What is Natural Food Anyway?

MacMadame

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

Well that's kind of obvious.

You are also arguing a different point than that of the OP which is that people's understanding of what it means to be "natural" doesn't seem to be based on anything logical. This is very clear when you look at the difference in the answers between whether or not adding salt to something is natural vs. adding Sodium Chloride when they are the exact same thing. And, in this case, they really are the exact. same. thing. (In your honey vs. HFCS, they AREN'T the exact same thing, just similar.)

Ok, so .. are hothouse tomatoes less natural than ones grown outdoors? They're in a human created "unnatural" environment being forced to unnaturally grow out of season. They don't get rained on, but humans must water them. and onward ...

What about hydroponic tomatoes? That gell looks cool, but it sure ain't "natural" ... Are these less natural than the ones in your garden?

Yes, they are less natural. Duh.

Which includes .. humans.

I don't define humans as "outside of nature"

Then you are using a special definition of natural that only you use since the official definition of natural PRECLUDES anything that is man-made. And using your own definitions for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions and then arguing for them makes you a troll. By definition.

bcattoes

vomit = cottage cheese. That's not ridiculous at all. :huh:

Of course it isn't. Cottage cheese is cows' milk that has rennet, a substance obtained from calves' stomach juices, added. The addition of the acid/enzyme causes the fats to curdle and separate from the whey. It is exactly the same chemical process. If calves puked, they'd produce cottage cheese.

An alternative is to add something like lemon juice instead, which is how you get paneer, often know as Indian cheese.

rennet is not always used in the making of cheese, and does not always come from a calf's stomach. But that aside, if you want to eat vomit go ahead. Let me know how that works out for you.

sullus

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

Well that's kind of obvious.

You are also arguing a different point than that of the OP which is that people's understanding of what it means to be "natural" doesn't seem to be based on anything logical. This is very clear when you look at the difference in the answers between whether or not adding salt to something is natural vs. adding Sodium Chloride when they are the exact same thing. And, in this case, they really are the exact. same. thing. (In your honey vs. HFCS, they AREN'T the exact same thing, just similar.)

Ok, so .. are hothouse tomatoes less natural than ones grown outdoors? They're in a human created "unnatural" environment being forced to unnaturally grow out of season. They don't get rained on, but humans must water them. and onward ...

What about hydroponic tomatoes? That gell looks cool, but it sure ain't "natural" ... Are these less natural than the ones in your garden?

Yes, they are less natural. Duh.

Which includes .. humans.

I don't define humans as "outside of nature"

Then you are using a special definition of natural that only you use since the official definition of natural PRECLUDES anything that is man-made. And using your own definitions for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions and then arguing for them makes you a troll. By definition.

You don't understand my argument so you want to call me a troll. That's fine.

Nobody's told me yet how bees can transform nectar to honey without chemical processing, or why it's somehow "different" when humans do the same thing.

sullus

You're not .. good .. at this, are you?

Your objective: make up definitions that invalidate meaningful discussion.

Just following your lead here. My made up definition trumps yours.

I'm the only one addressing this from the OP:

" One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators. "

You all seem to disagree with that.

conniedj

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?

Pasteurized honey is processed. Raw honey is not. Buy raw honey.

^^^This! Natural=not made in a lab, found in nature. I have never seen a HFCS hive!

MacMadame

To get back to the original post... I am not remotely surprised by these findings. I frequently find myself having conversations with people that go something like this:

Them: I'm going to try to eat healthier. I'm not going to put any chemicals in my body!
Me: Then I guess you aren't going to drink or eat anything.
Them: What do you mean?
Me: Everything is a chemical. You can't not eat chemicals.
Them: You know what I mean.
Me: No I don't.
Them: I mean I'm not going to eat anything I can't pronounce!
Me: So you aren't going to drink dihydrogen monoxide.
Them: Exactly!
Me: So you aren't going to drink water.
Them: You're just being difficult!

But I'm not. I'm trying to show them that just because something sounds "chemically" it doesn't mean it's bad for them and that just because it's "natural" that doesn't mean it's automatically good for them and that, if they keep their understanding of food and nutrition at the level of a 2nd grader, they are at the mercy of the food industry.

As an example, there were these series of ads on tv a while back by the dairy industry trying to demonize Soy and Almond milk. Except they called them "Artificial Milk" and they called Cow's Milk "real" milk. Now there is nothing particularly artificial about almond or soy milk compared to the cow's milk that we buy in the store -- they all have some level of processing -- and there is nothing "realer" about cow's milk compared to any other kind of milk. Goat's milk or any other mammal's milk is just as real as cow's milk.

