Anybody else get fucking annoyed by the "Organic" and "Natural" labels on foods?

[Humanist_Activist]

For one, there is, with only one exception I'm aware of, no inorganic foods(salt is the exception, and don't eat too much of it!) So I find the labeling of things as organic to be annoying and amusing. I so much prefer my inorganic orange juice. How the fuck would that be made?

As far as the "natural" label, could anything be so arbitrary? What is an "unnatural" food? A food processed or modified by humans after harvesting? Isn't that what cooking does? And don't get me started on the raw foodies, those people are crazy. OK, how about modifying the food before harvest, i.e. GM food? Well shit, I guess we might as well throw in hybridization and selective breeding(artificial selection) in the mix, those have only been around for at least 5 thousand years or so, I'm sure they will kill us all!

Biochemical and DNA modifications, more direct, at least, are more recent, but frankly my only concern isn't about food safety but backasswards patent and other IP laws that haven't caught up to the technology.

[randr]

1. The list of inorganic chemical additives added to our food products

is extensive. These additives are considered unnecessary and unhealthy by some people and they have successfully lobbied to force food processors to label products honestly. Those companies that choose not to be part of the "better living through chemistry experiment" have every right and should be congratulated for providing foods without additives.

[TZ]

5. most of the labelling is actually fairly dishonest

The differences between whats labelled "organic" and whats not are very very small.

[Rainforestgoddess]

2. It's just semantics

Just as 'plasma' means something different to a physicist and a biologist.

'Organic' means something different to a chemist than a consumer. 'Natural', in the context of foodstuffs, actually has no legal definition, and should be completely ignored as it is often used merely as a marketing device.

That being said, I think that genetic modification of food (hybridized or DNA modification) will eventually be a science that ends hunger and possibly solves myriad other problems. But we have to get beyond corporate greed first.

[kickysnana]

3. ..and world peace. n/t

[mr blur]

4. It's also a rating of the farming/production methods.

[Warpy]

6. Yes, since thanks to Congress, those labels don't mean what they did

40 years ago. Now people producing 70s style organically grown food have to put "pesticide/herbicide/GM/hormone/antibiotic-free" on the label.

"Organic" and "Natural" have become mere corporate weasel words.

[Marrah_G]

7. Nope, the organic label does not bother me

The natural label is a little annoying since often the foods are anything but natural

[sulphurdunn]

8. There are far more serious issues

here than a semantic debate over whether or not all foods are natural because they are organic. For instance, GM seed patents confer increasingly potent political and economic power into the hands of agribusiness. Cross politicization by GM crops opens farmers to legal actions for patent infringement. Sterile seed technology, designer pesticides and herbicides designed to increase GM crop yields may rapidly accelerates the rate of adaptation by disease organisms and pests. Increasingly, they raise concerns over increasing the possibility of certain cancers in humans. I don't know whether or not these issues should raise too much agricultural, biological or medical concern, but they certainly should raise political ones. Increasingly, countries are seeking to ban GM crops. Whether they should or not is debatable. That I should be able to know how the food I purchase was produced is not. Whether or not that determination is made by independent or captured government agencies should be of great concern.

[OrwellwasRight]

12. Increasingly, US trade policy is aimed to prevent countries from banning OR labeling

food as containing GMO ingredients. US corporations argue that such labels are a barrier to trade, and the US Trade Representative then argues the Cargill/Monsanto/ADM position at the WTO and tries to secure anti-labeling rules in our FTAs.

[HuckleB]

9. Took my kid out to the farm where we hit the pumpkin patch and corn maze every year.

A new farm next door advertise similar entertainments, but it's "Organic." The signs are massive, and, yes, offensive.

"Love Your Kids! Buy Organic!"

Ugh.

[ricardA]

10. Reliability of product labels are important

Matter of fact: they are part of the work or final product of many industries and governmental agencies, they serve a needed informational purpose, they are part of safety and also help to develop and maintain a given brand name. Otherwise there's no need for any of these agencies or department, including marketing, and the corresponding jobs. I think so.

So one issue might be the reliability, trust, or accountability needed by a community engaged in commerce, and even more important in essential items.

I agree that 'natural and organic' is not really defining with precision how these items are grown, so that probably should also be clarified.

The questions and concerns about GM food go along with the need to preserve the ecosystems, since you don't want to have a single clone taking over, via the standard pollination, to then find out that it can be wiped out.
Also with the possible differences in the modifications, artificial or not, affecting the end product nutritional value, and safety. It is a fair question. I don't know the details, so I would rely on the seal of 'safe', and on the reassurance of it.
The IP/patent system criticism is because it might lead to monopoly of genes present in existing species, but IP system is fair in that it rewards effort and investment, plus it documents what is going on and made available to the public. It will depend on what that system really does for the public. I don't know if it has even contributed, if it is respected, etc.

You tell us.

[Captain Spaulding]

11. "Organic" is a fairly meaningless word

The issue is that what it requires to be labeled "organic" or "natural" is poorly regulated, not to mention poorly defined.

[MattBaggins]

13. In the same category

People that have grandiose ideas of "organic farming" because they have a couple of tomato plants in their backyard garden.

People really think that farming and gardening are the same.

[siligut]

14. Strict guidelines have to be followed in order for food to be labeled "Organic"

This is not true with the term "Natural", so here is where caveat emptor takes precedence, as the term may or may not indicate what matters to the consumer. Until the FDA devotes time, money and attention to combat corporate greed your annoyance will continue unless you take matters into your own hands and read the ingredient labels.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm
From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Technology speeding pass laws has been a concern for as long as I can remember. This is probably a philosophy discussion that Robert Oppenheimer might have been able to offer a few words of wisdom to.