“As I am fond of pointing out, arsenic is an element, one of the basic building blocks of all of nature. You don’t get any more natural than that, but I’d probably avoid buying any food with that on its label.”

Yes, but arsenic isn’t ORGANIC.

Now CYANIDE, on the other hand …

But seriously, folks:

I suspect that a lot of the objection to “artificial” foods comes from three things:

1) The artificial FLAVORS first introduced in the middle of the century were not very good approximations of their natural equivalents. (We’re getting better at it, though.) And if artificial flavors taste bad, then artificial anything must also automatically be bad.

2) There have been a few (VERY few) cases of synthetic food additives with big long scary-sounding chemical names that have had ill health effects — and several cases of questionably-supported health scares involving such additives. The more you hear on the grapevine that artificial ingredients cause cancer/impotence/near-sightedness, the more likely you are to believe it out of caution.

3) Artificial ingredients tend to be less expensive than the ingredients they replace. Snobs that we are, we don’t want to sully ourselves with “cheap” food. We want expensive GOURMET macaroni and cheese, dog gone it!

most people use the term “natural food” (yes, natural FOOD, not just ‘natural’) to refer to unprocessed and/or organic food

You may well be right but that doesn’t make the thinking any less woolly.

How much processing is acceptable before food becomes “unnatural”?

Go see my response (33) to Leander’s comment for a more detailed breakdown of this question.

My point all along is that the entire concept of “natural food” is too vague and woolly. If you try to parse out a meaning, you end up getting nowhere, because no-one is able to define it. The term is genuinely meaningless.

I don’t think there is anything wrong at all with the desire to eat what we conceive of as natural and organic foods. Nothing at all.

I agree with most of what you said in your comment, up to this point.

What does “natural food” mean to you?

How much processing is acceptable? What kinds of additives are acceptable?

Most synthetic food additives are merely replicating naturally-occurring substances by a cheaper and more efficient process. Are these acceptable? If not, why not?

If you want to eat a more “natural” diet, you must first define what that means.

“All I am judging is the quality of the argument you are making. I find it wanting, to be frank.”

Sorry to repeat myself over and over again but the main point i was trying to make in my initial post is that most people use the term “natural food” (yes, natural FOOD, not just ‘natural’) to refer to unprocessed and/or organic food and that it’s dishonest to deny it, do a quick poll among regular people (‘regular’ as in, not the staff of a biochemistry lab) and see for yourself.
I totally agree that the adjective “natural” has been abused, but i maintain that in the context of food it’s not at all “meaningless” in the mind of most people contrary to what you claim… unless you and me live in separate realities or something.
It really doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong to use the adjective that way, when a large percentage of people misuse a word there’s no point in pretending you have no clue what they mean, or worse that themselves have no clue what they mean, which is exactly what the over reaharsed “arsenic is natural” ‘joke’ is all about, if it were only used as a gentle ragging as you said it would be fine, thing is, in practice it’s really not.
My second point was that people shouldn’t be laughed at because they care about what they eat, and that too often the reasoning from the skeptics community is the following: many people are into esotheric stuff (i.e “woo-woos”) are also into organic/wholesome food, conclusion => it’s all a big lie or a marketing scam and it makes no sense.
Now, i admit you have brought some valid scientific arguments to defend your point of view, and thanks for that, still, i’d rather debate with someone who doesn’t act as a professor of truth.

if i’m pissed it’s by the arrogant attitude and self-rigtheousness that transpires from many comments (yours included alright) who stereotype anyone who’s a little suspicious about what he/she ingests as a “new age” or “woo-woo” person and goes into, imho, sterile debates about the literal meaning of words.

But I’m not making any judgements about you as a person.

All I am judging is the quality of the argument you are making. I find it wanting, to be frank.

And, in case you missed it first time around, let me reiterate something I said (56) in response to one of your other comments (54):

I was not insisting that “natural” have a literal meaning. I was insisting that is must have some meaning, as opposed to no meaning at all.

My point is that, in permitting advertisers and marketers to get away with sloppy and slack use of language, we end up with words that, yes, in certain contexts, have become meaningless.

The term “organic”, in relation to food, at least has a definition. I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t accept that the language evolves.

The term “natural”, OTOH, has been rendered meaningless by repeated abuse, not just in the context of foodstuffs, but also in reference to healthcare, personal hygiene products and probably a few other areas that I can’t think of at the moment.

