Comments
So what is the word "artificial" doing here? Apparently it applies to the addition of color itself, not the source of the color?>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 otherwiseThis 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!
By 306bobby 2026-02-1115:29 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
By mrguyorama 2026-02-1115:34 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.
"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.
By schiffern 2026-02-1115:28 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.
By Eddy_Viscosity2 2026-02-1117:51 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.
By alistairSH 2026-02-1116:03 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.
The reasoning against this seems questionable:
>Are they safer? Possibly, but they are not as well studied or regulated. According to Time,
>> …their natural sources of color do not necessarily mean that they are safer or free of potentially harmful compounds. Natural sources may be treated with pesticides and herbicides, and are also prone to contamination with bacteria and other pathogens…To strip natural products of these contaminants, manufacturers process them with various solvents—some of which could remain in the final coloring and contribute to negative health effects…[and] it generally takes more natural color than synthetic color to make the same shade in a final food.
I agree with the sentiment that "natural" doesn't imply something is healthy and consumers should be skeptical of it, but all of the objections exist for both naturally derived dyes (eg. beetroot red) and the underlying natural product (eg. beetroots), so it's hard to make a principled argument against allowing the natural label for the latter but not the former.
By coffeefirst 2026-02-1115:193 reply The premise of this whole thing is bunk.
Food does not require dyes. You do not need to paint a banana.
This is a debate about what kind of paint is acceptable in marketing ultra processed products that would look gross if you did not paint them.
By groundzeros2015 2026-02-1115:22 Lots of foods are not raw goods - like cakes, pastries, etc. Presentation is extremely important to food.
This is entirely harmless from a scientific point of view, but treads on food purity folk religion.
By gruez 2026-02-1115:34 >This is a debate about what kind of paint is acceptable in marketing ultra processed products that would look gross if you did not paint them.
We can debate all about what level of processing is "acceptable" or whatever, but arbitrarily gatekeeping the term "natural" just because naturally derived dyes are adjacent to UPF (which you hate) is a terrible way of setting public policy.
How is it bunk? If, say, arsenic is part of your extraction process of a non-petroleum based chemical, how is that safe?
That may be the extreme example, but there are many processes that involve processing chemicals without any "petrochemicals" being involved...
By mrguyorama 2026-02-1115:44 The answer to your question is that chemistry is a science and we know what we are doing.
Also, that arsenic is naturally occurring and our body can handle it.
If you have ever drank apple juice or eaten rice, you have consumed arsenic. If you grow rice in the dirt with zero pesticides, it will have arsenic in it. The FDA sets the limits at the parts per billion level.
The biological half life of inorganic arsenic in a human is about 4 days, which is why people generally don't die from eating a few apple seeds over their lifetime.
If you learn chemistry, you can learn how <Chemical whatever> can be part of your extraction process yet not be part of the final product. It's a standard part of chemistry. It's fallible though, which is why the processes used for chemicals that go into food often use different processes than versions of that chemical not meant for consumption, and they have stricter regulations on purity and contaminants.
By Spivak 2026-02-1115:25 I think I would just as soon drop the natural label entirely because it's meant to sound healthier without actually being any healthier. It seems like the only two states that matter are did you add coloring to the product, or not. Same thing with flavorings too.
By edwcross 2026-02-1115:41 I assume this will allow carmine red (cochineal) to be considered as "natural", since it's just "crushing thousands of bugs".
Unfortunately, a few cases of negative reactions to cochineal have been documented, and if the coloring is not even indicated in the ingredients, it might make it much harder for people to find out if that turns out to be the cause.
By bonsai_spool 2026-02-1115:20 > and the underlying natural product (eg. beetroots)
Ah, I'm reading that as the process of extracting the color—and not also extracting the pesticides and herbicides-requires processing that may itself be similar to what happens with the 'artificial' dyes.
That seems defensible, and it's a process that only occurs for the dye and not the associated natural product.
By pointlessone 2026-02-1115:181 reply Enjoy our new smokes with 20% more all-natural nicotine while you’re lining your attic with—also ours—all-natural asbestos! Choose All-Natural WonderTeck products every day!
By gruez 2026-02-1115:28 Cigarettes are unironically "natural", which is why I specifically started my comment with
>I agree with the sentiment that "natural" doesn't imply something is healthy and consumers should be skeptical of it
Borderline off-topic but I'm miffed about all the products in grocery stores lately that loudly proclaim "Zero Sugar" yet their first ingredient is high fructose corn syrup.
Okay, it may be technically true, but practically speaking, anyone you ask would call it a lie.
>I'm miffed about all the products in grocery stores lately that loudly proclaim "Zero Sugar" yet their first ingredient is high fructose corn syrup.
Example?
By mrguyorama 2026-02-1116:18 The US FDA explicitly gives you wiggle room to label something with less than 0.5g sugar per serving as "Zero Sugar"
This means that TicTacs, a product which is a sugar tablet with some flavor, can be "Zero Sugar"
By estimator7292 2026-02-1115:391 reply [flagged]
By jjj123 2026-02-1115:44 Woah there… likely neither? I was curious too, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this “zero sugar but not actually” label before in stores.
