ella's whyjustfood: Etichettatura alimentare- il claim naturale: Asparago verde Peruviano congelato

Il banco freezer del supermercato, attrae più' di una sequenza di vetrine di scarpe da donna dalle vertiginose alture; "As... X, verdi al naturale": sara' lecito? Il regolamento claim in merito fa il verso del pesce; la menzione di "naturale, naturalmente ricco di .. fonte naturale di ...." e' ben altro tema. Non resta che attingere dalla bibliografia, per la quale:

distinctions amongst: natural food or natural ingredient	Natural	Non Natural
single ingredient or compound food to which nothing is added non natural	single foods to which nothing is added. Compound foods where all ingredients are natural may be described made by natural ingredients	Compound foods that include non natural ingredients.
not interfiered with by man by use of chemicals	foods or igredients not altered by use of chemical	Foods or ingredients that have been chemically changed or extracted with solvent
not interfiered with by man by use of technology or normal consumed by man	Food or ingredient that are as in nature and normally consumed by man	GM foods or novel foods, or cloned
Not interfiered with by man that treaded only with processed that are traditionally used in food preparation including fermentation	Food or ingredients that have been treated with traditional food preparation processed such as baking or roasting. Foods or ingredients that employ traditional fermentation processes. if food are treated with processes such as concentration or pasteurization they should not be described as such as natural but may be described as- for instance “pasteurized natural orange juice”.	Foods or ingredients that have been treated with novel processes or processes not in accord with consumers expectations of what is natural such as bleaching , ion exchange chromatography Food or ingredients that have been synthesized with the use of immobilized microorganism or not traditional fermentation or non traditional enzyme treatments.

Quindi "naturale" allude a un prodotto cui nulla e' stato aggiunto, ovvero, nella doverosa interpretazione del consumatore (quello medio .... tanto caro all'AGCM, che non legge i cartigli perché svantaggiato, ma che memorizza le relazioni sentimentali degli attori delle soap opera o i pettegolezzi del calcio circense) ,e' associata all'assenza di trasformazioni chimiche ed additivazioni.Certo e' che e' stato effettuato un intervento sul prodotto, portandolo a temperatura negativa, ben evidenziata, sia in denominazione legale sia in istruzioni di conservazione. Ma la natura intrinseca del prodotto non e' stata alterata; inoltre la tanto pretesa tutela al consumatore e' preservata mediante la più inincolpabile delle presentazioni. Per fortuna siamo in EU, giacche' così scrive la FDA sul sito web: “it is difficult to define a food product as ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth,” , come a suggerire che l'industria non deve sottolineare il tema troppo marcatamente, con il rischio di scoprire che tutto ciò' che vende non e' naturale. Sovviene un estratto di un libro: “Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation.”, di Michale Pollan, Universita' della California, Berkeley:

it isn’t every day that the definition of a common English word that is ubiquitous in common parlance is challenged in federal court, but that is precisely what has happened with the word “natural.” During the past few years, some 200 class-action suits have been filed against food manufacturers, charging them with misuse of the adjective in marketing such edible oxymorons as “natural” Cheetos Puffs, “all-natural” Sun Chips, “all-natural” Naked Juice, “100 percent all-natural” Tyson chicken nuggets and so forth. The plaintiffs argue that many of these products contain ingredients — high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors and colorings, chemical preservatives and genetically modified organisms — that the typical consumer wouldn’t think of as “natural.”Judges hearing these cases — many of them in the Northern District of California — have sought a standard definition of the adjective that they could cite to adjudicate these claims, only to discover that no such thing exists......

At least at the margins, it’s impossible to fix a definition of “natural.” Yet somewhere between those margins there lies a broad expanse of common sense. “Natural” has a fairly sturdy antonym — artificial, or synthetic — and, at least on a scale of relative values, it’s not hard to say which of two things is “more natural” than the other: cane sugar or high-fructose corn syrup? Chicken or chicken nuggets? G.M.O.s or heirloom seeds? The most natural foods in the supermarket seldom bother with the word; any food product that feels compelled to tell you it’s natural in all likelihood is not.

But it is probably unwise to venture beyond the shores of common sense, for it isn’t long before you encounter either Scylla or Charybdis. At one extreme end of the spectrum of possible meanings, there’s nothing but nature.

Insomma, e' come dire che "naturale" non vuole più' dire nulla e che e' meglio cercare altrove consolazione per i nostri valori.
Dissimulo l'interesse tecnico gettando nel carrello, qualche pacchetto - rigorosamente formato famiglia- si preconizza un menu' monotematico per molti giorni, "natural style" all day along.