Sign the Petition:
Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

OCA News Sections

Organic Consumers Association

Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define "Natural" with Respect to Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) Foods

  • By Lynn C. Tyler, M.S., Hae Park-Suk, Crystal T. Williams, Joan L. Long, and Olivia Fleming
    The National Law Review, August 2, 2013
    Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Natural Foods page.

Three federal district court judges have recently requested the FDA to state whether the terms "natural" or "all natural" can be used to refer to foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending consumer class actions over the term. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma's use of "all natural" on its tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending the FDA's response to Judge Rogers's request. Most recently, in Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case pending the FDA's response.

These cases are potentially important because there are many pending consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of some variant of the term "all natural" is proper in light of one of more ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of suit for the plaintiffs' bar. Thus, the FDA's response to the request by these courts, and the courts' further actions based on the response, could resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.

It is often said that the FDA does not have a definition of "natural." There is reason to question this common wisdom. As noted in one of our Alerts from December 2011, it is true that the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register in 1993 stating that it declined to adopt a definition of "natural." It is equally true, however, that at the end of that same notice the FDA stated that it planned to maintain "its current policy  not to restrict the use of the term 'natural' except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors as provided in [21 C.F.R.]  101.22. Additionally, the agency will maintain its policy  regarding the use of 'natural,' as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food."   


>>> Read the Full Article

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords: