I don’t often repeat the emails I get, but this one from New Hope 360 is worth repeating because it’s about proper labeling.
While this picture shows some companies are doing a good job of defining Natural right on the label, I usually read my labels and toss anything that says ‘Natural Flavors”. In the past I have heard that MSG is considered natural. But it’s not. And it keeps me up at night. So there ya go.
Now if Natural had a specific meaning, I could rule out all the junk and actually buy a Natural item. Do you get the craziness of this? Natural has way too many meanings. I mean dog poop is natural. Want that in your food? lol
If you are interested in having your comments heard by the Federal Register, there is a link at the end.
Happy Healthy Eating,
One month after opening comments on defining natural, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received more than 2,300 comments.
The FDA is accepting public comment through Feb. 10, 2016, as to whether it is appropriate to define the term natural and if so, how it should define natural and determine appropriate use of the term.
Perusing the comments shows just how big defining natural is. So far, comments appear to run the gamut. Generally, they fall into those equating natural to:
- How food is grown and raised.
- How it is processed.
- What’s added to it.
- Health.
- Ways of eating (including calling out corn as a nonhuman food).
- Organic.
- Non-GMO.
Even commenters that approach the definition the same don’t agree on whether the FDA should define the word natural or manufacturers should use it on labels.
Here are some comments for the natural products industry to consider as it formulates, packages and moves forward in this changing food landscape.
For guidance on commenting and to comment yourself, visit the Federal Register here.