Are you looking for place to read full E-Books without downloading? You can also read and download new and old full E-Books. DOWNLOAD THIS BOOK FOR FREE
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have no plans to establish a definition of the term 'natural', saying it has other priorities for its limited resources.
The FDA last year received a number of petitions requesting it to clearly define the term. A lack of a uniform approach has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers.
One of the petitions came from an unlikely source, The Sugar Association.
The second petition was submitted by Sara Lee, a leader in the US market for baked goods, which claimed that a formal definition would provide consistency for consumers and manufacturers alike.
Geraldine June from FDA's Food Labeling and Standards department said the agency had not put the 'natural' issue on its priority list because there is not enough evidence that the current situation means consumers are being misled. "We're not sure how high of an issue it is for consumers".
She acknowledged that a wide variety of products on the marketplace currently carry the claim but said that "even if people interpret it in different ways it doesn't mean there is confusion out there. If there was, then we would definitely raise it as a priority".
In 1993, the FDA said it did not include a definition of the term in its Nutrition Labeling and Education Act "because of resource limitations and other agency priorities".
However, it did concede at the time that the use of the term on food labels is "of considerable interest to consumers and industry" adding that "because of the widespread use of this term, and the evidence that consumers regard many uses of this term as no informative, the agency would consider establishing a definition."
However, June said that "unfortunately, we've had limited resources since that time. Even though it's been more than ten years, we've had more pressing issues with food safety".
And while that may be true, this columnist is inclined to believe that the FDA is, understandably, avoiding the issue. While consistency may be required, that consistency may in fact be detrimental to the health of the very people the FDA are charged to protect. Consumers.
Consumer interest in 'natural' and 'organic' products is enjoying steady growth on the back of increased health awareness.
According to recent studies, "all-natural" is reported as being the most frequent "positive" new product category. In 2004, the National Marketing Institute reported that 63 percent of consumers have a preference for natural foods and beverages. And food sales in natural product stores reached a reported $ 11.4 billion in 2003.
Consumers assume that "natural" products are good for their health.
That is not always the case. Tobacco is natural, yet there is little doubt that it is bad for you. Arsenic is natural, yet we all know the dangers associated with it consumption. And sugar is natural. But is it good for you?
What is commonly known as table sugar or "sucrose" is derived from sugar beets and sugar cane plants. In the refining process, after all the vitamins, minerals, proteins, enzymes and other beneficial nutrients have been removed, juice from sugar beets or cane is extracted and converted to form crystals, known as raw sugar, or syrup.
Sugar contributes to tooth decay. Sugar causes hyperactivity and anxiety. Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection. Sugar can cause premature aging. Sugar contributes to obesity.
But is sugar natural? More importantly what is "Natural"? What is good for us and what is not?
The green movement, which is sweeping the nation, is projected to reach $ 500 billion in 2008.
It is not a fad, it is here to stay and this columnist is here to help you, the consumer, make sense of it all.
Along the way I will be discussing all things natural, organic, green and environmentally friendly, or not, as the case may be. I will review green and the not so green and compare their performance. We will also look at companies who profess to be green, but who have little concern for people or the planet. We will investigate ways that you can be involved in the GIY movement (that's Green it Yourself), by making small changes to home and lifestyle.
Topics will include global warming, natural living, alternative fuels and more.
We will blow the whistle on super stars like "golden balls" David Beckham.
According to climate watchdog, Carbon Trust, the former England captain has both "the biggest carbon footprint in the world" and "the largest carbon footprint in human history."
The reason for Beckham's oversized environmental footprint can be summed up in two words: air fare.
Beckham spent much of 2007 jet-setting back and forth between Spain, England and the west coast of the United States to play for Real Madrid, England and the Los Angeles Galaxy respectively. Add in Beckham's trips around North America to MLS away games (including those that he watched while nursing that ankle) plus his and Posh Spice's various promotional paydays and the Becks-inspired Los Angeles Galaxy tour to Australia and New Zealand and it starts to become clear why Becks isn't too popular with the Carbon Trust.
Now that deserves a penalty!
.Are you looking full ebook about this topicGet Full Ebook For This Article
