When did 'chemical' become a bad word?

And honestly, as I said in another thread..... who gives a rip? Again, people, you get one shot at this. Why not eat what you want, do what you want, live how you want. You are only accountable to yourself. Eat some chemical-laden food if that's what you are comfortable with. Eat all-natural from Whole Foods (or the Wild Wood if you like) if that's what you are comfortable with. You don't have to explain yourself to anyone. While it's fun to debate like this on a website, it's unlikely we'll change each other's minds, and that's okay. Just be the best person you can, be kind to other people, and like yourself.

Nothing you eat is bad. Wasting this one life you get is bad.

dbmata wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?

Where'd you get that definition from?

Um, the dictionary?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:

growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.

Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.

Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.

So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?

Honestly?

Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.

You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.

Just off the top of my head, hucklberries and fiddleheads. Both can't be cultivated effectively, and wild stocks are where almost ALL commercial product comes from.

That's just off the top of my head.

What about paw paws?

I'll eat my chemicals and be healthy too.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

richardheath wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

richardheath wrote: »

Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.

Couple of problems with this.

(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).

(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.

(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.

(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).

I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

Nature is the world outside of man. Nothing man-made is natural. Why? Because that's what the words mean. You can suggest an alternate definition, but unless it becomes the official definition it's just a misuse of the word. Which is kind of funny in this thread.

Pretty much every food you eat has been altered by man in some way. Before we got our grubby hands on them, "natural" corncobs were very small, apples were small, hard and sour, almonds were poisonous, sheep would attack you, and cows didn't have huge udders that produce far more milk than a calf could ever drink. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer, to a very large extent there are no "natural" foods anymore.

Even outside of our influence, nature isn't the elegant homeostatic system some people think it is. All species are constantly competing and evolving and extinction is a common occurrence. Dutch Elm Disease has destroyed most elm trees. European cave bears didn't survive the last Ice Age. Mammals ate dinosaur eggs. Countless plants, animals and single cell organisms have risen to prominence and than were out-competed by newer, better adapted organisms. Man is just the result of yet another species adapting to its ever changing environment.

There is no way to eat natural because nature itself is always changing and the very act of you being alive changes nature. The food you eat was produced by someone selecting one species to produce over another, and then systematically clearing land to produce that species. In the process, the existing species on the land were destroyed and the habitat was changed. Some organisms can adapt to that change. Others become marginalized or go extinct.

Um, okay? None of that changes the meaning of the words nature or natural.

Read it again. Everything you eat is man-made to a certain extent and there's really no such thing as eating natural anyway. For good or for bad, man is a part of the ecosystem he inhabits and therefore both affects it and is affected by it. There's no way to draw the line or make the distinction you are trying to make.

dbmata wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?

Where'd you get that definition from?

Um, the dictionary?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:

growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.

Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.

Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.

So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?

Honestly?

Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.

You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.

Just off the top of my head, hucklberries and fiddleheads. Both can't be cultivated effectively, and wild stocks are where almost ALL commercial product comes from.

That's just off the top of my head.

Makes sense that things that are really difficult to cultivate would fall under that heading.

Went to look up huckleberries out of curiosity. Funny that the first hit that comes up is a pdf from the University of Iowa on how to cultivate your own huckleberry bushes.

It's not effective, otherwise it would be done widespread.

These little things run about $50 a gallon here, and when someone plants or transplants a huckleberry bush into a non-wild environment, it becomes fairly inspid and flaccid in flavor. Quite a surprise. Plenty of examples of that locally to me, where folks with stars in their eyes thought they'd be able to ride the hucklberry to financial success in a cash only/barter economy. lol.

The huckleberry has been largely supplanted by the tastier, seedless and easier to grow blueberry. If there was a big enough market for huckleberries, the big agriculture businesses would have focused their resources on developing them, but there isn't. Most other native North American foods have been supplanted by crops from other parts of the world that have higher yields, taste better, are more drought resistant, easier to work with, etc. Eurasian crops, in particular, benefit from man having cultivated them from thousands of years longer than crops from other parts of the world. Over such a long time, we've altered these crops the most in order to suit our needs best. Can we honestly still say that wheat and rice and barley are still "natural" foods?

Corn and potatoes are the big exceptions of crops from the New World that are superior to anything similar from Eurasia, however both are relatively recent imports from South America. At one time, Native North Americans grew crops like goosefoot, sumpweed, knotweed and maygrass. You've probably never heard of them because the natives abandoned them very quickly once they were able to acquire Eurasian crops. Are they natural foods while wheat is not? Because of aggressive breeding, corn and potatoes bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors? Are they natural? Did they used to be?

