10/17

I believe that the term "natural" is so misunderstood by the public that it should be BANNED from use on food packaging. I think that if companies want to label a food item (whether processed or a grain or meat or fruit/vegetable item), it should be labeled with a specific and accurate label such as: no artificial color or no high fructose corn syrup or no artificial ingredients or no growth hormones or no antibiotics or no pesticides or no GMO (genetically modified organisms).

I know that manufacturers would prefer to use one word because it saves them on labeling and it makes for an easy and catchy advertisement. However, the fact that no one understands what specific words like "natural" mean indicates that such words should NOT be used. And no one is forcing them to put any labels on their food about the '"naturalness" of it. If they think it will improve their sales to add such labels, then they should be forced to tell the public exactly what the food is or isn't.

One reason I don't believe the FDA should come up with a specific outline of what "natural" means is that exactly what the public cares about in their food is a moving target. The public wants to know different things every year AND our understanding about what is important continues to change. For instance, if the FDA had come up with a definition of natural 20 years ago, it wouldn't have included anything about GMO or growth hormones because those weren't hot topics at the time.

If manufacturers want to benefit from such labels, force them to be specific about what their food is or isn't. Don't allow them to just slap an overall label onto it.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

—Mary Petrofsky (health professional)