Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Sam Bagenstos on Spending-Clause Legislation After the Health Care Decision | Main | Australian Cigarette Logo Ban Upheld by Australia's Highest Court »

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Comments

mary

It's funny how "Sugar-Free' means "high fat" and ALL other kinds of sugar cleaverly hiden by wording. "Low Fat" means "High Sugar." American eat for taste not health. It has to feel good in our mouths. One question that has always bothered me. if Fake Creamer is "Fat Free" isn't it just white water?

Yve Golan

Great post. But it might be better NOT to have a definition of "natural" by the FDA. If it is consumers we want to protect, then let's allow consumers' (reasonable) perceptions define the contours of "natural." Not bureaucrats who will likely arrive at a hyper-technical definition riddled with needless exceptions.

Take, for example, the USDA's definition and regulation of "organic." Consumers believe that organic foods are free from synthetic ingredients. Makes sense. But when the USDA took it upon itself to define the term, it allowed food makers to label a food as "organic" even if it contained certain synthetic ingredients. Wholesome-sounding ingredients like sodium hypochlorite, xanthan gum, and potassium acid tartrate. 7 CFR 205.605(b). Why? Well, the food companies' argued that it can be too expensive or too difficult to get an organic version of the synthetic ingredient, and so the synthetic ingredient should be allowed in the otherwise "organic" food. The USDA bought the argument, and the list of allowed synthetic ingredients under 205.605(b) keeps growing.

How does this help consumers?

From a consumer protection standpoint, do we really expect the agencies to make decisions that are more rational than consumers'?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30