What Does "Natural" Mean?

 Dictionary.com defines natural as "not artificial" or "having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives." When I think of "natural" I think of things "as Nature made them" - a tree, a flower, an apple, a bunch of carrots. I can recognize natural products in more or less their original form and can usually figure out whether they're good for me or instead pose some kind of threat (think "natural" poison ivy).

Businesses have long appreciated how much they have to gain by marketing their goods as "natural." It's why they've plastered the word all over products that, ironically, couldn't be farther from their natural state...like "natural" cheese puffs, crayola-colored gummy worms, ice cream that contains partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cocoa processed with alkali, and cleansers, soaps, toothpaste, and make-up that contain lye or lead.

Products like these slide by as "natural" because no law prevents any manufacturer or retailer from claiming they are (unlike the label "organic," which is strictly defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and whose use is policed by both the federal government and consumer groups.) That's why I and many other consumer advocates encourage shoppers to ignore words like natural, earth-friendly, or something else equally appealing but ambiguous. There's no way to know what they really mean.

The Natural Products Association wants to clarify the debate. The group, which represents more than 10,000 retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors of natural foods, dietary supplements, and health/beauty aids has issued a Natural Products Association Standard and Certification for Home Care Products like household cleaners, laundry detergents, and concentrated and ready to use hard-surface cleaners (they've previously issued a similar standard for personal care products). Only products certified under the standard can bear the NPA natural home care seal, which is supposed to signal to consumers that the product can be trusted.

Can it? Or is the standard just a clever attempt by companies better known for harsh and toxic ingredients to greenwash their products and cash in on the "natural" craze?

Dr. Cara Welch, NPA's Program Coordinator for Science and Regulatory Affairs, said the standard was borne out of "genuine concern by traditional natural-based businesses that the word "natural" had lost its meaning." As more and more mainstream companies have begun using "natural" to describe their products, Welch said NPA "wanted to challenge every company to keep all ingredients as close to nature as possible." In other words, NPA wanted to set a meaningful bar that was higher than what many companies might set for themselves while helping consumers make the right choice when they shop.

It's a step in the right direction.

• Products certified by the NPA can can contain no parabens, phthalates, petrochemical ingredients or formaldehyde.
• They must also be free of synthetic fragrances and colorances (though they may still contain anti-bacterials like triclosan which have been linked to antibiotic resistance in people and deformities in frogs and other wildlife.)
• They may not contain more than 5% synthetic ingredients and those ingredients may not be toxic to human health according to information checked against data bases maintained by the National Institutes of Health and Environmental Working Group, among others.
• They may not be processed using harsh ingredients and may not generate harsh by-products (though the word "harsh" is somewhat ambiguous).

But is it enough? No.

Why not?

• The standard is not mandatory. Only companies who want to get certified will. There's still nothing to prevent those that don't from continuing to use -- and abuse -- the word "natural."
• The standard does not reflect the product's entire life cycle,  which includes the environmental and human health impacts of manufacturing, energy use, waste, and disposal in addition to ingredients. As Mary Hunt has frequently pointed out, standards that focus on single attributes create a false sense of well-being about the entire product. But given how much we now know about resource depletion, water scarcity, climate change and packaging impact, how genuine is it to promote a standard that only focuses on ingredients?
• The standard has been developed by those who have the most to gain from it financially - the manufacturers and retailers of "natural" consumer products. There was little or no input from independent third parties, whether consumers or scientists not paid by NPA or its members.  Is this a case of the fox guarding the henhouse? Lack of consumer representation is a growing concern as more and more industry standards abound; businesses should take a look at the opinions posted by the members of the Green Moms Carnival if they have any doubts that they ignore consumer input at their own peril.
• It's almost impossible to understand the ingredients that NPA considers natural or a non-toxic, permissible synthetic. An orange, consumers get. The tocopherol that's a derivative of Vitamin E? What the heck is that? If NPA is going to list ingredients, it should at least explain what they actually are.

Dr. Welch said that the standard is a work in progress and will get stronger over time. But why wait to adopt several changes that would immediately address consumers' concerns?

• Invite consumers and independent scientists to participate in setting the standard, not just the retailers and manufacturers who have so much to gain financially from legitimizing their use of the word natural.
• Make it mandatory. Of course, this would mean that the federal government or enough state governments would have to step in to legally define what natural means. But until they do, marketers will continue to greenwash their products using the word natural, whether they're NPA-certified or not.
• Make it popular. Until NPA issued this standard for natural home care products, I had no idea the association had previously issued a standard for personal care products. NPA and its certified partners need to use public media and social networks to make sure consumers know what to look for when they shop.
• Get rid of antibacterials. Dr. Welch said that antibacterials continue to be allowed due to "health and safety issues" raised by manufacturers. Consumers and public health officials would argue it is healthier and safer to reduce the public's exposure to the antibacterials permitted in NPA's "natural" products.
• Expand the standard so that it includes the life cycle of the entire product. NPA should take its cues from the Sustainability Consortium and expand its standard beyond ingredients. Consumers want and deserve a "complete package" - one that is safe from the inside out. NPA -- and any company or industry that's thinking about setting its own standard -- should aspire to that goal.