I agree with you that avoiding heavily-processed foods is better (for a variety of reasons, some of which I have stated already), but that has nothing to do with the word “natural”.

The third definition of “mercurial” is “pertaining to, containing, or caused by the metal mercury.”

And I said “high fructose corn syrup.” If you think that’s the same thing as fructose, you need to do some serious fact checking. Similarly, monosodium glutamate is NOT the same thing as glutamate. You can’t just ignore the words in a chemical’s name that you don’t like.

Of course being labeled as “natural” or even “organic” doesn’t automatically mean it’s good for you. It’s a straw man argument because NO ONE IS CLAIMING THIS. Palm oil is natural, and yet it’s chock-full of saturated fats and unsustainably grown, so guess what? I avoid that ,too.

“‘Natural’ simply doesn’t mean healthy, nor does “Organic” mean safe and/or sustainable.”

Did i say anywhere one should feel safe if he sees a “Natural” label on a product? Certainly not… I just said many people use the term “natural *FOOD*” to refer to non [over]-processed/refined food. That’s a fact, ask around you, it’s intellectual dishonesty to deny it.

Regarding “organic”, when applied to food it has a very specific meaning, as dave pointed out…

“and non-organic-label food is both safer and cheaper than organic food”

cheaper, of course, it’s not new news, safer on the other hand, i wonder what you base that on, please enlighten me.

“Well, now you’re taking this personally. Go back and read what I wrote. Your arguments were inadequate, but I never called you an idiot. You are making statements about a situation where some of the other commenters here know more about it than you do.”

the other commenters being… you?… I’m aware you didn’t explictely call me an idiot, and i wasn’t refering specifically to our exchange, if i’m pissed it’s by the arrogant attitude and self-rigtheousness that transpires from many comments (yours included alright) who stereotype anyone who’s a little suspicious about what he/she ingests as a “new age” or “woo-woo” person and goes into, imho, sterile debates about the literal meaning of words.

“No wonder the skeptics community is so often seen as a bunch of cynic hateful smart-asses if that attitude is so widespread among its members…”

that wasn’t intended as an insult, i’m not saying you’re a cynical hateful smartass, you made some very valid points, but the “i know better, you don’t understand” attitude really make you (among others) sound like ones :p

You’re having a very serious problem, in that you youself have fallen for the marketing gimmick. “Natural” simply doesn’t mean healthy, nor does “Organic” mean safe and/or sustainable.

Whether something is natural or unprocessed is in reality unrelated to whether it is healthy or fit for human consumption. Human artifice is actually quite capable of producing foods that are tastier, healthier, and potentially even both than foods found in nature. You are employing exactly this sort of artifice when you cook. Meanwhile, some things that humans have been clever enough to use for food are actually full-on kill-you-dead toxic in their natural state. Potatos used to be, but have been genetically engineered not to be. Soybeans still are. Fortunately, the toxins of both decompose to harmless components with just a little bit of heat (processing.)

Modern industrial agriculture is actually more sustainable than organic agriculture, and non-organic-label food is both safer and cheaper than organic food. If you’re making a salad, you’re better off avoiding the organic food section.

You’re right to want to avoid high levels of sugar and trans-fat, and it may well be true that organic- and natural- label items are more likely to have this property. They’re still red herrings that simply serve to muddy the debate. You don’t want natural or organic. You want foods low in sugars and trans fats. It’s as simple as that.

Currently of the 59,000,000 Km^2 of land area on planet earth, 40 % is under cultivation and that is barely enough to feed a hungry world population of nearly 7 billion.

“Organically grown” SHOULD be more cost effective than than”regular grown” food, because the farmers don’t have the expense of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, yet “organic” food costs more. Wanna know why? Because “organic” growth only produces 40 % as much food per/acre as “regular” food.

If the whole world went to “organic” food, we’d likely lose about 50 % of the world population due to starvation.

I guess I’ll have to stick with “regular” food.(just doing my bit to help the hungry).

GAry 7

@Nigel

“My point is that the amount to which people are exposed is trivial. Non-organically-grown food is NOT “filled with pesticides”, which is what you claimed.”

well alright, you believe the tolerance levels set by the FDA and USDA are low enough, and that non organically grown food is perfectly safe…

As I have pointed out, I don’t know about in the USA, but I have experience of pesticide-residue testing in the UK, and the limits set in the UK are safe, as far as anyone can determine.

