What is natural? The FDA wants to know

[Arctish]

What part of the cheese making process isn't quite natural in nature? The mixture is aged.

Do you have some pictures of naturally occurring cheese?

Maybe some nice smoked gouda.

Cheese is made by mixing milk with rennet, a naturally occurring complex of enzymes produced in the stomachs of ruminants. The traditional method of cheesemaking involved killing a calf and drying its stomach, then grinding the stomach into powder and mixing it with milk to form cheese curds. Nowadays most cheese producers in the US use a GMO microorganism to produce rennet's key component, chymosin. Rennet can also be extracted from certain plants.

I think most people would agree that cheese curds formed inside a living calf's stomach are natural. Curds made with dried calf's stomach and milk are somewhat natural, even if the process of drying, grinding, and mixing is not. But I don't think most people would consider cheese curds made with CHY-MAX® and MAXIREN® natural. The curdling process might be the same but the source of the curdling agent isn't.

 

[Arctish]

And it is this complete failure of the word 'natural' to mean what the people who use it seem to think it means that renders its use misleading at best.

All the more reason for the FDA to attempt to define the word as it applies to food.

My sisters don't buy things containing artificial sweeteners or monosodium glutamate. They and their kids get migraines from that stuff. But food producers like to hide the MSG behind labels like 'natural flavors' and recently an American dairy association tried to get a waiver from the FDA so they could add aspartame to milk without telling anybody.

That shit needs to be stopped. So does the abuse of the words 'natural' and 'healthy'. I am 100% in favor of having clear definitions, full disclosure of ingredients including percent by volume, and truth in labeling.

 

[Deepak]

And it is this complete failure of the word 'natural' to mean what the people who use it seem to think it means that renders its use misleading at best.

All the more reason for the FDA to attempt to define the word as it applies to food.

My sisters don't buy things containing artificial sweeteners or monosodium glutamate. They and their kids get migraines from that stuff. But food producers like to hide the MSG behind labels like 'natural flavors' and recently an American dairy association tried to get a waiver from the FDA so they could add aspartame to milk without telling anybody.

That shit needs to be stopped. So does the abuse of the words 'natural' and 'healthy'. I am 100% in favor of having clear definitions, full disclosure of ingredients including percent by volume, and truth in labeling.

Wouldn't the better option be to simply do away with the catch-all categorization, like 'natural flavors', and simply require they list the actual ingredients?

If people want to avoid maltodextrin or MSG they'd be able to avoid it in a much more meaningful way than all this hand-wringing and tail-chasing as to what constitutes 'natural' substances.

 

[Arctish]

All the more reason for the FDA to attempt to define the word as it applies to food.

My sisters don't buy things containing artificial sweeteners or monosodium glutamate. They and their kids get migraines from that stuff. But food producers like to hide the MSG behind labels like 'natural flavors' and recently an American dairy association tried to get a waiver from the FDA so they could add aspartame to milk without telling anybody.

That shit needs to be stopped. So does the abuse of the words 'natural' and 'healthy'. I am 100% in favor of having clear definitions, full disclosure of ingredients including percent by volume, and truth in labeling.

Wouldn't the better option be to simply do away with the catch-all categorization, like 'natural flavors', and simply require they list the actual ingredients?

If people want to avoid maltodextrin or MSG they'd be able to avoid it in a much more meaningful way than all this hand-wringing and tail-chasing as to what constitutes 'natural' substances.

It's doesn't have to be either-or. We can have both a clear definition of what 'natural' means wrt food items, and we can have truth in labeling and an end to wordplay designed to deceive consumers.

 

[Deepak]

It's doesn't have to be either-or. We can have both a clear definition of what 'natural' means wrt food items, and we can have truth in labeling and an end to wordplay designed to deceive consumers.