These questions can't be answered because they have no meaning. Man is a part of nature. We change the world and the world changes us. So does every other living thing.

mccindy72 wrote: »

And honestly, as I said in another thread..... who gives a rip? Again, people, you get one shot at this. Why not eat what you want, do what you want, live how you want. You are only accountable to yourself. Eat some chemical-laden food if that's what you are comfortable with. Eat all-natural from Whole Foods (or the Wild Wood if you like) if that's what you are comfortable with. You don't have to explain yourself to anyone. While it's fun to debate like this on a website, it's unlikely we'll change each other's minds, and that's okay. Just be the best person you can, be kind to other people, and like yourself.

Nothing you eat is bad. Wasting this one life you get is bad.

Actually I did. I mean change my mind since joining MFP. I believed in lot of stupid diet things like sugar is bad, low carb is the only thing that causes weight loss, or that processed food is bad and if I want to lose weight I had to give up 'junk' desserts and chocolate s etc. But only after going through all the discussion s here did I realize that as long as I ate in deficit I would lose weight and I did not have to give up any food a

earlnabby wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.

So how do you explain the hate for MSG which occurs naturally in food and is extracted from seaweed and sugar beets?

I would imagine it is bloating from sodium, more than the fact that it's chemicals. But something that is naturally occurring and then extracted by man and added to other foods is not same as naturally occurring. Not many people hate on seaweed and beets.

mccindy72 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?

Where'd you get that definition from?

Um, the dictionary?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:

growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.

Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.

Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.

So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?

Honestly?

Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.

You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.

Just off the top of my head, hucklberries and fiddleheads. Both can't be cultivated effectively, and wild stocks are where almost ALL commercial product comes from.

That's just off the top of my head.

What about paw paws?

elderberries?

Elderberries are cultivated and have been hybridized in France ... no idea about other countries, or if the elderberries grown here are native stock or imports.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.

So how do you explain the hate for MSG which occurs naturally in food and is extracted from seaweed and sugar beets?

I would imagine it is bloating from sodium, more than the fact that it's chemicals. But something that is naturally occurring and then extracted by man and added to other foods is not same as naturally occurring. Not many people hate on seaweed and beets.

MSG is much lower in sodium than salt per serving.

Also, there is no hate on vanilla , almond, etc. extracts which are also naturally occurring but extracted by man, so your argument is a bit specious

earlnabby wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.

So how do you explain the hate for MSG which occurs naturally in food and is extracted from seaweed and sugar beets?

I would imagine it is bloating from sodium, more than the fact that it's chemicals. But something that is naturally occurring and then extracted by man and added to other foods is not same as naturally occurring. Not many people hate on seaweed and beets.

MSG is much lower in sodium than salt per serving.

Also, there is no hate on vanilla , almond, etc. extracts which are also naturally occurring but extracted by man, so your argument is a bit specious

Well you are asking me to guess at why others hate on something so I can only guess. I have no evidence that people don't hate on vanilla or almond extracts as food additives and didn't realize we were arguing.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

RllyGudTweetr wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?

Where'd you get that definition from?

Um, the dictionary?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:

growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.

Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.

Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.

So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?

Honestly?

Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.

You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.

I'm not sure that makes them not natural. If a man-altered seed is naturally planted and grown for years, decades or even centuries, is it still not natural? Once tainted, is it never again part of nature? But it's an interesting discussion.

If it is planted by humans, it already falls outside of some of the definitions of 'natural' bandied about in this thread. So, what do you mean by 'naturally planted and grown?'

Let's say my great great grandfather planted an apple tree when he was a boy. A crow carries the apple off and it's seed starts a new tree. Then the same thing happens for several growing seasons. All those new trees are naturally planted. Is their fruit natural, or is it unnatural because of the original tree planted by a boy many years ago?

Then answer is: they'd be inedible. Apple trees not cultivated by man almost always produce hard, sour, small crab-apples. The apple was one of the very last fruits to be domesticated because their complex genetics makes it unlikely that the fruit will turn out to be edible, even if you are careful to pollinate only among "good" trees. The secret turned out to be cutting a branch off the rare apple tree that produces edible fruit and grafting it onto an existing crab-apple tree that can be grown from seed. The branch will continue to grow and produce more edible fruit. Any other natural branches of the crab-apple tree are likewise cut off since they won't yield edible fruit and replaced with grafts from good trees. An interesting thing to note about this is that each apple variety is essentially a clone. An apple variety that you eat today tastes exactly the same as that same variety grown decades or centuries ago, although many varieties exist today that did not long ago.

