The Hunt For "All Natural": Navigating Food Labels

There is no denying that it is more difficult than ever to be truly aware of what we are eating. Reading nutrition labels can be an exercise in frustration, to say the least.

It doesn't help that the food industry takes labels that were originally designed to help consumers make more conscious, informed decisions about their food, and uses them to tart up less than desirable products. Terms like "grass-fed" or "cage free" are often peddled by those who are more interested in getting their slice of the growing organic sector than in actually selling grass-fed or cage free foods, which take considerably more money, effort and time to grow/raise than their conventional counterparts.*

A major part of the problem is that these terms, by and large, are not backed up by any government regulations. And even if the USDA or FDA have defined a term, there are usually some gaping loopholes.

Take, for example, the word "natural". According to Marion Nestle, the FDA has a definition dating back to 1993. According to the FDA, in order to be considered "natural" the food must not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances. As Nestle points out, this means that products like high fructose corn syrup are considered "natural".

Take this as an example. A few weeks ago, I found this "natural" product in the aisle of an organic grocery store in Washington DC:

Turn the bottle over, and what did I see?

Hate to break it to you, guys, but real maple syrup comes out of trees. With organic corn syrup as their first ingredient, I fail to see how this product is "the natural choice", as they claim on the front of the bottle.

This is but one example of a company using such a term in a less-than-appropriate way. So while the folks over at Shady Maple Farms might put a horse-drawn sled cavorting through a snowy maple grove on their bottle, and while the FDA can claim that they are following the letter of the law, I very much question whether their use "natural" is really all that accurate. Not to mention, I'd love to see the "farm" that makes anything with corn syrup as its base. Somehow, I doubt it looks anything like the bucolic scene displayed above.

This is why reading nutrition information is so important, instead of blindly taking everything that's printed on the label at face value.

That being said, Animal Welfare Approved (or AWA) has put out a comprehensive food labeling guide called Food Labels for Dummies, which is available on their website to download for free. Having a good grasp on what food labels and terms you're likely to see, and whether they really mean what they say, is an important first step to understanding exactly what it is we're eating.

So what does all this mean? It means that today, it is harder than ever to be a conscious consumer - if you're buying from grocery stores, that is. In my opinion, the easiest and most conscious way to be sure you're eating food that was raised the way you want it - whether that's organically, free range, "all natural", or what have you - is to grow it yourself or to purchase your food directly from the farmer, either at a farmers market or by purchasing a CSA share.

That doesn't mean that it makes you a terrible person to buy food from a grocery store. It just takes a lot more work to find out where your food came from.





*It's not dissimilar to the fate of the term "gourmet", which once upon a time meant that something was of exceptionally high quality. Now? Not so much.

If We Cantaloupe, Lettuce Eat Gourmet Salad

What is "gourmet"? What does it really mean?*

For me, it evokes a sense of culinary decadence. Pretension, even. I picture a sliver of duck confit garnished with two slices of radish and a candied tulip, drizzled with a tablespoon of mysterious sauce, surrounded by an ocean of empty white plate, and served with a $300 Bordeaux.

On the other end of the spectrum, “gourmet” has suffered the unfortunate, but not uncommon, fate of being used to tart up some very un-gourmet food products in unscrupulous marketing campaigns across the nation. Seeing the word “gourmet” on a label does not guarantee a high quality product these days. Just look at the line up: Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn, Jelly Bellies, and Walmart. Need I say more?

So when Susan decided to sell some “gourmet salad mix” at the Charlottesville farmer’s market last Saturday, I asked about it. What makes her salad “gourmet”?

Her answer: “If it’s good quality and it has some unusual items in it, I think it’s fair to call it gourmet.” 

This particular salad mix was the last of a few rows of lettuce, harvested by yours truly, before they submitted to farm reincarnation (tilling and planting something else). It consisted of a few varieties of baby lettuce, miner’s lettuce, feldsalat, lamb’s quarters**, and some brassica blossoms – arugula and tatsoi, primarily. When arugula and tatsoi go to seed, they shoot out some beautiful yellow flowers that happen to be edible, and make that gourmet salad mix shine. Susan sold out of ours by 10:30.

So I think I’ve arrived at three rules of thumb for creating your own gourmet salad mix.  

Rule number one: Go off the beaten path. Gourmet folks apparently love the unique, the atypical, the curious, and sometimes the just plain weird. Weeds are great for this, especially edible ones. Try some unusual tastes too – toss in some fresh herbs.

Rule number two:  Presentation is everything. To that end, use flowers as garnishes... preferably edible ones. They add color, even though they don’t always taste like much.

Rule number three: I suppose it helps if it tastes good.