I just don't see the need for the FDA to define the language if all of the ingredients are clearly listed. Any definition they come out with will be unsatisfactory to almost everyone because it's such a hazy concept - to the point where it won't serve a useful purpose. We'll still have the blogs that tell people to avoid substance X, but they'll also now be able to complain about the FDA labeling it 'natural' therefore it's a conspiracy. Or substance Y will be classified as 'natural' then in 20 years we'll find out it actually causes harm, and because some company with a net revenue > $500 per annum produces it the accusations will fly that the FDA knew all along and worked to bury the data.

The fact is that by going down this route the only guaranteed outcome will be an erosion of trust in the FDA which will be a net-negative for the public good and health overall.

 

[dismal]

Do you have some pictures of naturally occurring cheese?

Maybe some nice smoked gouda.

Cheese is made by mixing milk with rennet, a naturally occurring complex of enzymes produced in the stomachs of ruminants. The traditional method of cheesemaking involved killing a calf and drying its stomach, then grinding the stomach into powder and mixing it with milk to form cheese curds. Nowadays most cheese producers in the US use a GMO microorganism to produce rennet's key component, chymosin. Rennet can also be extracted from certain plants.

I think most people would agree that cheese curds formed inside a living calf's stomach are natural. Curds made with dried calf's stomach and milk are somewhat natural, even if the process of drying, grinding, and mixing is not. But I don't think most people would consider cheese curds made with CHY-MAX® and MAXIREN® natural. The curdling process might be the same but the source of the curdling agent isn't.

Sounds like a process that alters what is found in nature either way to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wouldn't the better option be to simply do away with the catch-all categorization, like 'natural flavors', and simply require they list the actual ingredients?

Please!!!

Some of us have problems with some flavors, but with the current labeling system you never know what's in there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wouldn't the better option be to simply do away with the catch-all categorization, like 'natural flavors', and simply require they list the actual ingredients?

Please!!!

Some of us have problems with some flavors, but with the current labeling system you never know what's in there.

For sure. Labels could be a lot better. As far as I'm concerned, nothing unnatural exists, so saying something contains natural flavors isn't saying much. You might as well say, "no unnatural flavors." How helpful is that? Not much.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Unprocessed, unaltered, un-anythinged. Directly traceable to the article from which it came. Things humans consume that are grown with grown fertilizers and compost. Only additives required for safety reasons can be included and they need to be specified in common consumer language. Only additives that are tested and have a long history of safe, disease or trauma free usage can be included in 'natural' products. What Farmer John peed on is not natural. Going further natural and organic can only be included if the product comes as it would from Granddady's farm and that needs to be explicitly documented on the label.

Natural flavor is restricted to extract of that flavor from the product as it is in the field. Any processing needs to be explicitly labeled and referred on the for sale product. Unrefined sugar sources are the only natural sugar sources.

etc.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

Unprocessed, unaltered, un-anythinged. Directly traceable to the article from which it came. Things humans consume that are grown with grown fertilizers and compost. Only additives required for safety reasons can be included and they need to be specified in common consumer language. Only additives that are tested and have a long history of safe, disease or trauma free usage can be included in 'natural' products. What Farmer John peed on is not natural. Going further natural and organic can only be included if the product comes as it would from Granddady's farm and that needs to be explicitly documented on the label.

Natural flavor is restricted to extract of that flavor from the product as it is in the field. Any processing needs to be explicitly labeled and referred on the for sale product. Unrefined sugar sources are the only natural sugar sources.

etc.

If we use that definition can we say that the only thing natural is what an individual knows if they grow it in their own land?

 

[fromderinside]

That would be the litmus. So any putting of natural on a product would have to justify against what one does with what one grows on ones own land.

 

[Malintent]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

'Minimally processed' is no less hazy.

Anyone who has tried beer or cheese making knows that it takes knowledge, effort, and care to actually successfully make something that's edible/potable. Making maltodextrin is comparably much easier - add water, heat it up, add some acids, add some enzymes, skim, then let cool. You could teach a child or skilled monkey to do it successfully.

