Food labeling gets murky on meaning of 'natural' term
23 October 2026
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not issued a formal, binding definition of "natural" to regulate food labeling. Instead, the agency relies on a 1993 policy stating that "natural" means the food does not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients.
This informal policy has left significant ambiguity. The FDA does not address food production methods, like pesticide use or genetic modification, or processing techniques. A 2015-2016 public comment period yielded no formal definition.
Consumer and industry surveys show strong demand for clearer standards. Yet the FDA chose not to restrict "natural" claims or pursue a formal rule. As a result, "natural" remains undefined, unlike terms like "organic" or "healthy".
No federal standard for what's 'natural'
The FDA's longstanding policy on "natural" food labeling has held that the term means nothing artificial or synthetic has been added to the food. Essentially, "natural" conveys that the food does not contain artificial colors, flavors, or ingredients.
However, this official non-definition does not address many crucial aspects of food production and processing. The FDA policy was "not intended to address food production methods such as the use of pesticides" or whether a product was genetically engineered, the FDA states.
Other food labeling terms, like those defining peanut butter or juice, avert confusion through legally enforceable standards of identity. These rules set out requirements for ingredients, additive limits, and more. In contrast, "natural" labeling rests only on FDA's informal policy.
Public understanding of "natural" varies widely. FSIS and FDA have repeatedly sought input on the term, but have not reached consensus. In 2009, USDA's FSIS requested comments on conditions for voluntary "natural" claims on meat and poultry, acknowledging lack of consensus. Most commenters found no common ground on how to define "natural".
Industry urges sweeping change to 'natural' policy
"Natural" labeling has become increasingly litigious and confusing, with significant litigation focused on synthetic ingredients in "natural" products. Shifting regulation could help clarify the term's meaning.
Commenters pressed the FDA to clarify "natural" for companies and consumers. Some suggested limiting the term to raw commodities, or to foods made only with ingredients that are not synthetically produced. No FDA definition applies today.
Animal-welfare groups like the Humane Society of the United States have argued the FDA should prohibit growth hormones, routine antibiotics, and practices restricting natural behaviors in products labeled "natural." However, regulators have not imposed any of these limitations.
The FDA has not ruled out future standardizing actions. It has said it will consider any comments in review and development of a potential rulemaking. However, its actions indicate the matter has not moved forward, at least not recently.
'Natural' labeling wields marketing power, means little legally
The continued lack of definition makes it unclear what "natural" on a label actually signifies. It does not necessarily mean the food was produced with humane animal practices, is non-GMO, or is free of certain synthetic additives.
However, "natural" still influences consumer purchasing decisions, and is used heavily in marketing. One industry survey found that 63% of companies wanted the FDA to adopt a formal "natural" standard. Lower than one percent thought the FDA's 1993 policy was sufficient.
Some consumer health experts warn that the "natural" label itself, even if clarified, should not be relied upon as a guarantee of overall health. Unlike labels like "organic" or "healthy", FDA's "natural" policy is not a nutrient content claim.
Today, the FDA states that it has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition, and that the 1993 policy remains in place. Until the agency takes definitive action on the issue, the definition of "natural" on food products is set to remain informal.