So with these rules in mind, I made my own special gourmet salad tonight. (I can’t claim it as my complete intellectual property, though, since I’m basing it off one Susan made last week.) Ingredients: lettuce mix, fresh mint, fresh cilantro, arugula blossoms, and wild violets.

Of course, taking pictures slightly yet artistically askew helps further the correct impression.

*According to Wikipedia, gourmet is “a cultural ideal associated with the culinary arts…characterized by elaborate preparations and presentations of large meals of small, often quite rich courses.” Yes, I fact check with Wikipedia. Climb down off that high horse.

**Miner’s Lettuce is a plant native to California that happens to be edible. It’s a very attractive plant with a cluster of long, elegantly draping stems, each capped with a green diamond-shaped leaf. It’s pretty tasty. Feldsalat, known as “corn salad” in the US, is an edible weed with a nutty sort of taste. At least, so says Susan. I just taste plant. But it was tasty plant. Lamb’s Quarters is another tasty, edible weed. Spotting a trend here?

"You're right in liking meat!" - American Beef Mania continues

The I ♥ Beef! campaign, a snazzy new advertising program that's trying to bolster interest in that most American of products, is definitely not the first time the meat industry has tried to use utter absurdity to beef up (ha) their sales.

I'm not sure what bothers me most about these advertisements. The poor grammer? The perfectly manicured nails that are painted to match the color of raw steak? The fact that it calls pork sausages "tasty little mouthfuls of flavor" and claims they are "cheery eating anytime"?

However creepy the meat advertisements of yore are, the Beef Board is working to counteract that by emphasizing beef's inherent sexiness. According to their beef checkoff-funded consumer market research, 50% of Americans think Filet Mignon is the best way to say "I love you." Oh baby.

Speaking of babies... they need meats too. Meats. Plural.

Happy Nutrition Month! Also included - Dietary Guidelines and I ♥ Beef!

That's right... March is Nutrition Month, brought to you by the American Dietetics Association. It might not be as prestigious as African American History Month or LGBT Pride Month, and it does have to share March with the likes of "Help Fight Liver Disease" Month and National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. So who knows how many people will actually hear about it. But despite sharing the limelight, the ADA has lofty ambitions, and is preparing to bring everyone better nutrition in 2011 with their theme, "Eat Right With Color".

Everyone who has anything to say about nutrition wants Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables. It's old news, really. When the USDA released the 2010 Dietary Guidelines on January 31st, no one was shocked to read that they want us to fill up on produce.

Now, I know I'm a little late to be talking about the 2010 Dietary Guidelines a month after the fact. They've already been picked over by experts and bloggers with far more insight than I - Marion Nestle is everyone's go-to girl for all things food policy related, and La Vida Locovore did a very nice job boiling down what all those experts seem to be saying. FoodNavigator.com also did a series of articles on the aftermath of the guidelines, compiled here by Marion Nestle.

Regardless. Here are my humble observations:

1. Everyone is happy that the USDA is telling us to eat more fruits and veg (at least half your plate, they say), but in our consumerism-dominated culture, telling anyone to eat more poses no problems. It's when you say to eat less that people start getting snarky, which leads me to...
2. In their own roundabout way, the USDA did say to eat less red meat. But they sidestepped it by couching it in euphamisms like "saturated fat" and "SOFAS", which stands for "solid fats and added sugars". This spares them the anger of the formidable meat industry, but just adds confusion for everyone else. 
3. Most of the reactions I read are lukewarm. The guidelines get a passing grade, but definitely not A+ material. Most responses point out that the USDA did state more explicitly than ever that obesity is indeed a problem, they did say we need to decrease our salt intake, and they did say we need to increase our fruit/veg consumption. But still a failure so far as reining in the food industry is concerned, or telling us point-blank what foods to avoid.

What I found especially interesting is that mere weeks after the USDA released these new guidelines, the UK health agency released a warning to limit red and processed meat consumption to 3 ounces or less per day, after it has been linked to bowel cancer. And they actually said "red meat" and "processed meat". How quaint, using actual words to describe things. Don't they know acronyms are the way of the future? Those silly Brits.

To add insult to injury, the American Heart Association has announced a partnership with the Beef Board (a program that markets beef, controlled by the USDA of all people), where they will endorse certain cuts of lean beef as "heart healthy". As Marion Nestle (her again!) said, at least this seems to be a slightly more considered choice than their endorsement of certain sugary breakfast cereals. Slightly.

And because everyone needs a fabulous advertising campaign, the I ♥ Beef! people are mounting a full scale assault. According to the website, "Steak is well-known as a "best match" for love, passion and romance." Who knew?

Aw....the steak is even vaguely heart-shaped. It must be true. But somehow, I don't think mowing down a 16 oz. steak is the sexiest thing in the world, so forgive me if I skip out on Longhorn for my next date.