Second, the term “natural” is equivocal. “Natural” can mean “occurring without outside influence or agency.” It can also mean “normal, not harmful.” Yet neither sense here serves to excuse Promofoods from possible blame. To take the first sense of the term, no one is asking how the chemical came to be in the food. At least we are not yet asking. We are asking whether it is present in dangerous amount. Botulism bacilli occur “naturally” in canned foods improperly sealed. They can also be deadly. To take the second sense of the term, it is manifestly not the case that the materials are not harmful. Were Promofoods trying to imply harmlessness by using the word? Both senses of the term suggest benign influences, while what are wanted are specific facts. Why use the term at all if not as a distraction from the issue at hand? Natural or not, again, were the three agents present in dangerous levels?