Should the FDA Make the Call on Whether 'Cane Juice' Counts as Sugar?

The rise of the natural and organic movements over the last 15 years has changed the way we talk about food. Pesticides – once hailed as the answer to insect control – have become the bad guys. Quinoa (pronounced KEEN-WAH) – little known and barely used by previous generations of American chefs – has become a supermarket staple. Most importantly, manufacturers have quickly learned that foods labeled as “natural” and “organic” are increasingly sought-after, and plenty of consumers are willing to pay more to ensure they know exactly what is going into their food.

Previous lawsuits have often centered on a single question: can you reasonably assume that consumers understand what ECJ is?

Simply put, it’s never been more important to convince food buyers that every ingredient makes the grade – even if that sometimes means smudging the truth. This seems to be the case with sugar, which has been undergoing a subtle and largely unnoticed transformation on the labels of products across the country. “Sugar,” you see, is so last year. For those in the know, ECJ – evaporated cane juice – is the ingredient of the future.

Except, of course, that ECJ is sugar – just sugar rebranded to make it sound a bit nicer. We reported in 2013 about various companies facing mislabeling lawsuits over their use of "ECJ," and Trader Joe’s continues to face allegations that it is misleading consumers in using the term in its products’ ingredient lists. Specifically, a lawsuit filed in March claims that Trader Joe’s yogurts list evaporated cane juice among their ingredients, leading some to believe the product is sugar-free. Last week, the company argued before a federal judge in California that the lawsuit can’t continue until the FDA itself decides whether “evaporated cane juice” wrongly implies that ECJ is juice, and not sugar. It could be a way of stalling for time, but the issue is an interesting one. Should the FDA look into how far manufacturers can go to disguise ingredients? At what point can you argue that the average consumer would be confused by a product’s new name?

On March 4, the FDA announced it was reopening the comment period on its draft industry guidance on the use of the term “evaporated cane juice.” The agency explained:

The agency, however, goes on to state that they are now reexamining the issue and seeking others’ input “to obtain additional data and information to better understand the basic nature and characterizing properties of the ingredient, the methods of producing it, and the differences between this ingredient and other sweeteners.”

A step backwards, or one that seeks to make sure the agency’s decision is truly in the best interests of all those involved? The 2009 draft guidance (note that it’s a draft, and not a final document – things involving the FDA tend to take their time) certainly didn’t have any issues identifying the problem:

Those who are likely to comment on the issue include manufacturers and retailers, many of whom will no doubt be keen to demonstrate that the term is both accurate and widely understood. Whether those things are true is a different issue. Previous lawsuits have often centered on a single question: can you reasonably assume that consumers understand what ECJ is? It’s incredibly difficult to say – and that confusion may be the reasons it’s taken five years, and yet no final guidance has been issued.

Clarity and honesty are essential in food labeling, and any possibility that shoppers might be confused or, worse, misled about what they’re eating must be taken seriously. Perhaps Trader Joe’s is right that the FDA needs to make a concrete statement about the use of the term “evaporated cane juice” – let’s just hope it’s one that sees an end to the use of ambiguous terms altogether.