What is natural? The FDA wants to know

[Jarhyn]

A little less than a week ago, I saw a tweet leading to Regulations. Gov. Apparently, the FDA is or at least was taking comments as to what 'natural' ought mean as pertains to food labels.

My comment is as follows:

"Natural", being a poorly understood word regardless of the implementation of any perspective FDA usage, and the resultant implication of anything NOT natural being unhealthy, ought be barred from all usage irrespective of the product's origins.

Any such market created by the use of such a poorly understood word, and the resultant second-class market created by its absence, would be detrimental to all concerned, and particularly to any producer of foods sourced from scientifically derived processes.

The only rational exception to this would be if such a definition used the scientific definition of nature: that which exists verifiably in the observable universe.

This would mean that any food whose preparations involved, potentially, processes calling on the supernatural (kosher, halal, and other 'prayed upon' foods) would thusly be barred from its use, and so creating the classes of "natural" and "supernatural".

As such I'm curious what y'all think 'natural' ought be usable for on food labels as I'm aware there is some divisiveness here about the conflicting interests in food science

For those still interested, the details about commentingbare here, and comments are open until the 10th of may.https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-1827

Edit: apparently the last day to comment is today...

 

[Metaphor]

A little less than a week ago, I saw a tweet leading to Regulations. Gov. Apparently, the FDA is or at least was taking comments as to what 'natural' ought mean as pertains to food labels.

My comment is as follows:

"Natural", being a poorly understood word regardless of the implementation of any perspective FDA usage, and the resultant implication of anything NOT natural being unhealthy, ought be barred from all usage irrespective of the product's origins.

Any such market created by the use of such a poorly understood word, and the resultant second-class market created by its absence, would be detrimental to all concerned, and particularly to any producer of foods sourced from scientifically derived processes.

The only rational exception to this would be if such a definition used the scientific definition of nature: that which exists verifiably in the observable universe.

This would mean that any food whose preparations involved, potentially, processes calling on the supernatural (kosher, halal, and other 'prayed upon' foods) would thusly be barred from its use, and so creating the classes of "natural" and "supernatural".

As such I'm curious what y'all think 'natural' ought be usable for on food labels as I'm aware there is some divisiveness here about the conflicting interests in food science

For those still interested, the details about commentingbare here, and comments are open until the 10th of may.https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-1827

I detest the word 'natural' and the naturalistic fallacy it inevitably entails. Most people, if my Facebook feed is any indicator, appear to bifurcate the world into 'natural' and 'artificial', with everything natural good and morally desirable and everything artificial bad and morally awful.

The fact that this would eliminate all food from the world (all food, whether plant or animal, being the result of artificial selection) doesn't seem to bother them.

The words 'nature' 'natural' 'organic' and similarly meaningless garbage turn me off any product that is marketed with them. I want artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives. Only insufferably classist fucklords want 'organic' food. If all food were 'organic', half the world would starve.

I'm triggered.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A little less than a week ago, I saw a tweet leading to Regulations. Gov. Apparently, the FDA is or at least was taking comments as to what 'natural' ought mean as pertains to food labels.

My comment is as follows:


As such I'm curious what y'all think 'natural' ought be usable for on food labels as I'm aware there is some divisiveness here about the conflicting interests in food science

For those still interested, the details about commentingbare here, and comments are open until the 10th of may.https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-1827

I detest the word 'natural' and the naturalistic fallacy it inevitably entails. Most people, if my Facebook feed is any indicator, appear to bifurcate the world into 'natural' and 'artificial', with everything natural good and morally desirable and everything artificial bad and morally awful.

The fact that this would eliminate all food from the world (all food, whether plant or animal, being the result of artificial selection) doesn't seem to bother them.

The words 'nature' 'natural' 'organic' and similarly meaningless garbage turn me off any product that is marketed with them. I want artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives. Only insufferably classist fucklords want 'organic' food. If all food were 'organic', half the world would starve.

I'm triggered.

People forget that. Plus you are from Australia, half the natural things there are deadly.

 

[Deepak]

It's a (non-contributing) part of a healthy breakfast.

It's silly, but I don't think it's really worth bothering with. Food labels will tell you what you need to know from a health perspective.

 

[dismal]

Maybe compromise and allow unlimited use of the word "natural" but put a warning label like on cigarettes saying "Warning: if you bought this product because of the word natural you may be an insufferable classist fucklord"

 

[SimpleDon]

Maybe compromise and allow unlimited use of the word "natural" but put a warning label like on cigarettes saying "Warning: if you bought this product because of the word natural you may be an insufferable classist fucklord"

I agree with the gist of your warning but your wording could use a little work. Try the more succinct "Arsenic is natural, too, fucklords."