In the commercials, they said things like "real milk doesn't separate!" Except REAL milk -- unprocessed milk - absolutely DOES separate. The only reason the milk we buy at the store doesn't separate is that it's been homogenized. I.E., it's been PROCESSED.

Then they talked about the ingredients in "artificial" milk and tried to make it seem like it was full of "chemicals". Except most of what they were saying was in soy and almond milk didn't have to be in there. The soy milk I buy lists 2 ingredients - FILTERED WATER, WHOLE ORGANIC SOYBEANS.

But most of what they were saying were in there were just added vitamins and minerals. The sort of things people pay money to take as supplements.

Only instead of saying "calcium" and "vitamin A" they were saying "calcium carbonate" and "Retinyl palmitate". And the people who think salt is natural but Sodium chloride is not (even though they are the exact same thing), were probably thinking: Oh my god! I had no idea my soy milk had all those "chemicals" in it!

Not to mention that many dairy farms add these things to milk too. In fact, all milk has to have vitamin D added to it by law. And lots of dairy products have carrageenan in them. It's a thickener made from seaweed that you find in cottage cheese, chocolate milk, soy milk, ice creams and also personal care products.

Which leads people to say: I'm not eating something that's in my shampoo! But water is in your shampoo. So just because a chemical is used in a non-food product, doesn't mean it automatically isn't fit for human consumption either. It just depends on what that ingredient is.

We need to educate ourselves about these things so we can make informed choices.

jwdieter

I'm the only one addressing this from the OP:

" One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators. "

You all seem to disagree with that.

It is nebulous and vaguely defined by regulators. Much of the products labeled "natural" are not consistent with consumer definitions of "natural". The OP explains that well, and that people have a wide range of definitions for "natural". Are people disagreeing with those conclusions?

Arguing that everything in the universe is "natural" is completely specious and irrelevant to the OP. At best you represent the lunatic fringe of people defining the word.

MacMadame

Nobody's told me yet how bees can transform nectar to honey without chemical processing, or why it's somehow "different" when humans do the same thing.

Yes we have. We've told you that natural means found in nature. Factories are not found in nature. HFCS is made in a factory. HFCS is man-made. Man-made is not nature-made.

Acg67

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?

Pasteurized honey is processed. Raw honey is not. Buy raw honey.

^^^This! Natural=not made in a lab, found in nature. I have never seen a HFCS hive!

Is butter natural? Not found in nature

sullus

Nobody's told me yet how bees can transform nectar to honey without chemical processing, or why it's somehow "different" when humans do the same thing.

Yes we have. We've told you that natural means found in nature. Factories are not found in nature. HFCS is made in a factory. HFCS is man-made. Man-made is not nature-made.

Would you say there's no such thing as all-natural guacamole, then?

bcattoes

You're not .. good .. at this, are you?

Your objective: make up definitions that invalidate meaningful discussion.

Just following your lead here. My made up definition trumps yours.

I'm the only one addressing this from the OP:

" One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators. "

You all seem to disagree with that.

You seem to be the only NOT addressing the OP at all. You are very caught up in "processing". The post is about "natural". Those words are not synonyms.

sullus

You're not .. good .. at this, are you?

Your objective: make up definitions that invalidate meaningful discussion.

Just following your lead here. My made up definition trumps yours.

I'm the only one addressing this from the OP:

" One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators. "

You all seem to disagree with that.

You seem to be the only NOT addressing the OP at all. You are very caught up in "processing". The post is about "natural". Those words are not synonyms.

Processing enters the debate about if it's a natural food, since: "The majority of respondents thought that the best definition (at least among the four I included) was, "fresh foods with no added ingredients and no processing." "

I hit on honey because it's a completely naturally food, which happens to have been chemically processed from other materials.

See how it's all part of the same discussion?

conniedj

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?

Pasteurized honey is processed. Raw honey is not. Buy raw honey.

^^^This! Natural=not made in a lab, found in nature. I have never seen a HFCS hive!

