The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The FDA will have its work cut out when it comes to coming up with a workable definition of ‘natural’, if the comments submitted to the FDA thus far are anything to go by.
The comments – which you can read HERE – are in response to an FDA call to action issued on November 10 inviting views on whether it is appropriate to define ‘natural’ on food labels, and if so, what the definition should be.
So far, most of the 781 comments available for viewing in the docket from the 2,110 received are from consumers, with the leading food companies and trade associations likely to request for the comment period to be extended or failing that, submit their views just prior to the Feb 10 deadline.
So what can we learn from the comments submitted thus far?
Share this article
Not much beyond that many consumers are suspicious of the term ‘natural’ on food labels, but in many cases confident that simply prohibiting its use on products containing ‘chemicals’ would resolve the matter once and for all, a view that might make food scientists snigger, but one that reflects the challenge facing the FDA.
Many of the definitions proposed by consumers also highlight the rabbit hole the ‘natural’ debate can send you into as they rely on words such as ‘chemicals’, ‘artificial’, and ‘processed’, which are almost as difficult to define as the term ‘natural’ itself.
Read full, original post: What is natural? First wave of comments are in (and hint at the challenge facing the FDA)
