Natural is the most commercially powerful word in the food and drink industry. Consumer research consistently shows it outranks organic, non-GMO, and free-from as a purchase driver. 86% of European consumers say they are more likely to buy a product labelled as containing natural ingredients. In the UK, 92% of consumers say they would prefer the vitamins and minerals in their food to be natural.
And yet natural has no legal definition in UK or EU food law. Any brand can use it. There is no verification, no standard, and no requirement to substantiate what it means. A product fortified with petrochemical-derived vitamins can carry the word natural on pack without any regulatory challenge.
That gap - between what consumers believe they are buying and what brands are legally required to deliver - is widening. Understanding it is not just an ethical obligation for food businesses. It is, increasingly, a commercial one.
The Regulatory Landscape: A Definition That Does Not Exist
When BIOVIT Live explored this issue with Antonio, Project and Policy Officer at Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), his opening point was unambiguous: no broad, legally binding definition of natural exists for general food labelling in either the EU or the UK.
“In the EU, we have several legal instruments that touch on the concept, but none that provide a broad legal definition which could actually protect natural claims. The Regulation on Nutrition and Health Claims covers the term natural, but only in the context of nutritional characteristics - such as naturally low in salt. It does not cover the food product in general terms - its characteristics, components, or origin. There is a consistent gap: no well-standardised definition of what natural really means. And consumers are clearly experiencing the consequences of that.” - Antonio, Project & Policy Officer - Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), speaking at BIOVIT Live
The regulations that do exist are narrowly scoped. The EU Flavourings Regulation provides a definition of natural flavouring substances, but only within the context of flavourings - it has no broader application. The REACH Regulation references substances occurring in nature, but as a chemicals regulation it does not apply to finished foods. The result is a legal landscape where the most in-demand label claim in consumer packaged goods operates without any enforceable standard.
UK greenwashing regulations and guidance are tightening more broadly, with greater scrutiny of environmental and sustainability claims that cannot be substantiated. But for natural as a general food descriptor, the regulatory gap remains open.
What Consumers Actually Believe Natural Means
SAFE's November 2024 consumer survey of 5,000 Europeans across five countries produced a detailed picture of what consumers understand by the term natural - and how far that understanding diverges from current labelling practice.
Two-thirds of respondents associated natural with the absence of synthetic or chemical processes. The same proportion associated it with GMO-free status. Consumers generally accepted minimal physical processing - cutting, drying, pasteurisation - as compatible with a natural claim. What they consistently rejected was the idea that a product could be described as natural while containing synthetically manufactured ingredients.
83% of European consumers say it is important to know whether vitamins in a product are natural or synthetic - SAFE Consumer Survey, Nov 2024
Yet only around half of consumers regularly read food labels at all. Of those who do, two-thirds distrust what they find - a figure that rises to around 80% among French respondents. The barriers are consistent: technical terminology, small font sizes, and an inability to identify whether ingredients are natural or synthetic without specialist knowledge.
86% of European consumers are more likely to buy a product labelled as containing natural ingredients - SAFE Consumer Survey, Nov 2024
The finding that resonates most directly with the fortification question is this: 83% of European consumers say it is important to know whether the vitamins in a product are natural or synthetic. In the UK, there is no requirement to disclose this. A label can read Vitamin D and give no indication of whether that vitamin came from lichen or from a petrochemical plant.
“There is a chicken-and-egg situation with labelling. If the label were clearer and there was a standardised way of showing what is natural and what is synthetic, people would probably be more likely to read it and more likely to trust it. But right now there is a lot of mistrust precisely because it is so confusing.” - Eimear Sutton, RNutr MSc - Head of Nutrition, BIOVIT
Natural Outranks Organic in Purchase Intent - But Has None of Its Protection
One of the most striking findings from the SAFE survey is the gap between consumer preference for the term natural and the legal protection it carries compared to its alternatives.
Around 69% of European consumers ranked natural ingredients above nutritional values and country of origin as a purchase driver. Natural outperformed organic and non-GMO in stated purchase intent. And yet both organic and non-GMO are legally defined, independently verified, and auditable. Natural is none of these things.
