Is Agriculture “Natural”? What is?{8}
When you hear the word “natural,” what comes to mind? Does a field of corn with a red barn and a few cows? Here are some of the first images that pop up under a search for “natural” on Google:
Notice how those trees are in a straight row, with a perfectly round shape? They were intentionally planted and pruned to look like that. What about the fern garden? Who put those gates there, what are the gates made of, and how are the plants arranged? Do strawberries found on the forest floor look like these?
Many people prefer food, cosmetic products, clothing, and medicines that are “natural.” Advertising gets a kick out of it by labeling products as “natural and artificial flavors,” “organic,” and “100% natural.” What do we really mean by these terms? What do we think we mean by these terms?
In addition, why does it matter that we use these terms? There is a pervading belief in our culture that “natural” means good. Is this true? What about vaccines? What about GMOs? What about air conditioning? Are there times when “natural” things are good, and times when they are not?
The Skeptic’s Dictionary has some thoughts about the meaning of the word “natural:” http://skepdic.com/natural.html
It and the USDA also have some thoughts about the meaning of the word “organic:” http://skepdic.com/organic.html
USDA: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=organic-agriculture.html
Let’s sit down and talk about whether agriculture is natural, whether that makes it good, and whether our terminology is sufficient.
March 2, 2015 @ 8:43 PM
What is “natural”? By the definition we discussed in class “being unadulterated by humans,” nothing is natural. GMOs, selective breeding, hybridization, even farming in general is not natural, these things are not found in nature, they are man-made constructs. It isn’t necessarily a bad thing that these things aren’t “natural,” because being hunter gatherers like what was practiced thousands of years ago is simply not feasible with a world population of this magnitude. A growing world calls for an evolving in agricultural practices.
While solely “natural” foods by that definition are practically unattainable at this point, it is valid to strive to eat things that are less processed. Eliminating additives and preservatives and making food less processed, and by definition more natural, is a reasonable goal. Is making all food products less processed feasible? That I do not know. Many of the procedures used in processed foods make them more affordable, so I’m not sure if eliminating all processed foods is viable.
March 3, 2015 @ 12:14 AM
To me it seems that the definition of natural has to be modified so that the entire population truly understands its meaning. Even foods that could be considered natural are technically modified by humans somewhere along the line. People are buying things thinking that they are healthy and natural when they are not. It seems that we can not avoid GMO’s and unnatural food but the population needs to be educated on what the term means so that they know what they are buying. It also seems like the FDA should define natural itself to prevent all the mislabeling on food. In this way we can hopefully cut down on the misuse of these terms by companies and consumers.
March 7, 2015 @ 11:52 AM
Adrianna is on to something regarding less processed foods. I believe one reason so many people, including myself, are more inclined to buy “natural” foods over other foods is foods labeled “natural” tend to be less processed. Our bodies evolved to use minimally processed foods, and processed foods weren’t introduced into the human diet until relatively recently (at least on an evolutionary timescale). Thus, our bodies can (theoretically) use less processed foods “better” than processed foods. The question then is can “unnatural” foods, such as GMOs, still be “whole foods.” From a nutritional standpoint, I would venture to say yes, as long as they are not processed. Consequently, perhaps we should be using the phrase “minimally processed” instead of “natural” in food labeling to more accurately represent what is actually being sold.
March 16, 2015 @ 2:09 PM
I think the world “natural” mean different things in different scenarios. In the food industry the word “natural” has no bound unlike “organic” which is heavily regulated. Because “Natural” is not bounded any product can be labeled so with simply less processing. Yes that that is a bit closer to being natural but that what you have to settle for with processed food. If you really want natural foods either make everything from scratch or simply check the ingredients on the label. In class I used my peanut butter as an example. It’s only peanuts and salt. No palms oil or even honey roasted peanuts (fancy processed peanuts). If consumers want to eat more natural you can just grab everything that says natural but actually do research on their food.
March 16, 2015 @ 3:21 PM
It seems like natural in regards to food is completely different than anything else. Why that is, I have no idea. However, the distinction between natural, organic, and non-GMO seems to be less clear as we investigate further. Personally, I do find myself more inclined to buy something labeled natural as everyone has stated, but that’s the way the products are marketed. We think about processed food as bad, and it usually is. However, there are so many factors that go into making food that it may be impossible to distinguish what is truly natural.
March 16, 2015 @ 4:15 PM
I think that “natural” is more accurately described on a sliding scale, not necessarily as a binary idea. Something may not be “natural” or “unnatural”, but instead one thing may be more natural than another. For example, crops grown without any use of pesticides are more natural than crops grown with pesticides. Chickens raised in cages are less natural than chickens that are allowed to roam free. It’s easier to put a label on “organic” but I don’t think it’s fair to put the same label on the word “natural.” Now, that being said I don’t think it’s particularly fair for advertisers to throw the word around (even though I realize that me being disgruntled won’t affect their tactics).
March 16, 2015 @ 5:29 PM
I think the word ‘natural’ has been too tainted by the media and self-proclaimed activists. I found this article (http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/we-now-have-tabloid-science-activists-use-journals-to-push-anti-gmo-agenda/) to highlight the yellow journalism of of today’s history. Anything processed or genetically-modified is instantly given a negative connotation, which I think is completely outrageous. During the discussion, I found a website about the freedom of choice of what to eat; this was quite misleading because it was actually an anti-GMO campaign. It’s description of a GMO is”an organism created in a laboratory by taking genes from one species and forcing them into an entirely unrelated species—in order to achieve a new trait or characteristic that is not possible in nature.” I found the language to be quite aggressive and hostile used in the description. I think the entire education of the food system needs to be rewritten and relearned.
April 28, 2015 @ 6:29 PM
Just-for-fun follow-up video and article, each from a different perspective:
https://www.facebook.com/mamavation/videos/10152472282428202/
http://gizmodo.com/chipotles-anti-gmo-stance-is-some-pandering-bullshit-1700437048
Apologies for some of the language used by the authors, but the opinions they are expressing are interesting and valuable to the discussion.