from my chambers to be here but most especially i want to welcome judge jane wrist on me who is i think one of the hardest working judges i've ever met and goodness knows she hopes the third circuit time and time again with then under our compliment of judges for years now and judge preston he fills in here and chambers knows what to do chris has carried a laboring war during that act and some other difficulties pims back to help both here assisted in preparation of the city so i am delighted well where we are procedurally in this case and they both in the reply brief to judge cooper and before her at oral argument with through any claim of expressed preemption or feel reason is unclear to me judge cooper decided this case that all three grounds and you raised only feel korea in the issues presented no the field preemption and the issue stated is the only issue i just wonder if you can clear u page two but that's an issue that really should not have been before the district court in the first place because now people withdrew feel pre preemption arguments there was expressed preemption implied field preemption and now there's an implied obstacle preemption and it's implied obstacle preemption that applies to the high fructose corn syrup here i'm wondering if somehow you viewed feel preemption as still being in the case and indeed judge cooper seemed to base or  issue you could have done in your book you didn't have to do with express preemption obviously because express preemption is out you have nothing to complain about but if it is it would appear in the transcript  feel prevention was taken off the table by your opponent the district who are then reaches it anyway and you have not raised waiver  express preemption so we'll probably discuss those issues but i suggest that perhaps if the issue of obstacle preemption is before us it might be because of what your friends yeah actually i think this the or the district court acted as if the field was juice products i think that's so hard to understand what the district court was ruling i mean it appeared to be he'll preemption but they they've kind of taken a position on as long as it's not this thing we're not going to do anything about it you know how they got to that position i don't know how they got to that position on my adversary by that i don't know know there is a difference between natural an artificial labors and the definition of the word natural they have never defined the word natural they received the comments from their request the ninety one and the ninety three again said we can't define it we're not going to define it and they also were unable to distinguish between natural and artificial flavors and so they said they weren't going to rot so we don't seem to have any kind of a formal policy or definition at all with reference to  sure and they may be correct that we do have something more here than what we had in the film which was really nothing but a letter from the commission we've got something want us to reverse the district court unexpressed preemption grounds even though the issue wasn't before is when she decided that and you never find the cause of he'll say she was wrong on expressed we have the right alternative and understanding your answer to judge based on these questions about how others feel reaction still prevail here given the fact that this does not seem to be as regulated a argument that it's not an artificial flavoring it's a natural phrasing what in fact there are you don't and your products don't you have natural flavoring  at some points for example and diet snapple but you say no all natural i'm not diet products so what we're talking about here is not the wording natural flavor right we're talking about the all natural  with finding us there they keep saying it's not an artificial labeling think this is where these words are getting there is a distinction between natural flavoring and natural there's a distinction between artificial laboring and or artificial flavorings claim they're dealing with a process that they say is not natural makes the eight hundred eighty s whatever is not natural but not natural is not the same thing as our fish shop is it i think you've tried to change the airplane into an artificial claim and i'm not sure there it is that is the word  when in footnote three for the first time they're arguing another and not a natural ingredient which i can't get away with because they never read that a but you yourself give me the concrete example which is going to cause you to have a problem if the different states if you take all natural off what would be your problem you're  a see if they claim this we have here natural in a way that's entirely consistent with the way the f d a has so far and in it seems to be rather limited fashion attempted to define w regarding labeling which you don't race and which probably doesn't apply here and that indeed if you had a flavoring yes you know you might have expressed reaction but i thought that's not what we are talking about border wouldn't support an informal versus formal but apart from does anyone really to include ingredients on the label we're talking about the marketing of something as all natural and that's quite a different thing isn't it your  point that i want to bring up is that we have any discretion to address the issue might we remain handed to the district court to decide the issue where are we with that if i wish because i mean i really don't know very much about the difference between artificial flavorings an that i'm asking if we don't know the answer between sweetness and flavorings then where are we in this case as flavorings are preempted expressly so if we don't know the answer what are we supposed to do so we just assume just it's way for a purpose of this case then let the next case figure it out but it's heated in my opinion this way for this particular case another another point that i