As an experienced brewer I can tell you for certain that making passible beer is as easy as boiling water. Making great beer is only slightly harder.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

'Minimally processed' is no less hazy.

Anyone who has tried beer or cheese making knows that it takes knowledge, effort, and care to actually successfully make something that's edible/potable. Making maltodextrin is comparably much easier - add water, heat it up, add some acids, add some enzymes, skim, then let cool. You could teach a child or skilled monkey to do it successfully.

As an experienced brewer I can tell you for certain that making passible beer is as easy as boiling water. Making great beer is only slightly harder.

You'll have to teach me.

But that also holds for sourdough bread made from wild captured yeast, and not that stuff you buy in packets that renders nutritionally deficient "bread."

And is white flour "natural?" Is something still "natural" when you've removed most of the nutritional value because you're after shelf life and convenience, but then sprayed it with a chemical mist to "enrich" it?

 

[untermensche]

Are humans "natural"?

Is what they do "natural"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maybe beer is natural light.

 

[Malintent]

As an experienced brewer I can tell you for certain that making passible beer is as easy as boiling water. Making great beer is only slightly harder.

You'll have to teach me.

But that also holds for sourdough bread made from wild captured yeast, and not that stuff you buy in packets that renders nutritionally deficient "bread."

And is white flour "natural?" Is something still "natural" when you've removed most of the nutritional value because you're after shelf life and convenience, but then sprayed it with a chemical mist to "enrich" it?

Here is a fantastic reference source: http://howtobrew.com/book/introduction

No. something is not "natural" when you have processed it to the extent that it has converted to something totally different... white bread is a good example of 'not minimally processed'.

 

[Jarhyn]

You'll have to teach me.

But that also holds for sourdough bread made from wild captured yeast, and not that stuff you buy in packets that renders nutritionally deficient "bread."

And is white flour "natural?" Is something still "natural" when you've removed most of the nutritional value because you're after shelf life and convenience, but then sprayed it with a chemical mist to "enrich" it?

Here is a fantastic reference source: http://howtobrew.com/book/introduction

No. something is not "natural" when you have processed it to the extent that it has converted to something totally different... white bread is a good example of 'not minimally processed'.

If we're talking that route, you could call bread itself not minimally processed. By any measure, beer and unleavened bread. Mmmmmmmmm. But even that is unnatural by that litmus.

We are, as our principal adaptation, critters that design tools based on analysis rather than copying and accidental discovery. We have two different kinds of 'why' we can ask. Sure, there's the 'why' of 'why should I do this/why should I care' but we also have the fundamentally different why of 'why does that function this way?'

Our success is predicated on exploitation of the investigation on that second 'why'. It is fundamentally what people use to differentiate 'natural' from 'artificial': "is this an exploitation of the new 'why'?"

And of course many are afraid of the artificial because we can be tragically mistaken about the exact nature of the 'why'. And because they are incapable of understanding that 'why'. It is a common realization that people fear what they don't understand. It is the very soul of the naturalistic fallacy.

People are just too afraid of being something more than the other apes. We are too afraid of asking the second 'why'.

 

[thebeave]

I think this statement pretty much sums up the clusterfuck of "natural" versus "artificial" and the health benefits thereof:

"Natural ingredients are healthier and safer for you than artificial ingredients, except when they're not. Artificial ingredients are bad for you and potentially dangerous, except when they're not."

 

[bilby]

A food is natural if no tools of any kind were used in its cultivation, harvesting or preparation.

There you go. Clear definition; applies to nothing.

Problem solved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A food is natural if no tools of any kind were used in its cultivation, harvesting or preparation.

There you go. Clear definition; applies to nothing.

Problem solved.

34 years ago we were going down a road in Africa. Two women were working on their tans up on top of the truck--and started picking mangoes as we went. (The road conditions were horrible, we were moving slowly enough that they could pick on the fly.) These were trees that simply grew over the road, no human hands involved.

I would think those would meet your definition of natural.