'Natural' needs to be defined
For my first column I can't resist ranting about the use of the word 'natural' to describe foods and ingredients.
The Daily Telegraph reports that the word 'natural' appeared on almost a quarter of all food and drink products launched in the UK during 2008 - a 9% rise on 2007.
At Leatherhead Food International we still have huge demand from the industry to help replace synthetic additives and flavours with natural additives or natural/nature-identical flavours in a bid to keep the food label clean. It appears consumers want both cheap and natural.
But with the absence of a legal definition and an (arguably) gold-plated set of guidance notes from the Food Standards Agency, when can food manufacturers claim that their ingredients are natural?
All foods are made of chemicals. So are we. Therefore the constant barrage of abuse for foods loaded with 'chemicals' from pressure groups is idiotic! The real difference is between synthetic chemicals (like tartrazine and butylated hydroxyanisole) and natural substances (like carotenoids and vitamin C). Two quite different colour/antioxidant combos.
So in my opinion, a more sensible definition of the term 'natural' is required for the food industry. As an ex-public analyst, I know it's tempting to take a hard line on such definitions 'to protect the public'. But if we took an extreme view, only raw plants and wild animals could be deemed truly natural food sources. That's daft. Even an apple may bear low, and legal, levels of pesticide! Does that make it synthetic?
So here's my starter for 10. I would define a natural food ingredient as 'any edible chemical that could reasonably expect to be found in its natural state in the environment before or after recognised treatments' (the term, treatments is to be defined).
What do you think? The debate continues ...
Dr Paul Berryman
Chief executive officer Leatherhead Food International
