What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Doing your own research (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's interesting that the obesity rates in the US are 10x what they are in Japan. This article talks about some reasons why. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1191792973/why-its-easier-to-make-healthy-food-choices-in-japan

I understand the sentiment of just giving up and acknowledging people won't / can't lose weight without pharmaceutical help. Seems odd Japan is able to do it.

Aside from Japan or other countries, I also think it's interesting that just in the US, our obesity rates have more than tripled since the 1960s. https://usafacts.org/articles/obesity-rate-nearly-triples-united-states-over-last-50-years/

When I see things like that, it makes me hesitant to just give up and say we're not able to do it without drugs.

We tried to prioritize public health by promoting healthier food choices and deemphasizing/restricting junk food in schools and I recall there being a huge backlash because freedom. Also the processed food industry has a big time lobby that opposes measures that would provide disincentives for consuming unhealthy foods. There’s obviously more to it than that but my sense is that public health efforts get thwarted more in this country than many others (I will leave it at that as to go any further is to launch into the political) and eating junk food is ingrained in our culture.
 
I’m not saying (ultra)processed foods are good.

I never thought you said that.

You said, "I also object to equating “natural” with better."

I disagree with that. Not in every case, but generally, I do equate "natural" with "better" for foods.
I think this is a terminology issue. Like Term, I associate the term “natural food” with con artists or marketing jargon. Whereas I see “ultra processed” or “minimally processed” as more clinical or factual terms. I’m not saying that I’m right to view it that way — but just explaining how I interpret the words.

For example, peanuts are a natural food. But I don’t ever see them marketed that way. But my SIL buys granola from a “natural food store.” The granola seems like processed food to me, and not something I would find in nature. But maybe it is!!! 🤷‍♂️
 
Going to repeat what others have said about moderation, portion sizes, and processed foods.

I don't think a lot of people understand what a better diet and more exercise really means. I've had people tell me how healthy their diet cokes are because it says 0 calories and they have no idea how much garbage they are putting into their bodies, for example. Or they think just simply counting calories is enough when all calories are not counted equally. Or they think taking a 15 minute walk at snails pace is exercise (admittedly way better than doing nothing though). Or what everything is fine for you in moderation means.

They have no idea how much protein they need to eat, what kinds of protein, or anything about healthy fats, good vs bad carbs, and similar. You're not getting that level of detail from your doctor (not a slight just a fact).

Also, everybody is different and this is where having a doctor understand you and your body can be helpful. Hormone imbalances can affect weight, for example.

Also, agree with those that said laziness is a big factor. You have to cook a lot more and give up eating out so frequently to be healthy. And make better choices when you do eat out. And make better snacking choices and back away from all the processed crap that we put into our bodies.
 
I’m not saying (ultra)processed foods are good.

I never thought you said that.

You said, "I also object to equating “natural” with better."

I disagree with that. Not in every case, but generally, I do equate "natural" with "better" for foods.
How does this thought process influence your willingness to take “natural” supplements, versus regular pharmaceuticals?

When is “natural” not inherently better?
 
Use of the term natural on food

Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

  • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
  • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

In those definitions, I think natural is better.
 
I’m not saying (ultra)processed foods are good.

I never thought you said that.

You said, "I also object to equating “natural” with better."

I disagree with that. Not in every case, but generally, I do equate "natural" with "better" for foods.
I think this is a terminology issue. Like Term, I associate the term “natural food” with con artists or marketing jargon. Whereas I see “ultra processed” or “minimally processed” as more clinical or factual terms. I’m not saying that I’m right to view it that way — but just explaining how I interpret the words.

For example, peanuts are a natural food. But I don’t ever see them marketed that way. But my SIL buys granola from a “natural food store.” The granola seems like processed food to me, and not something I would find in nature. But maybe it is!!! 🤷‍♂️
You can find junk food at natural food stores just like you can find healthy foods at chain grocery stores. Processed can be confusing for some too. Anything you buy in a bag or box has some processing done to it but people need to read ingredients and know what is going into their body.

Kelloggs has a granola with these ingredients:

Ingredients​

INGREDIENTS: ROLLED OATS (31.6%), NUT & CANDIED & DRIED FRUIT (20%^) {ALMONDS (8%), CANDIED CRANBERRY (6%), BLACK CURRANTS (3%), BROWN RAISINS (3%)}, SUGAR, EDIBLE VEGETABLE OIL (PALMOLEIN), OAT FLOUR (6.8%), RICE (4.2%), WHEAT (3.9%), RICE FLOUR (3.1%), LIQUID GLUCOSE, CORN MEAL (2.3%), HONEY, CEREAL EXTRACT, REFINED WHEAT FLOUR (MAIDA) (0.7%), WHEAT BRAN (0.6%), IODIZED SALT, DEXTROSE, ROLLED BARLEY (0.2%), FLAVOURS (NATURE IDENTICAL & ARTIFICIAL (CREAM)}, ANTIOXIDANTS (INS 307b, INS 320), RAISING AGENT (INS 500(ii)), MINERALS, VITAMINS.

Purely Elizabeth makes a granola with these:
Full Ingredients
Organic Certified Gluten-Free Oats, Organic Coconut Sugar, Organic Coconut Oil, Organic Sunflower Seeds, Organic Puffed Amaranth, Organic Quinoa Flakes, Organic Chia Seeds, Organic Cinnamon, Sea Salt.


I know the word organic triggers certain people too but there is so much more junk in the Kelloggs stuff compared to Purely Elizabeth.
 
I’m not saying (ultra)processed foods are good.

I never thought you said that.

You said, "I also object to equating “natural” with better."

I disagree with that. Not in every case, but generally, I do equate "natural" with "better" for foods.
How does this thought process influence your willingness to take “natural” supplements, versus regular pharmaceuticals?

