-
Interesting article on Natural and its “definition.”
http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/no-one-really-knows-how-natural-their-natural-beauty-products-are
“There is potential progress on the horizon, though. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the commissioner of the FDA, told the Times in a statement, “Consumers have called upon the FDA to help define the term ‘natural’ and we take the responsibility to provide this clarity seriously. We will have more to say on the issue soon.””
How do people feel about an FDA definition of “natural?” I for one am cautiously for it. It would clarify the requirements. If made too restrictive, it would hamper performance and we would see the term used less often. Conversely, if used too freely, smaller, more emotional markets would object.
-
2 Replies
-
I’m skeptical they’ll be able to come up with a legal definition of “natural”. It seems much more complicated than a definition of “hypoallergenic” and they couldn’t do that.
-
I agree. I think that there is such a gap between what separate camps would accept regardless. On one end we would have the Marketing driven, EWG, fear-based camp which has anchored its position in the fallacy of chemophobia. Anything which isn’t almost Luddite in definition would be resolved. On the other end of this spectrum, we have the larger companies which I believe might be more amenable. It would limit greenwashing but it would also make the market niche more defined. If they saw value in refining and promoting the niche, they would go for it. Of course, we are probably looking at plant-derived products processed more than the other end would like and nature identical materials.
Log in to reply.