 

[SimpleDon]

We can easily see the depth of confusion and delusion surrounding this subject just by mentioning three letters, GMO.

 

[dismal]

Maybe compromise and allow unlimited use of the word "natural" but put a warning label like on cigarettes saying "Warning: if you bought this product because of the word natural you may be an insufferable classist fucklord"

I agree with the gist of your warning but your wording could use a little work. Try the more succinct "Arsenic is natural, too, fucklords."

'snot my wording. I picked it up on the internet.

 

[Malintent]

I am of the opinion that "Natural" should mean, "Having been minimally processed"

What does "Minimally" mean, though?

 

[bigfield]

They should also require all food products to show the following label:

THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

 

[dismal]

They should also require all food products to show the following label:

THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

Even the one's that don't?

I mean, DHMO inhalation does kill a lot of people but that seems extreme.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sometimes natural is better and sometimes it's worse. It totally depends on the particular situation and things being compared. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't know when something is natural or what the food industry means by it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Natural - All ingredients in this product can be found in Alton Brown's kitchen.
Natural Light - Of the ingredients in this product that can not be found in Alton Brown's kitchen, he has at least heard of them.
Naturalish - Alton Brown had to look up at least one of the ingredients found in this product.
Artificial - Chemists were more notable in the creation of this product than cooks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They should also require all food products to show the following label:

THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

Even the one's that don't?

I mean, DHMO inhalation does kill a lot of people but that seems extreme.

Wouldn't we also want to the know if DHMO is filtered, drinking water that use isn't natural.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sometimes natural is better and sometimes it's worse. It totally depends on the particular situation and things being compared. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't know when something is natural or what the food industry means by it.

This implies that you have some concept of natural/artificial that isn't just so much arbitrary bullshit.

It also, as has been pointed out, opens food markets to bias via the naturalistic fallacy.

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'. Where do we draw the line? An hour of human modification with intent? A year? Ten thousand years? Five minutes per batch? How much of history of human mucking about do we grandfather in? Does it then become (modern science) vs (conservative fears)?

It's essentially the creation of a filter using one of the most powerful and insidious fallacies known to man.

 

[dismal]

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'.

And/or supranatural.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sometimes natural is better and sometimes it's worse. It totally depends on the particular situation and things being compared. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't know when something is natural or what the food industry means by it.

This implies that you have some concept of natural/artificial that isn't just so much arbitrary bullshit.

Could be simple, does the ingredient occur naturally in nature? The benefit may be dubious, but I think that is a reasonable threshold that is reproducible. Of course, this probably gets problematic when dealing with meat.

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'. Where do we draw the line? An hour of human modification with intent? A year? Ten thousand years? Five minutes per batch? How much of history of human mucking about do we grandfather in? Does it then become (modern science) vs (conservative fears)?

Well we saw how the fear of saturated fats led to the creation of even worse trans-fats. There is notable history for caution.

It's essentially the creation of a filter using one of the most powerful and insidious fallacies known to man.

I thought that was the word "organic".

 

[Axulus]

This implies that you have some concept of natural/artificial that isn't just so much arbitrary bullshit.

Could be simple, does the ingredient occur naturally in nature? The benefit may be dubious, but I think that is a reasonable threshold that is reproducible. Of course, this probably gets problematic when dealing with meat.

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'. Where do we draw the line? An hour of human modification with intent? A year? Ten thousand years? Five minutes per batch? How much of history of human mucking about do we grandfather in? Does it then become (modern science) vs (conservative fears)?

Well we saw how the fear of saturated fats led to the creation of even worse trans-fats. There is notable history for caution.

It's essentially the creation of a filter using one of the most powerful and insidious fallacies known to man.

I thought that was the word "organic".

Virtually none of the food we grow occurred "naturally" in nature. It was bred over thousands of years of artifical selection, in many cases using method such as mutagenesis in the past century.

 

[faded_Glory]

I always thought that the word 'natural' in this context means 'overpriced'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could be simple, does the ingredient occur naturally in nature? The benefit may be dubious, but I think that is a reasonable threshold that is reproducible. Of course, this probably gets problematic when dealing with meat.

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'. Where do we draw the line? An hour of human modification with intent? A year? Ten thousand years? Five minutes per batch? How much of history of human mucking about do we grandfather in? Does it then become (modern science) vs (conservative fears)?

Well we saw how the fear of saturated fats led to the creation of even worse trans-fats. There is notable history for caution.

It's essentially the creation of a filter using one of the most powerful and insidious fallacies known to man.

I thought that was the word "organic".

Virtually none of the food we grow occurred "naturally" in nature.

Does corn occur in nature? Yes. Does maltodextrin? No.