Supermarket shelves are crowded with products vying for consumer attention, and labels play a powerful role in what ends up in our shopping carts. But a new USDA report is sounding the alarm the word “natural” on food packaging often means far less than shoppers believe, and its use can be deeply misleading.
According to market research, 72% of Americans say packaging influences their food choices, and nearly a third are more likely to buy items boasting “sustainable” or “clean label” credentials. Food manufacturers are well aware, using claims like “USDA organic,” “non-GMO,” and “free of preservatives” to entice buyers. Some terms, like “USDA Organic” or “raised without antibiotics,” have strict standards that must be met. But when it comes to the label “natural,” things get much murkier.
A recent USDA Economic Research Service report reveals just how slippery the “natural” label really is. Currently, there is no official USDA or FDA definition for “natural,” “all natural,” or “made with natural ingredients.” The only requirements are that no artificial ingredients or colors be added, and the food must be minimally processed but these rules do not guarantee anything about health benefits, the use of pesticides, animal welfare, or farming practices.
This gap between regulation and consumer expectation is a problem. Studies show shoppers routinely misinterpret “natural” as meaning much more than it does. Many believe natural-labeled foods are healthier, lower in calories, produced without hormones or antibiotics, or meet higher standards for animal welfare and environmental care none of which is required by law for a product to be labeled as natural.
- In a 2017 survey, people thought foods labeled “natural” had 18% fewer calories.
- A 2010 study found shoppers assumed “all natural” meats meant no hormones or antibiotics were used and sometimes even believed the animals were raised free range.
- In 2022, 89% of buyers of “natural” products did so believing it meant better animal welfare, and 78% paid more expecting improved environmental standards.
- Consumers are willing to pay up to 20% more for products with a “natural” label, equating them with the stricter USDA Organic certification, even though the requirements are not at all the same.
These misconceptions have real consequences. Food companies that meet rigorous organic or animal welfare standards may find themselves competing against products that only claim to be “natural” but do not actually offer the same benefits. As a result, consumers may pay more for products that do not meet their expectations, while truly sustainable producers struggle to compete.
The USDA report sums up the economic problem: consumers could be spending extra on product attributes they are not actually receiving, and those producers who do invest in higher standards may lose out on sales. This can undermine genuine efforts to improve health, animal welfare, and environmental stewardship all because of a label that sounds good but promises little.