I suppose I ought to point out, before you start picking at my use of the word “safe”, that I do recognise that there is no aspect of life that is without risk. In this context, I use “safe” in terms of “safe enough to not be worth worrying about”.

i simply don’t (the same way i don’t trust the FTC to protect customers from frauds…), and i’d rather not be called an idiot because of it.

Well, now you’re taking this personally. Go back and read what I wrote.

Your arguments were inadequate, but I never called you an idiot. You are making statements about a situation where some of the other commenters here know more about it than you do.

“Because you were defending the use of the word “natural” in a way that renders it meaningless.”

i was just pointing out what *i* think people have in mind when they use the adjective “natural” for food (or at least what i have in mind … but YES the word is often used a lame marketing argument, we agree on that, i never said the contrary).

But it isn’t a lame marketing tool. It is a very effective marketing tool. If it didn’t work, it wouldn’t still be in use. If people didn’t permit themselves to be manipulated so easily by the marketing industry, it wouldn’t make a difference to sales, and they’d have to try something else.

Words have different meanings depending on the context and insisting stubornly on the literal meaning with the “arsenic is natural” old joke is a poor way to argue against people who care about what they eat, as dave well expressed in his comment.

I was not insisting that “natural” have a literal meaning. I was insisting that is must have some meaning, as opposed to no meaning at all.

Besides, Dave didn’t really understand the argument, as I pointed out in my response to him.

No wonder the skeptics community is so often seen as a bunch of cynic hateful smart-asses if that attitude is so widespread among its members…

OK, now you are resorting to name-calling.

Please cite the exact paragraph where my comments were hateful.

I consider myself a skeptic yet i won’t chuckle at someone and call him stupid if he tells me he’s worried about “chemicals in his food”, i’ll know he refers to man made synthetical chemicals and i won’t go “water is a chemical too you tard!” (well i might, but as a joke, not as an actual counter argument).

Precisely. As I have already pointed out, some gentle ragging is a very good way to open the debate. And you can take it as far as you choose from that point.

The fact remains that using the word “chemical” to refer only to synthetic chemicals betrays a complete absence of understanding. Certain organisations (advertisers among them) have an interest in propagating and perpetuating this misunderstanding, because it allows them to make claims such as “100% chemical-free” without being reprimanded by the authorities. Thus, advertisers may make the claim in full knowledge that it is a lie, yet they get away with it because of the alleged “popular understanding” of the word.

So then you end up with a word that has two contradictory meanings. I know that advertisers revel in ambiguity, but I despise it.

As dave said ‘Organic’ has a specific meaning when talking about food, and many countries have accreditation procedures for using the word. You can argue whether organic farming actually produces better food, but the word actually does mean something.

‘Natural’ on the other hand, has no definite meaning and just makes deciding what foods to eat more difficult.

“My point is that the amount to which people are exposed is trivial. Non-organically-grown food is NOT “filled with pesticides”, which is what you claimed.”

well alright, you believe the tolerance levels set by the FDA and USDA are low enough, and that non organically grown food is perfectly safe… i simply don’t (the same way i don’t trust the FTC to protect customers from frauds…), and i’d rather not be called an idiot because of it.

“Because you were defending the use of the word “natural” in a way that renders it meaningless.”

i was just pointing out what *i* think people have in mind when they use the adjective “natural” for food (or at least what i have in mind … but YES the word is often used a lame marketing argument, we agree on that, i never said the contrary).
Words have different meanings depending on the context and insisting stubornly on the literal meaning with the “arsenic is natural” old joke is a poor way to argue against people who care about what they eat, as dave well expressed in his comment.
No wonder the skeptics community is so often seen as a bunch of cynic hateful smart-asses if that attitude is so widespread among its members… I consider myself a skeptic yet i won’t chuckle at someone and call him stupid if he tells me he’s worried about “chemicals in his food”, i’ll know he refers to man made synthetical chemicals and i won’t go “water is a chemical too you tard!” (well i might, but as a joke, not as an actual counter argument).

Taking the words “natural” and “organic” literally and then using that to argue against such foods is pretty unhelpful.

I’m not arguing against the foods.

I’m arguing against a use of language that renders a word meaningless.

I’ve largely given up on “organic”, mostly because its new meaning is at least reasonably clear. Organically-grown foods are purported to be better for you, and IIUC there is no evidence at all to support this claim. But I’ve mostly stopped arguing against the abuse of the word.