So you picked a bad example for a "natural" food. Nobody eats natural apples. What we eat today is a fruit that is actively cloned by man and is grown from a tree that could not even exist outside of man's interference. While the apple is an extreme example, pretty much ALL the foods we eat have been bred by us to be something very different from their wild ancestors. Which ones are "natural" and what does that even mean nowadays when we are so far removed from our hunter-gatherer past?

peter56765 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

RllyGudTweetr wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a definition of "nature" which states that anything that a human makes is, by definition, not part of nature. But why is an anthill natural but a house is not? A tool used by a chimp is natural, but a screwdriver is not? I would suggest such a definition is based on common usage, not on a hard and fast distinction of any sort.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So if I plant a tree, it's not natural?

Where'd you get that definition from?

Um, the dictionary?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

And actually yes. If you transplant a tree it's not natural. Case in point, another definition:

growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

I suppose I should have known someone would nit-pick something as silly as the definition of natural.

Well then I think you've put this entire conversation to bed.

Congratulations everyone, you can all relax. Nothing you eat is natural. No matter how much you spend at Whole Foods. You're the same as the guy eating a Hungry Man microwaveable meal.

So, if I eat wild blackberries or crab apples, those are not natural?

Honestly?

Probably not. If it's edible (by which I mean tastes decent enough that you wouldn't spit it out), it's most likely either a cultivated variety that's run to seed, or a naturally occurring hybrid of one of those cultivated varieties.

You see, the interesting thing is that not only are the fruits and vegetables that humans have hybridized more tasty to humans ... they're often also more showy and tastier to animals, birds, and insects. So the pollen and the seeds are widely dispersed. I'm not sure you could find vegetables or fruit that are unaffected by human cultivation anymore.

I'm not sure that makes them not natural. If a man-altered seed is naturally planted and grown for years, decades or even centuries, is it still not natural? Once tainted, is it never again part of nature? But it's an interesting discussion.

If it is planted by humans, it already falls outside of some of the definitions of 'natural' bandied about in this thread. So, what do you mean by 'naturally planted and grown?'

Let's say my great great grandfather planted an apple tree when he was a boy. A crow carries the apple off and it's seed starts a new tree. Then the same thing happens for several growing seasons. All those new trees are naturally planted. Is their fruit natural, or is it unnatural because of the original tree planted by a boy many years ago?

Then answer is: they'd be inedible. Apple trees not cultivated by man almost always produce hard, sour, small crab-apples. The apple was one of the very last fruits to be domesticated because their complex genetics makes it unlikely that the fruit will turn out to be edible, even if you are careful to pollinate only among "good" trees. The secret turned out to be cutting a branch off the rare apple tree that produces edible fruit and grafting it onto an existing crab-apple tree that can be grown from seed. The branch will continue to grow and produce more edible fruit. Any other natural branches of the crab-apple tree are likewise cut off since they won't yield edible fruit and replaced with grafts from good trees. An interesting thing to note about this is that each apple variety is essentially a clone. An apple variety that you eat today tastes exactly the same as that same variety grown decades or centuries ago, although many varieties exist today that did not long ago.

So you picked a bad example for a "natural" food. Nobody eats natural apples. What we eat today is a fruit that is actively cloned by man and is grown from a tree that could not even exist outside of man's interference. While the apple is an extreme example, pretty much ALL the foods we eat have been bred by us to be something very different from their wild ancestors. Which ones are "natural" and what does that even mean nowadays when we are so far removed from our hunter-gatherer past?

I happen to love crab apples. Have since I was a kid. But thanks for another off topic response that in no way answered my question.

ps. i realize everything in life has a chemical composition, i'm just giving an example of what the "anti-chemical" folk are talking about.

mykaylis wrote: »

sheldonz42 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.

You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)

no, that is combining two natural foods.

chemicals are things like splenda, which does not occur in nature, and gives me seizures.

You do realise Splenda doesnt give everyone seizures?

Of course anyone should avoid any substance, natural or otherwise, that gives them allergic reactions.

Plenty of people get allergic reactions to peanuts, oranges, tomatoes, kiwi fruit etc etc - should everyone else avoid them too?