Is “Love” an Ingredient?

[Speakeasy]

A few moments ago, having just finished practicing one of my languages with the aid of my Sony Walkman, I switched to Vermont Public Radio to catch up on the news, cultural events, et cetera and, in doing so, happened upon an interview with the CEO of the Nashoba Brook Bakery who was in the process of relating a recent decision by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) obliging the firm to remove the word “Love” from the list of ingredients of the company’s granola. The CEO agreed with legalistic rendering of the judgment but expressed his frustration at the FDA’s apparent inability to cope with the figurative/metaphoric use of “Love” as an expression of the passion with which their employees created the company’s bakery items.

While I was in the process of Googling the story (there are numerous references), I thought of the FDA employees who had received the complaint and who were obligated by law to review it, to render a judgment, to inform all parties, and so forth: “Geezuz Frank, with the budget restrictions, the staff reductions, and the crazies on social media who believe that they are the only people on the planet, don’t we have enough to do without having to treat this affair as if it were a major federal offense?”

I would point out that this was not the major concern of the FDA’s judgment; nevertheless, I was wondering how the forum members, from a linguistic perspective, view the figurative/metaphorical use of “Love” as an ingredient. Comments?

I have copied/pasted a portion of one of several articles reporting this world-shattering event. In doing so, I have retained the quotation marks and all other punctuation of the original article and have added none of my own.

FDA Warns Bakery Company ‘Love’ Is Not an Ingredient in Granola – Bloomberg, 2017-10-04

Rolled oats, brown sugar and maybe nuts. No feelings.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday released a warning letter to Nashoba Brook Bakery, reprimanding the West Concord, Massachusetts-based baker and wholesaler about the ingredients it lists in its granola.

One, in particular.

“Your Nashoba Granola label lists ingredient ‘Love,’” the agency wrote in the Sept. 22 letter. “‘Love’ is not a common or usual name of an ingredient, and is considered to be intervening material because it is not part of the common or usual name of the ingredient.”

Nashoba Chief Executive Officer John Gates said the FDA’s take on love as an ingredient “just felt so George Orwell.”
“I really like that we list ‘love’ in the granola,” Gates said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “People ask us what makes it so good. It’s kind of nice that this artisan bakery can say there’s love in it and it puts a smile on people’s face. Situations like that where the government is telling you you can’t list ‘love’ as an ingredient, because it might be deceptive, just feels so silly.”

The bakery was also warned about products that were “prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to heath.”
In an emailed statement, the FDA said that the concerns about “love” were “not among the agency’s top concerns.” The bigger violations were sanitary issues, according to the agency.

“The agency expects the company to correct the serious violations found on FDA’s inspection, as noted in the warning letter,” the agency said in the statement.

‘Nanny State’

Nashoba sells its products in about 120 stores, mostly in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, according to its website. The company, which has been in business 20 years, has about 75 full and part-time employees and does about $4.5 million to $5 million in sales a year, Gates said.

Some of FDA’s observations, particularly on some of the sanitation issues, were helpful, Gates said. Others he described as “nanny state,” such as the “love” disagreement and an FDA critique over Nashoba calling one of its breads whole wheat.

Gates said they’ll comply with the FDA and plan to send a response to the agency in the next week -- but he’s disappointed.

“Reducing regulations at the federal level is a topic that everybody talks about,” he said. “Some of these requirements, those kind of things don’t sit right with me.”

[Xmmm]

I don't know ... I'm against excess regulation and all, but accurate labeling of food ingredients is one regulation I'm okay with. "Love" is one hop, skip and a jump from "Mojo", "Faerie Dust", and "Super Secret Energizing Ingredient #12".

[Ani]

I guess I agree with xmmm. I do really like cute packaging. I've seen love listed as an ingredient and I did smile. I also completely agree that we need to reduce nonsense legislature and government overstep as well as inefficiencies (of which I could name you quite a few very specific), BUT on the other hand, I rely on food labels for my life. It's not really an area I'd like to see regulations lessened. In fact, there are several aspects of labeling regulation I'd like to be made stricter.

[Josquin]

And this is how exactly related to learning languages?

[Iversen]

I guess that 'love' is seen as an important ingredient in PRODUCING a product (and maybe even in CONSUMING it) - but it is still doesn't belong on the list of ingredients, which is meant to tell the consumer exactly what the physical product contains here and now. In linguistic terms that would be equal to selling a dictionary with the information that it contains 30.000 words "and a lot of love". That's empty feelgood talkin, not information. And we need more information, not more babble.

[Speakeasy]

I share the collective desire for clear, accurate, reasonably complete and non-deceptive information in labelling. I particularly enjoyed Xmmm’s offering of "Mojo" and "Faerie Dust" as logical extensions of permitting “Love” as an ingredient.

I would imagine that the bakery could have avoided the issue, as Iversen alluded, by indicating that “Love, Care, Passion” or other formulations were part of the production process as opposed to ingredients. Perhaps the addition of a cute Teddy Bear or some other appropriately cuddly little beastie would support the “feel-good” message.

Ani's "In fact, there are several aspects of labeling regulation I'd like to be made stricter." is supported by Consumer Groups throughout the world. I am often irked by the timidity displayed by the Canadian government in this regard which, irrespective of the party in power, seems to have adopted a "forward-leaning" policy of following American and European practice ... with a lag of about 30 years.

In response to Josquin's question “And this is how exactly related to learning languages?”, I would offer that the figurative/metaphorical use of “Love” as an ingredient, or as part of production process, is a practical example of how language is used in the real world. The deliberate, or accidental, misuse of language is the primary justification for the statutory regulation of product labelling. Without wishing to extend the discussion, I would point out that this is not the only area where language is regulated.

EDITED:
Tinkering

[tarvos]

Maybe oxytocin is.

[Xenops]

I guess I agree with xmmm. I do really like cute packaging. I've seen love listed as an ingredient and I did smile. I also completely agree that we need to reduce nonsense legislature and government overstep as well as inefficiencies (of which I could name you quite a few very specific), BUT on the other hand, I rely on food labels for my life. It's not really an area I'd like to see regulations lessened. In fact, there are several aspects of labeling regulation I'd like to be made stricter.

I am often irked by the ingredient “natural flavor”. If it’s natural, why can’t you tell me what it is?

[lavengro]

I am often irked by the timidity displayed by the Canadian government in this regard which, irrespective of the party in power, seems to have adopted a "forward-leaning" policy of following American and European practice ... with a lag of about 30 years.

Yep, completely agree.

I am a keen reader of ingredient lists, and am not a fan of misleading advertising, so one can well imagine my disappointment surprise in seeing the complete disconnect between the promise implicit in the name of this breakfast product, which I have tried, and the list of actual ingredients, which contradicts that promise:

https://holycrap.com/products/holy-crap-cereal

[Serpent]

Well, that's a creative way to avoid making any medical claims