FDA says HFCS cannot claim to be “natural”
April 2, 2008
According to Food Navigator, the FDA says it’s too busy to deal with the question of whether high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) can be labeled as “all natural,” something the Sugar Association and Sara Lee would dearly love to be allowed to do. This non-action, in effect, is the FDA’s way of just saying no. HFCS, as the FDA points out, requires enzymes to break starch into glucose and to convert some of the glucose to fructose, and that ain’t necessarily natural. The Sugar Association is “deeply disappointed” in the FDA’s decision. Why am I not surprised?
Found this statement from the Corn Refiners Association, dated April 2:
WASHINGTON, DC – A comment today by a single Food & Drug Administration employee regarding whether High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is “natural” was mistakenly portrayed by an online news outlet as the official position of the agency, but actually reflects only the personal view of that one employee who was responding to a reporter’s question.
In fact, the official FDA position on products made with HFCS is unchanged, and those products can be described as “natural” under current regulations. The Food & Drug Administration Regulations clearly state that a comment by an employee does not constitute an advisory opinion and does not obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.
HFCS, like table sugar and honey, is natural. It is made from corn, a natural grain product. HFCS contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives and meets FDA’s requirements for the use of the term “natural.”
- ### -
21 C.F.R. 10.85(k) states: A statement made or advice provided by an FDA employee constitutes an advisory opinion only if it is issued in writing under this section. A statement or advice given by an FDA employee orally, or given in writing but not under this section or 10.90, is an informal communication that represents the best judgment of that employee at that time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.
Comment by Scott — April 2, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Hmmm, if the FDA says HFCS cannot claim to be “all natural”, then agave syrup can’t use that claim either. The very high fructose content in agave syrup is also made from an enzymatic process. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the agave syrup industry worked with the corn syrup industry to keep the FDA from ruling against the “natural” label?
Comment by Anna — April 2, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Good point, Anna. Is all agave syrup produced with enzymes, though?
No matter. Why not do away with the label term ‘natural’ (and others.) It can not be defined and, as with all health claims and health related label terms, their real value is in selling products, not educating consumers.
All foods in the grocery store are processed in some way, even most apples and oranges were grown using pesticides and the residues often remain, as we all know. And as far as using enzymes to re-arrange sugars as in HFCS, where is the line? Bacteria do the same thing, yet do we think of yogurt this way?
Comment by Kati — April 2, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
And plastic is natural since it comes from oil right?
So let’s eat it!
Comment by Daniel Ithaca,NY — April 3, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Along the same lines as Anna and Kati, bees produce honey through an enzymatic process, yet honey has a mystique as a health food when it’s just sugar like HFCS with trace nutrients.
Comment by Sean — April 3, 2008 @ 7:42 am
What I found odd is that this story claims “FDA says…” when all they have is an e-mail from a bureaucrat whose job is not to make or announce policy. Saying “An FDA employee says…” is a world apart from “FDA says…” The writing comes across as either uninformed about FDA procedures or being in somebody’s pocket.
Comment by Jessica — April 4, 2008 @ 9:00 am
BUT, for instance, organic honey doesn’t have genetically-modified enzymes added…
More on the subject from Wikipedia’s entry on HFCS:
“In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) threatened to file a lawsuit against Cadbury Schweppes for labeling 7 Up as “All Natural”[38] or “100% Natural”,[39] despite containing high-fructose corn syrup. While the U.S. FDA has no definition of “natural”, CSPI claims that HFCS is not a “natural” ingredient due to the high level of processing and the use of at least one genetically modifed (GMO) enzyme required to produce it.[40] On January 12, 2007, Cadbury Schweppes agreed to stop calling 7 Up “All Natural.”[41] They now call it “100% Natural Flavors.”[42]
Snapple (another Cadbury-Schweppes brand) is well-known for being labeled “all-natural”, but most varieties contain HFCS. Newman’s Own Lemonade and Limeade are labeled as “all-natural” but also contain HFCS. Bread produced by Nature’s Own Bread is labeled as having “no artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors”, though some varieties contain HFCS [4]. Still, as the U.S. FDA has no general definition of “natural”, a company may refer to its product as “all natural”, regardless of the ingredients, in most cases. However, FDA does prohibit beverages purporting to contain juice with less than 100% juice from using phrases like 100% natural and 100% pure. 21 CFR 101.35(l) This might apply to 7UP based on vignettes of lemon, lime, or other fruit which could be construed as purporting to contain juice.”
Comment by S — April 4, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
[…] you can see from the comments on the previous post, questions remain about whether a statement by an FDA official to FoodNavigator about the […]
Pingback by What to Eat » More on the FDA and “Natural” — April 8, 2008 @ 9:25 am
What I found odd is that this story claims “FDA says…” when all they have is an e-mail from a bureaucrat whose job is not to make laptop batteries or announce policy. Saying “An FDA employee says…” is a world apart from “FDA says…” The writing comes across as either uninformed about FDA procedures or being in somebody’s pocket.
Comment by laptop battery — August 29, 2008 @ 5:37 am
This is what I wrote to the CRA (corn refiners association) today. This is in response their NEW stance that HFCS IS natural (suddenly!) in July 2008:
It is funny that you (CRA) are feeling heady about this ruling. Your $30 million dollar ad campaign is a joke. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. American’s in the health industry are WARNING their patients about HFCS. It happens everyday across America, in hundreds of medical offices. Your cat is out of the bag. HFCS is EVIL! You are promoting a chemical that is KILLING AMERICANS. How do you sleep at night? This is chemical warfare. You should be arrested. It is not “natural” and you know this. It is not “found” in nature, it is chemically processed. You paid the FDA. The FDA has very little funding from the government because industries like yours “pay” the FDA under the guise of grants and research. I will still wear my “HFCS is Evil” to Publix and to public events. I have enjoyed educating several thousand people over the past 5 years about this evil. Good luck in your pathetic attempt to paint a smiley face on a devil!
Comment by Amy — September 3, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Amy, I just absolutely LOVE you for your comment!! I’ve been trying to inform my family about HFCS, but I’m very uninformed about it myself so they just think I’m a pessimist trying to ruin their lives. All I know if that it’s bad for you and I wont dare put it in my body. Do you know of a website that I could forward on to my nay-saying-family-members that would spell out in a kindergardener’s concept of why HFCS is wrong and “Evil”???
Comment by Cindy W. — October 21, 2008 @ 10:12 am