Last week the FDA announced that is is requesting comments on the use of the term “natural” on food labeling.

Currently there is no legal definition of “natural,” though it is used on many labels and even for whole groups of products such as “the natural foods industry” and the “natural cosmetics industry.”

I have always thought “natural” means there are no artificial ingredients in the product, such as artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. But it has never referred to the basic food ingredients themselves. So I product can be labeled “natural” but still have pesticides and other artificial and toxic chemicals on the basic food ingredients.

Now some are saying that GMO foods should be allowed to be called “natural.”

The FDA stated

Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term “natural,” we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of “natural” in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food. However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation.

Since the FDA is asking for our opinion, I gave some thought to this, this morning.

The term “natural” related to foods began to be used I think in the 1970’s, as a way to distinguish foods with additives from foods without additives. I remember this. At the time, consumers were beginning to be concerned about artificial colors and flavors and preservatives, just as we are now concerned about GMOs. There was just no awareness of pesticides on foods. And so “natural” made sense because there was the basic food supply and then there were these additives and “natural” meant that the foods didn’t contain these additives.

It wasn’t until much later that the term “organic” began to be used, first by small local certifiers that wanted to distinguish their foods from those with pesticides. Eventually the organic certification and labeling became the National Organic Program that we have today, with the USDA Certified Organic seal. This goes far beyond what “natural” ever intended.

GMOs are a whole other category. Since “natural” doesn’t address the food itself, but only the lack of additives, a “natural” food could be GMO without additives.

But the term “natural” also has another use with regards to products.

“Natural” can also mean that the base materials used come from nature. A natural food, for example, would basically be an apple or a pig and the like. A natural cosmetic would have all it’s materials come from nature, and no synthetics. Natural fibers would be cotton, linen, silk, etc, and not polyester. However, it did not include how these materials from nature instead of a factory were grown or processed. So you could have natural cotton with pesticides and toxic dyes and finishes and it would still be called “natural.”

Ideally what we need and want is a natural material in it’s natural state. An apple should not have pesticides or waxes. It should just be an apple and nothing else. Just apple as nature intended. No pesticides. No GMO alterations. Just Mother’s Nature’s apple.

And we already have a label for that: “organic.”

It’s fine with me if “natural” is used as described above. The problem is that most consumers don’t understand the terminology.

I don’t think “natural” need to be redefined, I think more people need to understand where it comes from and how it’s commonly understood in our culture.

“Natural” can distinguish materials made by nature from industrial materials made by man. “Organic” can be used to distinguish those natural materials in their natural state, uncontaminated by synthetic materials in growing or processing.

Those are the current definition in common use, they just are not widely known.

I do think, per the FTC “Green Guides,” that if the term “natural” is used, it should be further defined on the label or webpage, as it could be false and misleading without further explanation.

FDA: “Natural” on Food Labeling

Add Comment

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, I received an email with the subject line: “The Google spinoff tracking toxics in buildings.” Google tracking toxics? What is this?

So I clicked through to the article GreenBiz: Google, thinksetp, Flux and their database of building materials’ enviro impact

I had to see this. www.quartzproject.org

The Mission:

The Quartz Project is an open data initiative that promotes the transparency of building products. Our goal is to drive market transformation towards less toxic, lower-impact materials for better buildings and healthier communities.

It’s an interesting site. They’ve analyzed 101 common building products. “For the first time, both life cycle impact and health hazard data are integrated into an open database>” Read the Methodology page. It’s pretty interesting.

I’m going to walk you through it because it took me a while to figure it out.

I went to a product (acoustical ceiling panels) . You’ll see a general description and then there are 5 big headlines. When you click on the headlines, they open to give more information.

I clicked on “General Composition” and saw two components: gypsum and PVC. There’s a column called “Health Hazards” that drops down to a list of hazards with colored boxes next to them, but I’m not sure what this means.

Then I clicked on “Impurities.” Impurities? Apparently these are all the chemicals that are in the two components. There are 27 impurities listed for the two components. Things like formaldehyde, mercury, lead, a few radioactive materials. 

Then there is a “Health Profile” and an “Environmental Profile”, and a comprehensive “Sources” list, with each title linked to the actual source material.

