> I've begun mentally treating "Natural" as the equivalent of someone saying "trust me". Well, I did... until you seemed to preemptively think I had a reason no

> I've begun mentally treating "Natural" as the equivalent of someone saying "trust me". Well, I did... until you seemed to preemptively think I had a reason not to. I'm not sure what your point was there - but my post wasn't meant to be a "everyone thinks natural means good" - just that it gets used so much by marketers I assume people must. I definitely subscribe to your approach. I'm in the UK, and from what I gather our labelling requirements are stricter than the US's (at least in most states) - for example "trace" ingredients still need to be listed. Unfortunately, it is clear that most take the marketing over the reality, and I accept that it does take time to go over ingredients on everything you use (especially when batches change the ingredient list, which is pretty common). I've had to shop for diabetics before, and it's a nightmare, because two of the same product on a shelf can have 10% more or less sugar. Here in the UK, there is a lot of law around requiring advertising to be faithful to reality - e.g: recently they made a requirement that fruit juices have to list the fruits in order of quantity in the name of the juice, so you can't sell "grape and elderflower" juice that has a first ingredient of apple juice. I think these regulations, where possible, help consumers a lot, and "natural" is one of those misleading terms.