Erik Benny · July 2012
80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1504 (2012)
Consumer demand for “natural” food and beverage products has never been higher. In response to this demand, U.S. companies have made “natural” the most frequently used descriptive claim on new U.S. food products. Yet, despite the immense importance placed on this term, “natural” has no legal meaning. The FDA has not exercised its authority over product labeling to officially define the term, but instead issued an informal and unbinding definition of “natural” that has led to consumer confusion, food and beverage industry uncertainty, and countless lawsuits across the country. The most recent lawsuits have been brought against companies whose products are labeled “natural” and contain Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMO”). GMOs have changed the world of food production and now represent a major portion of America’s food supply.
As the extent of GMOs in the market and consumer demand for “natural” products simultaneously continue to increase, the time is ripe for FDA interpretation. Absent FDA action, food and beverage companies will continue to be placed in a no-win situation and judges across the country will eventually be forced to define “natural,” potentially resulting in several inconsistent and unworkable definitions. This Essay argues that the FDA should initiate notice and comment rulemaking to define “natural” and that, when it does, consistency and predictability dictate that the term include products containing GMOs.
