Whether the food industry likes it or not, when it comes to GMO labeling, the “train appears...
|
Dannon, General Mills and Cabot have emerged victorious in a legal wrangle over the definition of ‘yogurt’...
|
New research supports significant reductions in sodium from where most Americans are today, but does not justify...
|
The percentage of energy derived from snacks in the American diet has increased from 12% in the...
|
Tony Vernon, CEO of Kraft Foods Inc., says the company will ramp up its revitalizing of iconic...
|
The price differential between Hain Celestial’s brands and mainstream grocery brands will close over time as the...
|
Drug stores, club stores and the foodservice market could be the next big areas of opportunity for...
|
What's natural anyway?
I wouldn't have voted for Prop 37, for any number of reasons, but I do have a pet peeve about the use of the word "natural". Unless and until it is rigorously defined, I'd love to see it banned from labels and, indeed, from advertising.
The word is routinely used to reassure us, but the reassurance is phony because natural and good are hardly the same thing.
I occasionally drink decaffeinated coffee. I'm told it's better for me, but it's not the way coffee is naturally. I like to bake bread, but the flour I use is milled. I use very little salt, but when I do use salt, it is iodized to help me avoid goiter. Milk is pasteurized to avoid bacterial contamination.
But for sure, if we decide that treating GMO food is automatically not natural, by any sane reasoning we would have to also consider not natural any food with novel genes. For example, bananas have fifty percent more chromosomes than wild bananas, which is why they don't have annoying seeds. Rio Red grapefruit have been mutated using gamma rays. I see in a garden catalog that you can buy a tree which will bear three different kinds of fruit.
If we don;t know what it means, natural on a label tells us nothing.
Posted by Charles M. Rader
12 November 2012 | 23h23