The “Natural” vs. “Natural Flavors” Conflict in Food Labeling: A Regulatory Viewpoint.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Matthew J Goodman
{"title":"The “Natural” vs. “Natural Flavors” Conflict in Food Labeling: A Regulatory Viewpoint.","authors":"Matthew J Goodman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Food branded with a Natural label can be found in any grocery store across the United States. Consumers consider this label to be an important attribute when making a purchasing decision and billions of dollars are spent annually on these products. While many consumers believe Natural foods are healthier, heavy reliance on that assumption is misguided as “Natural” has no formal legal definition—it’s merely defined pursuant to an FDA approved informal policy. Another important health attribute in a consumer’s purchasing decision is the presence of natural flavors in food. However, unlike the term Natural, FDA has promulgated legally binding regulations for natural flavors. These flavors are currently the fourth most common food ingredient listed on food labels. In reality, “natural flavors” are a far cry from what consumers might expect, as they can contain both artificial and synthetic chemicals (often used as processing aids). Nonetheless, without a legally binding Natural regulation, there has been little opportunity to contest the naturalness of natural flavors in the past. Recently, FDA has initiated a notification of request for comments on use of the term Natural, so an attempt to promulgate regulations may be underway. Thus, it is appropriate to consider where natural flavors will fall if binding regulations are set forth. This article looks at the Natural debate, its history, and model regulatory standards worth considering. Within that context, it also provides a critical discussion concerning a misunderstood, yet federally regulated, ingredient that our society so heavily consumes: natural flavors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Food branded with a Natural label can be found in any grocery store across the United States. Consumers consider this label to be an important attribute when making a purchasing decision and billions of dollars are spent annually on these products. While many consumers believe Natural foods are healthier, heavy reliance on that assumption is misguided as “Natural” has no formal legal definition—it’s merely defined pursuant to an FDA approved informal policy. Another important health attribute in a consumer’s purchasing decision is the presence of natural flavors in food. However, unlike the term Natural, FDA has promulgated legally binding regulations for natural flavors. These flavors are currently the fourth most common food ingredient listed on food labels. In reality, “natural flavors” are a far cry from what consumers might expect, as they can contain both artificial and synthetic chemicals (often used as processing aids). Nonetheless, without a legally binding Natural regulation, there has been little opportunity to contest the naturalness of natural flavors in the past. Recently, FDA has initiated a notification of request for comments on use of the term Natural, so an attempt to promulgate regulations may be underway. Thus, it is appropriate to consider where natural flavors will fall if binding regulations are set forth. This article looks at the Natural debate, its history, and model regulatory standards worth considering. Within that context, it also provides a critical discussion concerning a misunderstood, yet federally regulated, ingredient that our society so heavily consumes: natural flavors.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食品标签中“天然”与“天然香料”的冲突:一个监管观点。
贴有天然标签的食品在美国任何一家杂货店都能找到。当消费者做出购买决定时,他们认为这个标签是一个重要的属性,每年在这些产品上花费数十亿美元。虽然许多消费者认为天然食品更健康,但严重依赖这种假设是错误的,因为“天然”没有正式的法律定义——它只是根据FDA批准的非正式政策来定义的。在消费者的购买决策中,另一个重要的健康因素是食品中是否含有天然香料。然而,与天然香料不同的是,FDA颁布了具有法律约束力的天然香料法规。这些香料目前是食品标签上列出的第四大最常见的食品成分。实际上,“天然香料”与消费者的期望相去甚远,因为它们可能含有人工和合成化学物质(通常用作加工助剂)。然而,由于没有具有法律约束力的自然法规,过去几乎没有机会质疑天然香料的天然性。最近,FDA发起了一项关于“天然”一词使用的征求意见通知,因此可能正在尝试颁布法规。因此,如果制定有约束力的法规,考虑天然香料将落在哪里是适当的。本文着眼于关于自然的争论,它的历史,以及值得考虑的模式监管标准。在这种背景下,它还提供了一种批判性的讨论,涉及一种被误解的、但受到联邦政府监管的、我们的社会如此大量消费的成分:天然香料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
期刊最新文献
Life, Liberty, [and the Pursuit of Happiness]: Medical Marijuana Regulation in Historical Context Implementing a Public Health Perspective in FDA Drug Regulation Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments. FDA-Required Tobacco Product Inserts & Onserts–and the First Amendment. Proposed Industry Best Practices in Development and Marketing of Medical Foods for the Management of Chronic Conditions and Diseases while Awaiting Regulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1