What is Natural Food Anyway?

bcattoes

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

sullus

"

Are we so screwed up that nobody can recognize a rhetorical device to demonstrate the fallacy of the word "natural"?

In all fairness the question is what is natural food, not natural <insert many things that are natural>

Natural has a definition, The OP's question refers to how we might interpret that to apply to our food. Urine is natural also. Is this going to turn into a thread about how many natural substances we can list and would never eat?

Therefore qualifying the word "natural" is an important part of the discussion. At the end of the day Nothing on earth is not "natural"

sullus

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

So humans exist outside of nature?

bcattoes

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

So humans exist outside of nature?

So, you think humans don't naturally occur?

nomeejerome

in

sullus

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

So humans exist outside of nature?

So, you think humans don't naturally occur?

Not sure how you got there from here. I'm saying that humans adding enzymes to sugar water is no LESS "natural" than bees doing it.

Sqeekyjojo

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

Anyone want to take bets upon what honey bees are fed to keep them alive over winter, rather than let the majority of the colony die out because humans want the honey they've stored to feed themselves over winter to sell?

bcattoes

I always like Honey v HFCS in the "natural" debate. I consider Honey to be a highly processed (with chemicals, no less!!) food. They're basically the same thing - sugar water processed with enzymes, then evaporated to a sugary syrup that contains about 55% fructose.

Yet one's an all-natural wondersweetener, and the other is the most evil, guaranteed to give you the diabetus, sweetener that ever existed.

HFCS is no less "natural" than Honey. Why does it matter if a human or bee adds the enzymes?

I think it makes a big difference whether bees or humans add the enzymes. That's like asking whether it matters if humans add a bunch of chemicals to food or mother nature does. Sure it's all chemicals, but all chemicals in food are equal.

Honey from a bee hive is a far cry from HFCS. So is pure maple syrup, even though it is cooked to turn it from sap to syrup.

Sometimes it's necesary to not look just at words like enzymes and chemicals and use a little comon sense.

1. I don't.

2. How so?

2. One is natural and one is not. Honey will be made without any intervention from man, whether man wants it or not. Nature creates it. HCFS is a man-made food that would never occur naturally.

So humans exist outside of nature?

So, you think humans don't naturally occur?

Not sure how you got there from here. I'm saying that humans adding enzymes to sugar water is no LESS "natural" than bees doing it.

And I'm saying common sense tells me it is.

bcattoes

Anyone want to take bets upon what honey bees are fed to keep them alive over winter, rather than let the majority of the colony die out because humans want the honey they've stored to feed themselves over winter to sell?

Not all honey bees are fed anything by humans.

Sqeekyjojo

Anyone want to take bets upon what honey bees are fed to keep them alive over winter, rather than let the majority of the colony die out because humans want the honey they've stored to feed themselves over winter to sell?

Not all honey bees are fed anything by humans.

They don't tend to have honey taken and sold, then. Can you imagine the sales byline 'Our bees have their winter stores of honey taken and then we leave the colony to pretty much starve to death over winter - all because it's more natural that way'?

sullus

Not sure how you got there from here. I'm saying that humans adding enzymes to sugar water is no LESS "natural" than bees doing it.

And I'm saying common sense tells me it is.

And I'm saying common sense tells me that it isn't. Adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose ....

And since humans are just as naturally occurring as bees ....

jwdieter

Clearly, "natural" is a word with many interpretations. So what?

Acg67

My mom is always telling me something or other is 'natural' and I always say 'hemlock is natural!'

As far as food goes, though, I figure if you are eating whole foods you prepared yourself or as close to it as you can get you are doing well.

LOL I always say arsenic is all natural no added ingredients.

We are talking about FOOD. Are we so screwed up that we can't recognize what food is anymore? But if you think equating food with arsenic is a good argument to justify eating foods that come in a box; well, good for you. The OP probably agrees.

I completely agree that "natural" food is something that is not processed. No ingredient list. Of course, some of our "natural" foods are questionable with GMO, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers etc. Many people are very deluded on what is "natural" food and the term is used extremely loosely by the food industry and it's easy to be aware of it if one has any functioning brain cells left. Everything we eat comes from nature in some way, but the label "natural" has become a scam.

Might want to look up what processed means...

RllyGudTweetr

Food found on Earth = Natural food. None of that foreign Alpha Centauri garbage for me, no, sir.

highervibes

Jeeze... leave for a Wendy's chili and THIS happens lol

bcattoes

Not sure how you got there from here. I'm saying that humans adding enzymes to sugar water is no LESS "natural" than bees doing it.

And I'm saying common sense tells me it is.

And I'm saying common sense tells me that it isn't. Adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose ....

And since humans are just as naturally occurring as bees ....

I think you are being ridiculous just for the sake of argument.

toaster6

We are talking about FOOD. Are we so screwed up that we can't recognize what food is anymore? But if you think equating food with arsenic is a good argument to justify eating foods that come in a box; well, good for you. The OP probably agrees.

I completely agree that "natural" food is something that is not processed. No ingredient list. Of course, some of our "natural" foods are questionable with GMO, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers etc. Many people are very deluded on what is "natural" food and the term is used extremely loosely by the food industry and it's easy to be aware of it if one has any functioning brain cells left. Everything we eat comes from nature in some way, but the label "natural" has become a scam.

Heh. Can you not process that it's an adequate example to demonstrate that "natural" <> "good for you" That's all. Nobody "can't recognize what food is any more"

Are we so screwed up that nobody can recognize a rhetorical device to demonstrate the fallacy of the word "natural"?

Ok, we can use food then. Blowfish is all-natural food that can kill you if not prepared properly. Taro, ackee fruit, & cassava are toxic if you don't catch them at the exactly the right amount of ripe. Cassava, elderberry leaves (for teas) & bitter almonds have naturally occurring cyanide and can cause health issues if you consume too much. Unpasteurized honey can also cause health issues.

highervibes

Ok, we can use food then. Blowfish is all-natural food that can kill you if not prepared properly. Taro, ackee fruit, & cassava are toxic if you don't catch them at the exactly the right amount of ripe. Cassava, elderberry leaves (for teas) & bitter almonds have naturally occurring cyanide and can cause health issues if you consume too much. Unpasteurized honey can also cause health issues.

Any food can cause 'health issues'

jwdieter

Well, according to search, the last time someone brought up a topic about "natural food" prior to this thread was 3 months ago. Clearly an important definition to nail down.

sullus

Not sure how you got there from here. I'm saying that humans adding enzymes to sugar water is no LESS "natural" than bees doing it.

And I'm saying common sense tells me it is.

And I'm saying common sense tells me that it isn't. Adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose, is adding enzymes to sugar water to convert about 50% of it to Fructose ....

And since humans are just as naturally occurring as bees ....

I think you are being ridiculous just for the sake of argument.

Nope. I believe my own bull****.

Here's the point. Honey and HCFS have extremely similar chemical composition, and are made (processed, engineered, I dont care) basically the same way.

However, Honey is touted as a "good sweetener" because it's "natural". Processed foods are bad .. honey is highly processed, but it's good anyway.

The OP's point was that words like processed and natural create different reactions to similar foods based on perceptions of what these words imply to people.

Honey and HCFS are, chemically, nearly identical. Sure honey has some pollen and bee legs in it, but the 2 liquids are not significantly different from each other.

But here we are with people saying one is better than the other because of how it is sourced. Your body can not tell the difference between the fructose in HFCS and Honey. Your body treats HFCS and honey the same way. But one's good for you, and one's bad for you, because people, or whatever. It's a pretty clear demonstartion of the OP's point.