Is butter natural? Not found in nature

I have taken my raw milk, skimmed the cream from the top, put the cream in a jar and made butter.
Natural? By my own litmus test I took a raw ingredient and applied a process. That raw ingredient was transformed. I didn't apply a technique other than shaking (like mixing oil, water, and adding hydrogen molecules, etc.). I pass the test. Butter is indeed natural.

toaster6

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'

Okay, raw honey contains grayanotoxins which are chemicals that are toxic to the nervous system. They prevent nerve cells from functioning properly, and therefore prevent your brain from being able to properly control your body. Grayanotoxins will be killed during the honey pasteurization process, but may be present in certain types of raw honey. It can also cause botulism and anaphylactic shock in some individuals.

bcattoes

You're not .. good .. at this, are you?

Your objective: make up definitions that invalidate meaningful discussion.

Just following your lead here. My made up definition trumps yours.

I'm the only one addressing this from the OP:

" One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators. "

You all seem to disagree with that.

You seem to be the only NOT addressing the OP at all. You are very caught up in "processing". The post is about "natural". Those words are not synonyms.

Processing enters the debate about if it's a natural food, since: "The majority of respondents thought that the best definition (at least among the four I included) was, "fresh foods with no added ingredients and no processing." "

I hit on honey because it's a completely naturally food, which happens to have been chemically processed from other materials.

See how it's all part of the same discussion?

No, not really. Are you saying you understood the "no processing" remark to mean something other than processing by man?

conniedj

I hit on honey because it's a completely naturally food, which happens to have been chemically processed from other materials.

See how it's all part of the same discussion?

You are making the assumption that honey as it is created by the hive is automatically processed. It is not. This is where the variation in thought begins. Once it--honey-- is processed (pasturized) it is a processed food, and would indeed be the near of HFCS. --in this regard your argument is valid. *Though I would also have to say that HFCS is more than just pasturized--it wouldn't exist without a great number of chemical processes as well--but that is a different matter*

kirk_clawson

vomit = cottage cheese. That's not ridiculous at all. :huh:

Of course it isn't. Cottage cheese is cows' milk that has rennet, a substance obtained from calves' stomach juices, added. The addition of the acid/enzyme causes the fats to curdle and separate from the whey. It is exactly the same chemical process. If calves puked, they'd produce cottage cheese.

An alternative is to add something like lemon juice instead, which is how you get paneer, often know as Indian cheese.

I'm not adding anything valuable to this topic at all, but this post got me thinking. The first guy who discovered cottage cheese, must have seen a calf puke and thought "That looks like some good eats, right there!"

WTF, dude? :huh:

sullus

I hit on honey because it's a completely naturally food, which happens to have been chemically processed from other materials.

See how it's all part of the same discussion?

You are making the assumption that honey as it is created by the hive is automatically processed. It is not. This is where the variation in thought begins. Once it--honey-- is processed (pasturized) it is a processed food, and would indeed be the near of HFCS. --in this regard your argument is valid. *Though I would also have to say that HFCS is more than just pasturized--it wouldn't exist without a great number of chemical processes as well--but that is a different matter*

No. I'm making the (correct) assumption that it is processed in the hive.

Once AGAIN: Can anyone tell me how bees can transform nectar into honey without any chemical processing?

bcattoes

Nobody's told me yet how bees can transform nectar to honey without chemical processing, or why it's somehow "different" when humans do the same thing.

Yes we have. We've told you that natural means found in nature. Factories are not found in nature. HFCS is made in a factory. HFCS is man-made. Man-made is not nature-made.

Would you say there's no such thing as all-natural guacamole, then?

No. But you can have guacamole made with all natural ingredients.

Sqeekyjojo

vomit = cottage cheese. That's not ridiculous at all. :huh:

Of course it isn't. Cottage cheese is cows' milk that has rennet, a substance obtained from calves' stomach juices, added. The addition of the acid/enzyme causes the fats to curdle and separate from the whey. It is exactly the same chemical process. If calves puked, they'd produce cottage cheese.

An alternative is to add something like lemon juice instead, which is how you get paneer, often know as Indian cheese.

I'm not adding anything valuable to this topic at all, but this post got me thinking. The first guy who discovered cottage cheese, must have seen a calf puke and thought "That looks like some good eats, right there!"

WTF, dude? :huh:

Well, nearly. It's argued that where stomachs were used as vessels for carrying liquids, such as milk, if one were to retain some of the juices, it would have caused the milk to curdle/separate inside. So they would have found the milk had become curds and whey.


And because true hunger means not being faddy and pernickety about things, they didn't react with 'ewwwww! Processed milk! That's GROSSSSSSSS!', they found it tasted good and kept for longer than the milk alone - and presumably, when drained and dried, it kept for even longer.