 2007 to 2008 and “all natural” was the second-most-common claim on new food products launched in 2008.
The report said consumers may interpret claims such as “all natural” as indicating a more nutritious or wholesome food product than is actually the case.
The Canadian organic industry is not sure how to address the confusion.
Certainly there is a need for public education and that should be easier than it used to be. A great public interest has developed in food and it goes far beyond recipes, preparation tips and diets.
Entire television channels are devoted to food, as well as magazines, websites, and food sections in newspapers. Chefs have become celebrities.
These media have picked up and ran with ideas such as narrowing the distance between consumers and farmers. Through their promotion, a large percentage of the population is conversant with new concepts such as local food, the hundred mile diet and measuring the carbon footprint of dinner.
The organic industry should target celebrity chefs and food media, giving them information on the differences between organic and natural food so they can pass the information to their audiences. It should also lobby the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which oversees food labelling, to ensure the definition it gives a word is the same as the one consumers would give the word.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen and D’Arce McMillan collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