Comments

[Mindful Momma]

As a consumer, I desperately want a standard that I can trust and feel good about in every way. I do believe that the NPA standard is a step in the right direction but you bring up a very good point that the entire product life cycle is not part of the evaluation. And I couldn't agree more that consumer input should be part of these standards - DUH!! Thanks for this very thought-provoking discussion on natural products Diane!

[Mary]

Thank you for using this example as a way to explain the complexity of the issue and also one of the biggest solutions - bringing in the voice of the consumer early on in the standard making process.

[greenhouse]

absolutely, these are best tips on account of consumer conerns

[Carolyn Parrs]

I am with you Diane. A recent survey revealed that American consumers believe that a natural product is a better indicator of an eco-friendly product than “organic”.

This makes me shake my head and stomp my feet. The truth is there are absolutely no regulations in place when it comes to using the word “natural”. You can have a mere 1% of your ingredients as “natural” and still say that your product is natural. Sad but true.

As for organic food, there are strict government standards in place in order to place “certified organic” on your label. Unfortunately, when it comes to other product categories such as personal care products, the word “organic” is misused because HABA (Health and Beauty Aids) is a self regulated industry. No wonder the American public is confused. And no wonder nearly two-thirds of the consumers in this study answered “don’t know/not sure” when asked, “How do you know a product is green?”

What’s worse is that some companies out there that are so called “committed” to organic food are capitalizing on consumer cluelessness. Horizon Dairy (sorry to point my finger), the largest organic milk brand in America, announced its intention to launch a line of natural (not organic) yogurts and milk products aimed at toddlers and their confused mommies. These products will be produced “conventionally” (code for: with pesticides and herbicides) but according to the company “without added growth hormones, artificial colors, flavors or preservatives and no high fructose corn syrup.”

So yeah, the product will be cheaper because you cannot find organic anything on factory farms. But Mom, don’t confuse this natural claim with the healthier, safer, more nutritious food you get with organics. Because it’s not.

– Carolyn Parrs

www.womenofgreen.com
www.greenmarketingblog.com
www.mindovermarkets.com

[Greener Every Day]

This a great blog post--informative, thought-provoking and critical.

As much as consumers need protection against marketing slogans that are meaningless at best and deceptive at worst, I think that it's important to be cognizant of the potential downsides of a certification system (mandatory or voluntary).

Organic certification, to which you compare the proposed natural certification, has had some negative as well as positive impacts. For one, small organic farms that do not certify--because of the paperwork and money involved--can no longer call themselves organic farms. This is confusing for consumers and I think has helped set up the somewhat misleading opposition between local and organic (as in: which is better, local or organic? Obviously you want both local and organic/sustainably grown!).

Michale Pollan fans are also well aware of the ironies and the sins of "big organic." Something has gone wrong when vast monocultures of lettuce can be certified organic--these megafarms may follow the letter of the law but monocultures are devastating for soil health whether they're sustained by chemical or natural means.

Does this mean that it's better to have no standard at all? No, I think some standard is probably better than no standard. But I do think it helps to keep in mind the potential downsides of standards and work to minimize them. Per your suggestion, incorporating consumers into the process of crafting the standard would certainly help with this.

Thanks again.

[Shawna Coronado]

Thanks Diane for the informative post.
Best yet!

[Kristen]

This is probably the best example I have seen on the net regarding a natural explanation to this process. It is the most confusing subject out there and people are just not informed. That you for publishing this.

[Diane MacEachern]

Thank you!

[Beth Terry @ Fake Plastic Fish]

Hi Diane. Just finished reading Heather Rogers's new book Green Gone Wrong, and in it she advocates the new "Certified Naturally Grown" certification which was formed in response to what small organic farmers saw as the inadequacy of the USDA organic standards. The fee is also much lower, so small farmers can afford to pay it.

Do you know anything about this standard? I thought of this post since you talk about the word "natural."

[Diane MacEachern]

Beth,

I've read the standards they have on their website but haven't had a chance to compare them to the organic standards. I was hoping the Obama stimulus plan would include subsidies to small farmers so they could get certified organic; that hasn't happened yet, but I think it's worth pressing for. Maybe the Organic Consumers Association has done the analysis - or better yet, Consumer Reports.

[alje]

All natural or organic??? I feel organic can be extremely misleading. It;s appalling what is considered to be organic these day.

[Diane MacEachern]

Actually, right now the word "natural" is more misleading, since there is no official definition. At least, organic is defined by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. That said, it is confusing to see non-food items labeled organic. But anything produced from plants can be made from organic materials (e.g., organic cotton, organic hemp, organically produced wood). can be labeled organic if it is grown according to USDA standards.

[Leonie]

I agree with you fully, if these companies want to call their products natural then it should be regulated, especially with so many people being concerned over this aspect. They shouldn't be allowed to just cash in on peoples worries over our world.

[vintage fishing lures]

Nice and interesting post you got here. I agree with this. Everything nowadays isn't natural. I think everything around us including food should be all organic and natural.

[Forever Living]

Forever Living Products has come up with a great number of natural wellness and beauty products produced by their own firm. They have established their regional offices more than 150 countries around the word and over 9.5 million people are experiencing the benefits of Forever Living’s natural products.