Is "naturally flavored with other natural flavors" redundant? [closed]

Solution 1:

In the United States the Food and Drug Administration Code of Federal Regulations has specific guidelines for what constitutes "natural flavors" as detailed here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=501.22

In fact it appears that the language on the can is specifically required by law.

If the food contains both a characterizing flavor from the product whose flavor is simulated and other natural flavor which simulates, resembles or reinforces the characterizing flavor, the food shall be labeled in accordance with the introductory text and paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section and the name of the food shall be immediately followed by the words with other natural flavor (emphasis mine) in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters used in the name of the characterizing flavor.

Solution 2:

Redundant:

adjective

1 Not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous:

It seems logical that naturally flavored makes natural flavors redundant, or vice versa, but if the government mandates linguistic redundancy, it is needed for cutting through the regulatory red tape.

The etymology of redundant is actually excessive, rather than unnecessary:

1590s, from Latin redundantem (nominative redundans), present participle of redundare, literally "overflow, pour over; be over-full;" figuratively "be in excess," from re- "again" (see re-) + undare "rise in waves," from unda "a wave" (see water (n.1)). Of persons, in employment situations, from 1928, chiefly British. Related: Redundantly.

Both government and advertisers tend toward needless excess. As Josh suggested in a comment, using the word natural twice in six words increases the emotional impact of the words, making it neither needless nor excessive from the illogical perspective of government and advertising.

www.oxforddictionaries.com

www.etymonline.com