Facts About Food Labels and Health Claims.

When purchasing packaged food, it has become common for terms such as “ natural “, or “ organic “ to distinguish and or elevate a product in environmental or health terms; according to a survey conducted by Consumer Reports, most consumers search for products with such titles. Despite this, many of these terms are not regulated and are used in instances which most consumers would not define as “ free range “ or “ natural “. 

With increasing concerns among shoppers for food’s sources and environmental qualities, many packaged foods use terms associated with greater health, such as “ whole grain “; in particular, food marketed to individuals with environmental concerns use this terminology or phrases. However, these terms are often not regulated or widely understood by shoppers; the term “ natural “ has especially been criticized by consumer protection groups, largely because it is legally meaningless and is therefore used in without discretion. For example, food having been sprayed with pesticides and containing Genetically Modified Organisms ( GMOs ) can and is often referred to as “ Natural “. When Consumer Reports analyzed four packaged foods designated as natural, chemically derived preservatives, a possibly carcinogenic food colouring and controversial genetically modified corn were all found. Despite this, most consumers consider “ Natural “ designations synonymous with the “ Organic “ designation; the Organic designation however is governed by the USDA, under which enforced standards apply.

Other common designations found in meat products, such as chicken and beef can also be misleading and are often also meaningless and considered misrepresentative without independent certification. These certifications are often accompanied by terms such as “ approved “, “ partnership “, or “ certified “.

The term “ grass fed “ is often used in the instance of beef; however, all cattle by law must be ingest at least some grass, and so the term is not distinguishing; the term   “ 100% grass fed “ is meaningful and guarantees the cattle do not ingest grain.

A similar circumstance exists for poultry, particularly chicken, which is often designated as “ free range “ or a similar title; again, this is unregulated and subsequently many use this designation while providing no realistic chance for the chickens to exit the indoors. Certifications for “ free range “ and “ cage free “ designations exist however and should be weighed exclusively, without regard for the unverified claims.

Even with these certifications, farmers who pass these humanitarian and sanitation standards are not necessarily more environmentally sound; these certifications can also still be obtained for industrial establishments, which are sometimes considered less desirable. Separately, there are sustainable farming certificates, including the controversial but well known Non-GMO Project, which can be better indicators of the sustainability of farms and farming practices. 

Overall, understanding labeling and branding in the food industry can improve ones carbon footprint, but not all labels or certifications are equal, and weighing this terminology accordingly can reduce improve health reduce ones carbon footprint, often to a greater extent than other more common lifestyle changes.

Sources:

https://www.consumerreports.org/food-labeling/health-claims-on-food-labels-whats-true-what-isnt/

https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/peeling-back-the-natural-food-label/

https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research

https://www.elpi.green/how-to-eat-with-less-carbon-impact