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 s

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.