FDA Finds Consumer Definitions of 'Natural'
Food Headspinning
Consumers are telling the Food and Drug Administration what "natural" food means to them, and are coming up with all kinds of dizzying definitions and remarks, according to the Genetic Literacy Project, which recently aggregated and excerpted a blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The FDA will have its work cut out for it when it tries to come up with a workable definition of natural, if the comments submitted so far are indication. The myriad comments 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 have been posted in the docket from the 2,110 received are from consumers, with the leading food companies and trade associations probably going to ask for the comment period to be extended. Failing that, they will have to submit their views just prior to the Feb. 10 deadline.
How are consumers defining natural? There are so many rambling discussions that don't explain much beyond that they are suspicious of the term, natural, on food labels, and in many cases are confident that simply prohibiting its use on products containing "chemicals" would resolve the matter once and for all. That's a viewpoint that might make food scientists giggle, but nonetheless, a point that reflects the challenge facing the FDA.
Many of the definitions suggested by consumers underscore the rabbit hole that the term natural slides us through, as they rely on words such as chemicals, "artificial," and "processed," which are almost as difficult to define as the term natural itself.
For a full list of the responses, visit www.regulations.gov
The FDA will have its work cut out for it when it tries to come up with a workable definition of natural, if the comments submitted so far are indication. The myriad comments 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 have been posted in the docket from the 2,110 received are from consumers, with the leading food companies and trade associations probably going to ask for the comment period to be extended. Failing that, they will have to submit their views just prior to the Feb. 10 deadline.
How are consumers defining natural? There are so many rambling discussions that don't explain much beyond that they are suspicious of the term, natural, on food labels, and in many cases are confident that simply prohibiting its use on products containing "chemicals" would resolve the matter once and for all. That's a viewpoint that might make food scientists giggle, but nonetheless, a point that reflects the challenge facing the FDA.
Many of the definitions suggested by consumers underscore the rabbit hole that the term natural slides us through, as they rely on words such as chemicals, "artificial," and "processed," which are almost as difficult to define as the term natural itself.
For a full list of the responses, visit www.regulations.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment