The Natural Products Association (NPA), the leading trade association for so-called “natural” products, says it works for consumers. But does it? So far, no, says Dr. Mercola. But there’s still time to do the right thing.
The NPA opposed Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, which was narrowly defeated on Nov. 6. Taking a line straight from the No on 37 campaign playbook, the NPA argued that “Proposition 37 places every supplier, manufacturer, and retailer of food products at risk of unreasonable and frivolous litigation.” Not true, but that didn’t prevent the NPA from siding with Big Biotech on the issue of labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Maybe because its members include DuPont, Bayer and BASF?
Or could it be that the NPA didn’t like the fact that Prop 37 would have prohibited the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs? Polls show that many consumers believe that “natural” means “almost organic” or even “better than organic.” The truth? “Natural” products are typically cheaper than the organic varieties, yet more expensive than conventional products that don’t bear the word “natural.” This allows companies to make billions selling “natural” products to consumers who think they’re getting a premium product, when in fact, there’s little or no difference between many “natural” and conventional products.
And what about NPA’s “natural” certification process for personal care products? The truth? An NPA-certified “natural” personal care product can contain 100% GE ingredients!
Roxanne Green of PCC Natural Markets, a certified organic retailer that supported Prop. 37, is the newest member of the NPA’s Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. Unlike NPA’s CEO John Shaw, she supported Prop 37 and is also supporting I-522, Washington State’s initiative to label GE foods in the state. Will Green be able to move the NPA toward its stated mission of protecting consumers? We hope so!