Team:UCSC/Marsha

Marsha Cohen

   With the information we gained speaking with Sandra, we decided to explore the legal controversies of the ‘Natural’ definition. Due to increasing numbers of lawsuits against food companies marketing their products as natural, judges across the United States were calling for a congressional definition by the Food and Drug Administration for a definition to be written. One of the most contentious aspects of the definition was whether or not genetically modified foods would be excluded from the ‘Natural’ title. Since our iGEM project was founded upon producing erythritol via a genetically modified microbe, we were interested in exploring if there would be a legal distinction between GMOs and compounds produced via a GMO in this FDA definition.

   For this we spoke with Marsha Cohen, The Honorable Raymond L. Sullivan Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings. Holding a Doctor of Law degree from Harvard Law School, Marsha has is the Founding Executive Director of Lawyers for America and co-author of both California Administrative Law and Pharmacy Law for California Pharmacists. Professor Cohen has also served on various government and National Academy of Sciences panels with a focus on food safety. Given her extensive expertise in the law of food safety, it is of little surprise that our recorded interview lasted over an hour.

   Marsha begins the interview by expressing how immensely difficult it truly is to create a coherent and comprehensive definition for the word ‘Natural.’ Marsha also discussed how we have been selecting for crops since the dawn of agriculture, and that even though we tend to think of techniques such as grafting branches across different trees as traditional, it can be argued that it was simply the science of the day—and now that science has improved. Professor Cohen also postulates that since ‘Natural’ has such a vast array of different interpretations by different individuals, then ‘Natural’ labeling is an inherently misleading marketing tool. While the logical conclusion from that thought process would indicate that an outright ban of the label ‘Natural’ may be what is necessary, that would create intense litigation involving freedom of speech. While some believe that pursuing a definition for ‘Natural’ is simply a waste of government resources, Marsha confirmed that the intense frequency on recent litigation has been a driving force to bring this question to the top of the agenda. Professor Cohen also brought up an important point: while we tend to depict companies such as though using ‘Natural’ labeling as manipulative and deceptive, she recalled multiple moments during her time on the National Academy of Sciences panel for reducing sodium levels in food products that shined light on the other side of the issue. There were many companies who came to the panel and stated that they would prefer to lower sodium levels in their products for consumers who want that reduction, but it would inevitably alter the taste their customers have become accustomed to, and that would lead costumers to simply go to a competitor. A similar issue may arise with companies who fear the consequences of not including ‘Natural’ on their label’. Marsha also discussed how a similar issue has occurred with the growing popularity of the ‘Non-GMO’ label. Ironically the label has arrived on multiple products of which a GMO-version do not exist. Marsha brings up that since a GMO version of certain products does not exist, is the ‘Non-GMO’ label in this situation liable to be interpreted as misleading as well?

   Marsha also brought up an important distinction regarding GMOs in ‘Natural’ labeling. Since genetic modification introduces or eliminates proteins within an organism, would a product that contains portions of a genetically modified soybean be allowed to have the ‘Natural’ label if it only contained soybean oil, which is devoid of proteins, as opposed to proteins from the soybean itself? If this were the case, it would seem highly likely that any compounds produced via a genetically modified organism, such as erythritol in our case, would be permitted to receive the ‘Natural’ label as long as the GMO is not included in the final product. While we were uplifted to know that discussion has been cultivated around this important distinction, it appears a concrete decision on this matter has yet to be made; and considering the amount of considerations required for a comprehensive definition of matter, it may be a while until any decision is made at all. Is milk not ‘Natural’ because it was pasteurized? Are canned foods not natural because they have now been processed? It appears with this question that, as Marsha quotes, “The Devil is in the details.”