Many claims about foods assert facts. But the question is what do the facts imply? Sometimes the implication is reasonable enough. Orange juice “not from concentrate” probably does taste better than the alternative.

Often, however, the facts asserted, while literally true, invite misleading inferences. For example, some eggs are labeled “Omega 3.” By law they must have the indicated amount of these cherished fatty acids, but the implication that they promise good health is questionable. “Non-GMO” exemplifies this problem. The label states a superficially correct fact that does more to mislead than to inform consumers about what the food does for their health and for the environment.

Many other descriptions of foods go beyond stating facts. If a food is “chosen by choosy mothers” or “good to the last drop” —can anyone seriously complain that the label is deceiving? Perhaps the most common and least intelligible of opaque labels is “natural.” “Natural” means different things to different people. To many, it suggests something simple, fresh, and wholesome (especially if the package pictures a clapboard farmhouse and a contented cow). Or “natural” may suggest something unaltered and unadulterated. Or something . . . ? People certainly search for “natural” food when shopping and gullibly pay over $40 billion for “natural” products every year.

Read more at Forbes