Stop claiming calcium lactate and glucose-fructose syrup are 'natural' ingredients, ASA rules

© iStock/Happiestsim

Children’s drink manufacturer Appy Food & Drinks has been told to stop referring to its juice as “100%” natural as they contain calcium lactate and glucose-fructose syrup by the UK’s advertising watchdog.

There is no legally binding definition of the term natural in the European Union, but the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) used guidance notes published by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) on criteria for using terms such as natural and pure to assess the complaint, which was filed by a food law consultant.

The FSA guidance states: "The term ‘natural’ without qualification should be used ... to describe single foods, of a traditional nature, to which nothing has been added

and which have been subjected only to such processing as to render them suitable for human consumption."

The document also provides guidance for compound foods that are made from more than one ingredient, stating “[they] should not themselves be described directly or by implication as ‘natural’, but it is acceptable to describe such foods as ‘made from natural ingredients’ if all the ingredients meet the criteria”.

Natural processes?

When approached by the ASA, Appy said calcium lactate is a salt obtained through a natural fermentation process with lactic acid bacteria, and that it occurs naturally in dairy products. It is widely used to make yoghurt and other products.

The London-based company also said glucose-fructose syrup is obtained through hydrolysis of the starch contained within corn using an enzyme, a biological catalyst that could be found in the natural world.

For these reasons, it believed the ingredients had been obtained using natural processes, and therefore the products could be described as natural.

These arguments did not pass muster with the advertising regulator, however, which found the juice manufacturer in breach of the advertising code on two fronts.

Firstly, because the juices are not ‘single foods’ and, secondly, because the two ingredients in question fall outside the permitted processes in the FSA guidance on natural as they applied to individual ingredients of compound foods.

“We therefore considered they did not comply with consumer expectations of foods described as “natural”. For those reasons, we concluded that the claim ‘we ONLY make 100% natural products’ had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading,” it said, ruling the claim must not appear in its current form again.

Appy has now changed the wording on its packaging to comply with the ruling but it doesn't believe it has misled the public.

"Appy Food and Drinks products are made with natural ingredients and we did not have any doubts in calling them 'natural' since we do not use any artificial sweeteners, colourings or flavorings and also fill them without the need for artificial preservatives.

"We do not think it was misleading from a consumer point of view until [the] ASA pointed out it could be from a legal definition of the word." 

What does 'natural' mean? The US is deciding...should Europe?

In May last year, US regulators at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began the process of sifting through thousands of comments on what the term natural means after the submissions period inviting stakeholders and the general public to send in their opinions closed.

It faces a myriad of opposing views and a mammoth task.

The Natural Products Association argued (surprisingly) that foods derived from biotech crops should qualify for a 'natural' label while The Organic Trade Association (OTA) said: “The term 'natural' should not be used on food labels. Instead we urge FDA to focus its efforts on identifying and defining the ‘single attribute’ claims that may be used on food labels (no artificial colours or flavours).”

Tracy Molyneux, a member of the general public, said: “Food made by God is natural. Food made by a chemical company in the lab is not natural.”

Ivan Wasserman, food lawyer at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, told our sister publication FoodNavigator-USA that answering the question 'what is natural?' was simply too difficult.

"This is truly a no-win situation for the FDA," he said.

A spokesperson for Appy said: "We do believe there is confusion in food manufacturing in considering what is natural and what it is not. At the moment we want to create better products for children than what there is already on the market. It seems odd that we get accused of creating non natural products, while out there consumers think that drinking juices with 'zero sugars, zero calories' - due to the use of artificial ingredients - is healthier than ones with low quantities of natural sugars.

"We believe that if there is a regulation for the use of 'natural', there should be also a regulation on the use of artificial ingredients and the claims that can be made on packaging especially for the consequences on people's health."

bike trail guide

Related News

VK Facebook advert banned for ‘promoting unwise drinking styles’

VK Facebook advert banned for ‘promoting unwise drinking styles’

The only surefire way to restore consumer trust and stop the deluge of lawsuits over ‘natural’ claims would be to ditch the term altogether, or define what it actually means, says the CSPI

CSPI: ‘A ‘natural’ definition would not be perfect, but we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of the good’

Euromonitor: Industry needs to act now to unify natural and organic definition

All-natural... But what does it mean?

POLL results: We need a clearer definition of natural... and the FDA should come up with it

Not great for the waistline... but it's 'all-natural'...

Poll: Do we need a clearer definition of ‘natural’?

Will the ‘processed food’ definition in Prop 37 really kill off ‘natural’ claims on pack?

Will the ‘processed food’ definition in Prop 37 really kill off ‘natural’ claims on pack?

Comments (3)

Dan Ky - 20 Mar 2017 | 01:55

Whats natural?

Appy's claims are ridiculous. How about calling radioactive apples natural? Radioactivity is also happening in nature, so should we call it natural? There are certain features of products and processes that we consider natural. I agree that they are not easy to define, but it is not as simple as "anything that could be found in the natural world".

20-Mar-2017 at 13:55 GMT

Tony Bob - 10 Mar 2017 | 01:11

Natural guidance is ideal

The phrase in the FSA guidance that 'natural' should mean 'only processed enough to make it suitable for consumption' is ideal (and based on consumer research). I don't agree all juices aren't natural provided they are just that, juiced fruit - no heat treatment, no additives or preservatives, no extracts - just squashed fruit. The complaint from the company that there is not confusion in food manufacturing may be right, but it's the consumer who gets misled and marketers know this hence 'natural' sells products.

10-Mar-2017 at 13:11 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.