True, any company can legally claim their product is “natural” or “organic”. However, there is an organic certification process. If you see the “USDA organic” label, it means that the food has been certified to live up to certain standards, including the amount and type of pesticides used. The certification is done by the government, and so has the same risks of lobbyists/incompetence that any government body has, but the point is that the term “organic” is not meaningless.

In the UK, organic certification is done by the Soil Association, which is an industry body. It permits a food to be labelled organic as long as it contains at least 95% organically-produced foodstuffs. And they have some fairly clear criteria for what they will count as organic growing practices.

With regards to food, it means a very specific thing (the actual standards are like 500 pages long). You can argue that the amount of pesticides in normal food isn’t enough to be harmful, but that’s no reason to scoff at people who err on the side of caution when it comes to how much poison is allowed in their food.

You’re making a common mistake here, which is to assume that a substance that is toxic at a high dose is also toxic at a low dose. However, this is only true for a specific pharmacokinetic behaviour, which is for substances that accumulate in tissue and are not excreted or metabolised into excretable products. This behaviour is fairly rare among chemical substances.

To give you an example, chocolate is toxic to humans. The dose required for it to be lethal is unfeasibly high, but it is nonetheless. At low doses, it is completely harmless. Potassium salts are another example. We need a certain amount of potassium in our diet, but too much is harmful.

The same principle applies to nearly all of the pesticides used in agriculture. At high doses, they are toxic. However, at a sufficiently low dose, they are completely harmless. They are metabolised or excreted and cause no damage on the way.

I know we all have lots of great “dihydrogen monoxide” and “arsenic is natural” jokes ready to go, but you’re just showing that you’d rather make up an opposing view that you can easily refute rather than bother to learn the difference between “organic” and regular food.

Which shows you have not understood the argument.

The word “natural”, when used of foodstuffs, is meaningless unless you redefine it in a very specific way. It is used as a mere marketing trick to fool the unwary and the gullible, and it works.

To take a related example, google “Organics” shampoo and read the ingredients. This is sold by adverts that imply a “natural” lifestyle, yet it contains exactly the same chemicals as every other shampoo on the shelves. Only the colour and scent will be unique.

Another commenter argued that people aren’t stupid enough to be fooled by the term “natural” on the packaging, but, for whatever reason, as a marketing ploy it works.

And what better way to point out to someone that they have been duped by a marketing ploy than a little gentle ragging?

So I guess there really are people out there who think the “naturalness” of the source negates the biochemistry.

Absolutely, and this is the heart of the issue. If these people were few and far between, then marketers would cease to target them. But they seem to be in the majority, and the marketing strategies that target them work.

Personally, my favourite is when people complain about “chemicals” being in anything.
Water is a chemical. Checkmate.

Yes.

Sadly, the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency does not agree with you. There was a fertiliser that was being marketed as “100% chemical-free”, which was an outright lie. The BA posted on this a year or two ago.

However, the ASA rejected the complaints that were made because they support the bastardisation of the word “chemical” as meaning only “artificial substance”, rather than any individual substance.

Why the condescending attitude?

Because you were defending the use of the word “natural” in a way that renders it meaningless.

do you think people who looks at ingredients all are too stupid to do research on their own and that their concern necessarily originate from some new age gurus?

No, not too stupid. But most people are too lazy to do that research. If the packet says “natural” or “free range” or “low fat” or (the closest claim to an actual lie) “98% fat-free”, people will buy it thinking it is healthier or better for them in some vague and undefined way. If people didn’t buy into this crap, the marketers would give up and find another schtick instead.

People are right to be concerned about what they eat. But that concern must lead them into finding enough stuff out that they are able to make informed choices. Otherwise the concern is pointless and they end up eating unhealthily while thinking they are eating healthily.

A study published by the United States National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[66] A study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food (food grown without synthetic pesticides). In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet

What you have not noticed is what is conspicuous by its absence. The actual amounts measured, and how these relate to harmful doses.

Of course the “major source” of pesticide contact for most people is through diet. You act as though I should be surprised about that.

My point is that the amount to which people are exposed is trivial. Non-organically-grown food is NOT “filled with pesticides”, which is what you claimed.

Switching to organic food reduces your exposure to pesticides, from a trivial amount to an even more trivial amount. What’s the big deal?

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/10/22/on-eating-in-the-uk/