3 ms·

>In the past, companies were generally only able to make such [no artificial color] claims when their products had no added color whatsoever — whether derived f

>In the past, companies were generally only able to make such [no artificial color] claims when their products had no added color whatsoever — whether derived from natural sources or otherwise So what is the word "artificial" doing here? Apparently it applies to the addition of color itself, not the source of the color? This is extra confusing because on ingredients lists they distinguish between "natural colors" and "artificial colors." But apparently that's not the same sense that they're using "artificial" as when they say "no artificial colors??" Seems like this move is just fixing a confusing situation -- so confusing I didn't even know I was confused until just now!

watwut 8mo ago
"No artificial color" meant that food had the color it really had, without additional coloring. Natural banana does not have little green ponies on red background. If you color it with green and red, you have banana that does not have its natural color. Banana in artificial color.
- schiffern 8mo ago
  Right, I got it now. But for literally the entire time I've seen that (now obsolete) label, I've misunderstood it as "no artificial colors" not "no artificially added colors." I can't be the only one! It's unclear why they didn't say "no added colors" from the beginning, since apparently that's what they meant all along.
306bobby 8mo ago
The only way I can read it and have it make sense is using "artificial" as in a by-product outside of the usual make-up of the product. It makes sense in other industries, like calling vinyl wrap an artificial cosmetic change on cars compared to painting. But makes less sense in this situation
mrguyorama 8mo ago
The label "no artificial color" meant that there was no color added to the product. This was a useful label. It meant you could expect the food looked like it should. It meant the food was not adulterated. Now, "No artificial color" simply means that the chemists involved in producing this food product do not work for the petrochemical industry. Granted, this labeling was in direct contrast with the ingredient listing. You could have only "natural color" on the ingredients and be unable to claim "No artificial color". This change "fixes" that by making "No artificial color" as meaningless as "Natural" vs "Artificial" color. As petrochemical and plant feedstock processes produce chemically identical substances that your body is incapable of distinguishing, this takes a label that had some actual value, telling you how adulterated your food was, and replaces it with a label that means nothing. Yay. However, labeling around "natural" vs "artificial" ends up being a huge educational issue. The FDA's rules are pretty straightforward, but you will never be able to get people who think education is a liberal scam to actually learn them. It also wasn't obvious what they really meant. There's room for improving the names and labeling, but that is not at all what this administration wants to do. They do not respect the sanctity and power and value of labeling regulation. FDA food labeling regulations are wonderful and trusted and provide immense value. Them being toyed with by morons with a grudge scares me.
alistairSH 8mo ago
So, they went from mildly confusing to less regulated overall. Not really an improvement, as now a company can add potentially harmful colors without notice.
Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo ago
To mean this would be like saying furniture companies can claim their products are made of 'solid wood' when it is in fact just particle board, mdf, and cardboard because those are all made from wood and are all solids.

watwut 8mo ago

"No artificial color" meant that food had the color it really had, without additional coloring. Natural banana does not have little green ponies on red background. If you color it with green and red, you have banana that does not have its natural color. Banana in artificial color.

schiffern 8mo ago
Right, I got it now. But for literally the entire time I've seen that (now obsolete) label, I've misunderstood it as "no artificial colors" not "no artificially added colors." I can't be the only one! It's unclear why they didn't say "no added colors" from the beginning, since apparently that's what they meant all along.

306bobby 8mo ago

The only way I can read it and have it make sense is using "artificial" as in a by-product outside of the usual make-up of the product. It makes sense in other industries, like calling vinyl wrap an artificial cosmetic change on cars compared to painting. But makes less sense in this situation

mrguyorama 8mo ago

The label "no artificial color" meant that there was no color added to the product. This was a useful label. It meant you could expect the food looked like it should. It meant the food was not adulterated. Now, "No artificial color" simply means that the chemists involved in producing this food product do not work for the petrochemical industry. Granted, this labeling was in direct contrast with the ingredient listing. You could have only "natural color" on the ingredients and be unable to claim "No artificial color". This change "fixes" that by making "No artificial color" as meaningless as "Natural" vs "Artificial" color. As petrochemical and plant feedstock processes produce chemically identical substances that your body is incapable of distinguishing, this takes a label that had some actual value, telling you how adulterated your food was, and replaces it with a label that means nothing. Yay. However, labeling around "natural" vs "artificial" ends up being a huge educational issue. The FDA's rules are pretty straightforward, but you will never be able to get people who think education is a liberal scam to actually learn them. It also wasn't obvious what they really meant. There's room for improving the names and labeling, but that is not at all what this administration wants to do. They do not respect the sanctity and power and value of labeling regulation. FDA food labeling regulations are wonderful and trusted and provide immense value. Them being toyed with by morons with a grudge scares me.

alistairSH 8mo ago

So, they went from mildly confusing to less regulated overall. Not really an improvement, as now a company can add potentially harmful colors without notice.

Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo ago

To mean this would be like saying furniture companies can claim their products are made of 'solid wood' when it is in fact just particle board, mdf, and cardboard because those are all made from wood and are all solids.