“Despite natural not being clearly regulated, it holds significant importance for European consumers - considered alongside or even above labels such as organic or non-GMO. Yet there is widespread misuse of the term, which only increases confusion. Consumers want to buy something genuinely natural, but they have no reliable way to make that fully informed choice. In the EU, organic is much more protected - there are specific rules on farming practices, what is permitted, what is not. Consumers see organic as more verifiable than natural, even though they would prefer to buy natural products. The absence of an equivalent standard for natural is a real gap.” - Antonio, Project & Policy Officer - Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), speaking at BIOVIT Live
This creates a specific risk for brands genuinely committed to natural sourcing. Without a recognised standard, the term natural offers no competitive protection. A brand spending significantly more to source organic, plant-derived vitamins sits on the same label as a brand using petrochemical-derived equivalents - both can use the same word. The consumer cannot tell the difference, and the regulatory framework offers no remedy.
Transparency: What Consumers Are Asking For
The SAFE survey is clear that consumers are not opposed to synthetically derived ingredients when they are present. What they want is to know. The desire is for honest disclosure, not prohibition.
Close to 90% of survey respondents said they wanted legislation to require brands to disclose whether substances in a finished food product are natural or synthetic. Most also want labels to clearly differentiate between natural and synthetic additives, vitamins, colourings, and flavourings. The regulatory principle SAFE applies is straightforward: if omitting crucial information causes a consumer to believe something about a product that is not true, that constitutes misleading them - and the EU Food Information to Consumers Regulation already prohibits this.
“Without information, there is no choice. If a crucial piece of information is omitted, consumers are being misled. And this directly contradicts the existing EU Regulation on Food Information to Consumers, which clearly mandates that consumers must not be misled. Disclosing the natural or synthetic origin of ingredients needs to be clarified at the regulatory level.” - Antonio, Project & Policy Officer - Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), speaking at BIOVIT Live
What Brands Can Do Now - Without Waiting for Regulation
Regulatory change takes time. SAFE is actively engaged with European policymakers, building the case for clearer definitions and mandatory disclosure requirements. But Antonio's position - and BIOVIT's - is that brands do not need to wait.
“Companies can take the lead right now. If they are genuinely focusing on natural product lines, we encourage them to clearly disclose that there are no synthetic ingredients present - or, if there are, to state clearly which ones and why. And to do so in the simplest possible language. It does not have to be complicated: simply disclose how the product was obtained and whether synthetic ingredients are present or not. Simple, direct, honest. That is what consumers are asking for, and companies that do it well will see the benefit in trust and loyalty. There is no reason why clearer disclosure should be an obstacle. Companies can use this as a market advantage - to verify their own claims, address consumer scepticism, and build trust. It really is a win-win situation.” - Antonio, Project & Policy Officer - Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), speaking at BIOVIT Live
The practical routes available to brands today include organic certification - the most credible existing standard, which already prohibits most synthetic vitamins and minerals - and on-pack transparency initiatives that make the sourcing of fortification ingredients explicit in plain language.
At BIOVIT, we developed the Trust Mark specifically to address this gap. Validated through consumer research by Swansea University and Kaleidoscope, the Trust Mark is an on-pack signal that a product contains no artificial vitamins or minerals. Independent testing showed a 27% increase in consumer willingness to buy and an 18% uplift in liking score for products carrying it - at approximately 1% additional cost of goods.
“We are actively encouraging our customers to use the BIOVIT Trust Mark on pack. It is designed to be a clear signal to consumers that a product contains no artificial vitamins or minerals. More of that kind of initiative - companies finding ways to genuinely show consumers what is in their products - is exactly what is needed. And consumers respond to it.” - Eimear Sutton, RNutr MSc - Head of Nutrition, BIOVIT
Where This Is Heading
The regulatory trajectory is clear, even if its pace is uncertain. SAFE is lobbying European policymakers using the 2024 survey data to demonstrate the scale of the consumer demand gap. Greenwashing regulation is tightening across the EU. Consumer literacy around natural claims is increasing year on year. The brands that have built genuine, verifiable natural credentials now will find themselves in a structurally better position when the regulatory framework catches up.
For brands still relying on the absence of a legal definition as cover for synthetic fortification described as natural, that window is closing. For brands doing things properly - certifying organically, sourcing from plants and algae and fungi, disclosing their ingredients honestly - the opportunity is to get ahead of the regulation and earn the trust that transparency builds.
Better Food For All is not a passive aspiration. It requires brands to make the better choice - on sourcing, on labelling, and on the consumer relationship they are building. Regulation will eventually require it. Consumers are already asking for it.
Find Out How BIOVIT Can Help Your Brand Lead on Natural
From fully traceable organic ingredient sourcing to Trust Mark licensing and regulatory guidance, BIOVIT supports brands at every step of the natural fortification journey.
Request a Sample - biovit.com
