[NewChief]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

ahh Natural light

Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of conflicting information out there. Here's a statement from the FDA:

We discussed the issue of the use of the term "natural" in our January 6, 1993 final rule entitled "Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims, General Principles, Petitions, Definition of terms; Definitions of Nutrient Content Claims for the Fat, Fatty Acid, and Cholesterol Content of Food" (58 FR 2302 at 2407). In the proposed rulemaking that led to this final rule (see 56 FR 60421 at 60466, November 27, 1991), we solicited comments on whether we should define the term "natural" and, if so, how we should do so; in the proposal, we asked whether we should consider a food to be misbranded if it has undergone more than minimal processing (and what constitutes minimal processing), or if the food contains any artificial or synthetic ingredients. As we stated in the preamble to the January 6, 1993 final rule, after reviewing and considering the comments, the agency continues to believe that if the term "natural" is adequately defined, the ambiguity surrounding the use of this term that results in misleading claims could be abated. However, as the comments reflect, there are many facets of this issue that the agency will have to carefully consider if it undertakes a rulemaking to define the term "natural." Because of resource limitations and other agency priorities, FDA is not undertaking rulemaking to establish a definition for "natural" at this time. [See the complete letter in PDF format (191K)]