Caution: Food labels aren't always what they seem

By Natasha Austin

October 22, 2007 | When walking up and down the aisles of the grocery store it is easy for a consumer to be very confused. Every item on the shelf has some new label that claims its authenticity of pure and healthy ingredients that can benefit you. How can consumers know the difference? Which one is better?

To add more complexity to the situation the USDA does not clearly define most labels, or even have regulations for others. This results in many products with misleading labels. To add to the burden of the everyday consumer, individual companies are making their own certification labels that look convincing and important. Have the labels on products gone too far?

In 1990 the USDA released the Organic Foods Production Act. The Act clearly defines regulations regarding the of labeling organic products, but fails to mention labeling beyond what is defined organic. The act requires farmers and other food producers to be certified through a state agency to be able to label their product "organic."

The term organic refers to the way that produce and other food products are, grown, cultivated, and produced. To be labeled an organic product, it must be produced without using conventional methods such as chemical fertilization, weed killer and pesticides. Additionally, antibiotics and hormones can not be used with animals. For a product to be certified "organic", farmers and food producers must use what are considered environmentally and animal-safe methods.

The USDA stands behind the organic label that is used on certified products. According to the USDA there are three divisions for organic labeling. First the "100 percent organic" label guarantees that your product is completely organic. Second, a product labeled "organic" identifies the product as being produced with 95 percent organic ingredients. Third, other products containing 70 percent organic ingredients may be label "made with organic ingredients."

Since the Organic Foods Production act in 1990, there has been significant growth in the organic product economy. With that growth consumers must be wary of deceiving labels for products that try to take advantage of the organic hype. Labels that include words and statements like "all-natural," "free-range," "antibiotic free," and "hormone free" are confusing. While these statements may make consumers feel better about their purchase, they may not be getting what they thought they were buying.

With the exception of meat, the label "natural" is not something that is regulated by the USDA or even defended by them. If a meat product contains the label "natural" the USDA requires that a product must be void of artificial coloring, flavors, preservatives or additives. Some chicken is injected with a saline and seaweed extract solution to increase its weight, yet still caries the "100 percent natural" label on it. Are we getting 100 percent natural chicken, or are we getting chicken with 100 percent natural additives? The label is very deceiving and can be used very loosely.

When the term "natural" appears on a label of products other than meat, there is no clear definition of that term. When looking at a cereal box labeled "100 percent natural," consumers may find upon inspection that is not really true. While the cereal contains natural rolled oats, almonds, honey and raisins, it also contains partially hydrogenated cottonseed and/or soybean oil, an artificially produced ingredient that is chemically altered. How believable is the label 100 percent natural when it contains something that is certainly not natural?

Other labels can be just as deceiving.

The label "free-range" or "free-roaming," may not be what you would expect. When first reading the label one might think the animal walks about a farm freely and is not exposed to harm. This label is very misleading as sometimes "free-range" refers only to the option that is given to the animals to walk about. Frequently, this option is limited to only a few minutes each day. Aside from the deception of such a label, what is the purpose? Are free-range meats and eggs that much better? Or, is it just trying to capitalize on a consumer group that thinks they are getting a more natural product?

With the lack of any restrictions from the USDA for labels other than "organic," companies and organizations have started to make their own. Third party, non-profit organizations are creating regulations and certifications for produce and other food products.

One such organization is the Food Alliance, which has created a certification program for sustainable produce and food products that farmers and producers use environmentally and socially responsible practices. To receive certification from the Food Alliance, a farmer must provide safe and fair working conditions and ensure healthy and humane care of livestock. In addition, no hormones, antibiotics or pesticides may be used in the production of the products. Farmers must also be environmentally friendly by conserving water and resources and protecting wildlife. Other organizations following the same type of program include the Rainforest Alliance and California

While these and other organizations are promoting environmentally friendly practices and providing consumers with a more natural product, they are only adding more confusion for the everyday shopper. With each organization adding its own stamp of approval with a label, how are consumers to decipher the difference and make a better choice?

Consumers will be further confused when companies put labels on their products that imply a natural or organic product, but in reality may be very far from both. Labels that claim to be "healthy grown," "pure," and "wholesome," may still be produced conventionally, without a significant change of process or ingredients.

With the mass confusion of labels in the food industry consumers must ask themselves if it really matters. Are the organically or naturally produced products on the market substantially better for you than those produced conventionally?

In December 2006, the Mayo Clinic released a study done on the differences of conventional and organic products. According to the study the Mayo Clinic could find no evidence that shows organic food is more nutritious in any way than the produce or products produced with conventional methods. While the study did find the organic fruits and vegetables were void of pesticides, they did note that most experts agree that the amount of pesticides found on conventionally grown produce was a very small health risk.

The Mayo Clinic study did not find any evidence that supporting foods tasting any better than conventionally produced products. They did, however, state that the one benefit organic food had was its effect on the environment. Which raises an important question, should we buy organically grown food for the benefit of our health, or because it benefits the environment?

With a better understanding of food labels the next time you are walking up and down the supermarket aisle, consider your options. Understand that not all labels are made equal, and that sometimes they are not what they seem to be. Read the ingredients to know what you are really getting. Do not be fooled by the many masks that food labels may wear.

NW
RB