But what interests me most are these impurities. I’ve never seen this disclosed before. This is a whole new level of looking at toxics. A whole new level of disclosure. It turns out there is a whole field of “toxic impurities” that we never see as consumers. I’m starting to research this and will be writing more about it in the future.

This level of data kind of makes current product labeling look really inadequate.

But I have to say, knowing about all the impurities didn’t make a difference for me in terms of evaluating the toxicity of the product. It just reinforced my earlier decision not to use this product. I rejected it years ago because of the PVC. I don’t need to know all the impurities in PVC to know it’s toxic. PVC has already been established as a toxic plastic. But it does need to be known to formulators, so they can work to eliminate them.

Great start. I’d like to see this data for every product. It’s like looking through a toxics microscope.

Add Comment

Question from Katie Hines

Hi Debra,

www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/03/five-couches-without-flame-retardants-you-can-buy-right-now

Is the flame retardants what make polyurethane toxic or is it something else?

Debra’s Answer

Some organizations are making a big deal out of companies that are removing flame retardants from sofas.

Removing flame retardants is a great step in the right direction, but there are more toxic chemicals in a sofa than flame retardants.

Here’s a list of materials in the Extorp sofa from IKEA that was mentioned on the list from EWG that you sent.

Back and seat frame:
Fiberboard
Moisture resistant particleboard
Plywood
Solid pine
Polyurethane foam 1.2 lb/cu.ft.

Armrest:
Hollow fiber polyester wadding
Solid pine
Fiberboard
Moisture resistant particleboard
Cardboard
Polyurethane foam 1.2 lb/cu.ft.
olyurethane foam 1.5 lb/cu.ft.

Seat cushion:
Non-woven polypropylene
High-resilience polyurethane foam (cold foam) 2.2 lb/cu.ft.
Polyester fiber balls

Fiberboard is a type of engineered wood product that is made out of wood fibers. Types of fiberboard (in order of increasing density) include particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, and hardboard. So we don’t know exactly which fiberboard it is or what type of resin was used. Could be emitting formaldehyde.

Then there is particleboard, which for sure is emitting formaldehyde, and plywood, which probably is emitting formaldehyde as well.

Polyurethane foam also emits many chemicals all by itself, even without the fire retardant.

This is why I always look at ALL the materials in a product to determine if it is toxic or safe, and not just think it’s OK because one toxic element has been removed.

Add Comment

When 3-D printers were first announced, I questioned how toxic the materials might be that are used to make the 3-D objects.

Now a new study shows that the materials are toxic to fish embryos and may be toxic to other animals [that would include humans]

This was discovered when a graduate student used a a 3-D printed, custom-shaped disk to help analyze zebra fish embryos in her lab. But there was no analysis because the material killed the baby fish very quickly.

The student and her advisor decided to text the toxicity of products made from two of the most popular 3-D printers currently available. One uses an unspecified melted plastic and the other an unspecified liquid resin that hardens when an ultraviolet light shines on it.

They found that both materials were “pretty acutely toxic,’ meaning that the fish embryos died soon after coming in contact with the material.

Newsweek: Some 3-D Printing Materials Are Toxic

Add Comment

When I first started doing my toxics work—more than 30 years ago—one of the only authors writing about things natural was Beatrice Trum Hunter.

She was the author of the first natural foods cookbook in the United States and has published more than 30 books on food, the environment, toxins, and nutrition. Her most recent book, Our Toxic Legacy: How Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, and Cadmium Harm Us, was published in 2011, when she was 93. She provided Rachel Carson with research and sources that helped her to write Silent Spring. And she updated a chapter in Adelle Davis’s Let’s Eat Right to Keep Fit book.

She is now 96 years old, still teaches nutrition classes, and lives alone at the end of a gravel road in a small town in New Hampshire.

What a testament to natural living!

Thank you Beatrice, for all you have done to make the world less toxic.

Read about Beatrice in this article from Yankee Magazine

Add Comment

Question from Stacey

Hi Debra,

I am trying to decide which counter stools to purchase and basically want the style that is safest/least toxic for my children. I saw some stools at Crate and Barrel which I liked. One stool style is made of “anodized aluminum” and the price is right, while the other stool is a swivel stool and is made out of beechwood (supposedly solid wood according to a customer service rep). The beechwood stool has a polyurethane base finish in black with a nitrocellulose topcoat. I did research “nitrocellulose” on your site, and it seemed to be okay. So would you recommend one over the other, or does it come down to personal preference and not toxicity?

Thanks so much!

Debra’s Answer

The anodized aluminum would be totally safe as it does not outgas. The problem with aluminum is leaching into food during cooking, and spraying tiny particles of it under your arms, which can absorb through the skin.

Once cured, the beechwood would be fine as well, but all finishes outgas some type of solvent until they are completely cured.

Once the finish is completely cured, the toxicity of both would be about the same: very low.

Add Comment

Question from Bri

Hi Debra,

Hi – do you know of any safe, non-toxic eye drops or eyelid cleansers? According to Good Guide the name brands contain ‘banned’ ingredients! Is there a safe way to clean eyelids and eyelashes (even baby shampoo was found to have formaldehyde years ago!)? Thanks very much, Debra – don’t know how these products can claim to give you healthy eyelids, etc. using toxic ingredients; sigh. Thanks for all you do.

Debra’s Answer

I’ve never researched a safe alternative to those products because I don’t use them at all.

I don’t think you need to use a cleanser for eyelashes or eyelids. Just plain water is fine for me.

Readers, any suggestions?

Add Comment

Question from Stacey

Hi Debra,

Is patent leather the same as regular leather in terms of toxicity? I saw a pair of black patent leather shoes and regular leather shoes that I liked and wondered if the leather is the same in terms of treatment/toxicity. Does it matter which I wear?

Thank you!

Debra’s Answer

First, “patent leather” is a type of later that is coated with a very glossy, shiny finish.

The original patent leather created in the 1800s used a linseed-oil based lacquer coating that both protected the leather and made it more durable. But today, the shiny coating is usually plastic and may not even be real leather below.

It seems though, that most patent leather is leather, but check to be sure. I couldn’t find any information on what type of plastic is used for the finish or may be used for artificial leather.

I would say that patent leather may be more toxic, but what really matters is what was used to process the leather.

Add Comment

Question from Stacey

Hi Debra,

I was shopping at Pottery Barn and noticed that they have many decorative items made of “mercury glass.” One mercury glass item has an “antiqued silver finish,” and another item states that it is made with a “silver nitrate finish.” Would you say these items are safe?

Thank you!

Debra’s Answer

This brings up something we always need to keep in mind when evaluating toxics: exposure.

I don’t know which items you are considering purchasing, but I took a look and chose a few to analyze.

Mercury Glass Globe

The description says “blown-glass shapes with antique mercury finish. The mercury glass trees say “Hollow glass tree is mouth blown and has a mercury-glass finish on its interior.”

So it appears that the finish, whatever it is, is on the inside and you would be exposed to the outside glass, so even if it was toxic mercury, you wouldn’t be exposed to it.

However, mercury glass isn’t mercury at all, it’s simply silver applied to glass, in the same way that mirrors are made. At one time in the very distant past, mercury was used for this purpose, hence the name “mercury glass.” But today silver is used instead. You would have to search for an antique piece for it to be mercury.

I don’t see any harm in these decorations, and they would not outgas anything harmful into the air.

Add Comment

Question from Corrina

Hi Debra,

We have tenants who are the most wonderful people and would be so disappointed if they had to move. One of them has a cat allergy. The previous tenant had a cat and we have a cat in our apartment dowstairs. All summer he had no symptoms even when the AC was on and windows were closed. Once the heat came up he had significant sneezing, congestion, wheezing, and headaches. Each apartmentapartment has it’s own hot water heat system however they connect to the same furnace in the basement. What can we do to decrease his symptoms and why are they coming out now?

Debra’s Answer

If you have hot water heat then the furnace should only be producing hot water to send up to the radiators. There shouldn’t be any transfer of air between units because of that. It would be more likely with the AC.

I don’t know why they are coming out now.

Readers, any suggestions for how he can control his cat allergy?

One thing I can tell you is if he is being exposed to any toxic chemicals, they can be overwhelming his immune system, making his allergies worse. Over and over I’ve seen allergies disappear when people remove toxic chemicals from their homes.

Add Comment