When is “natural” not inherently better?
If you have a sinus infection, what do you think is more healthy for someone? Sudafed or natural supplements? For me personally, I will always try natural supplements if they work.


Natural: I've been advised to try quercetin and bromelain as well as immune boosting like Vitamin C and Zinc.


Sudafed Ingredients: Look at all the awful food dyes and other crap is in that stuff.
Active Ingredients:

Pseudoephedrine HCI 30 mg - Nasal decongestant

Inactive Ingredients:

Carnauba wax, colloidal silicon dioxide, D&C yellow no.10 aluminum lake, FD&C red no.40 aluminum lake, FD&C yellow no.6 aluminum lake, iron oxide, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, pregelatinized starch, shellac, sodium starch glycolate, talc, titanium dioxide
 
Since this thread has become a satellite obesity discussion, some numbers to consider:

75% of Americans are overweight or obese.
Over 20% of children are obese.

Behavioral modification typically results in losing about 5% of one’s body weight.
90-95% of those who lose weight via diet/exercise regain most or all of it within 2-5 years.

The newest weight loss medications facilitate losing 15-20% body weight.

Gastrointestinal side effects are common, leading to early drug discontinuation in about 10%.
Up to 50-75% discontinue them within a year, due to some combination of affordability and concern for adverse effects.
Serious adverse effects like pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction are rare, impacting <1% patients.

Given all the above, and the fact obesity itself is a hindrance to lifestyle modification (eg. pain from arthritis limits ability to exercise, metabolic adaptations to obesity influence appetite and basal metabolic rate, food addiction, etc.) when should pharmaceuticals be considered as a weight loss adjunct?

Are there risks associated with yo-yoing 5-20 pounds, rather than going “all in” from the get go (lifestyle modification + meds) to target maximal weight loss?

When will enough data accumulate to allay fears about long term harm from medications, versus direct benefits from weight management, and drug-related mortality gains from cardiovascular and kidney disease, among others?

Lastly, I think it’s important to differentiate weight loss from preventing overweight/obesity in the first place. We clearly should work on both, but I don’t think the strategies to accomplish these goals are the same.
 
Use of the term natural on food

Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

  • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
  • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

In those definitions, I think natural is better.
Bolded/enlarged the most important part. I also recommend checking out my earlier link on the appeal to nature fallacy.
 
Since this thread has become a satellite obesity discussion, some numbers to consider:

75% of Americans are overweight or obese.
Over 20% of children are obese.

Behavioral modification typically results in losing about 5% of one’s body weight.
90-95% of those who lose weight via diet/exercise regain most or all of it within 2-5 years.

The newest weight loss medications facilitate losing 15-20% body weight.

Gastrointestinal side effects are common, leading to early drug discontinuation in about 10%.
Up to 50-75% discontinue them within a year, due to some combination of affordability and concern for adverse effects.
Serious adverse effects like pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction are rare, impacting <1% patients.

Given all the above, and the fact obesity itself is a hindrance to lifestyle modification (eg. pain from arthritis limits ability to exercise, metabolic adaptations to obesity influence appetite and basal metabolic rate, food addiction, etc.) when should pharmaceuticals be considered as a weight loss adjunct?

Are there risks associated with yo-yoing 5-20 pounds, rather than going “all in” from the get go (lifestyle modification + meds) to target maximal weight loss?

When will enough data accumulate to allay fears about long term harm from medications, versus direct benefits from weight management, and drug-related mortality gains from cardiovascular and kidney disease, among others?

Lastly, I think it’s important to differentiate weight loss from preventing overweight/obesity in the first place. We clearly should work on both, but I don’t think the strategies to accomplish these goals are the same.

I know someone that did a 9 week program of supplements and strict food choices and lost 35 pounds doing that and kept it off. I have no idea what the supplements are so can't really speak to it but it reset their metabolism and taught them how to make better choices with food selection and portions. I think whether one keeps the weight off or puts it back on is probably directly tied to their choices after one of these programs.

I don't know enough about Wegovy, for example, to say if it would work better, the same, or not as good. A quick peak at their website mentions serious side effects like thyroid tumors, including cancer. I think I'd opt for something that would teach me better choices and do the research on those side effects before just taking a quick fix drug. To each his own.

How long is Wegovy typically given? What does one eat while taking it? How does it affect their body to keep the weight off when done with the drug?
 
Use of the term natural on food

Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

  • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
  • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

In those definitions, I think natural is better.
Bolded/enlarged the most important part. I also recommend checking out my earlier link on the appeal to nature fallacy.

Thanks. I quoted all of it for that reason.

  • Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

    • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
    • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
  • Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

You're welcome to think whatever part you like is the most important.

My statement was using the USDA and the FDA definitions listed above, I think natural is better.

I understand you disagree.
 
Use of the term natural on food

Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

  • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
  • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

In those definitions, I think natural is better.
Bolded/enlarged the most important part. I also recommend checking out my earlier link on the appeal to nature fallacy.

Thanks. I quoted all of it for that reason.

  • Natural, All Natural or 100% Natural

    • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
    • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
  • Because the terms “natural”, "all natural" or "100% natural" do not carry a standard definition from both the FDA and USDA, food marketers can use the terms as they deem fit.

You're welcome to think whatever part you like is the most important.

My statement was using the USDA and the FDA definitions listed above, I think natural is better.

I understand you disagree.
OK. How does this thought process extend to medicines derived from nature? For example, the very first drug in Ozempic’s class, exenatide:
Throughout history, the natural world has served as a rich resource for compounds to treat human disease. For example, clay tablets from Mesopotamia dating from 2600 B.C.—humanity’s earliest written records—describe the healing powers of several plant species, including licorice, myrrh, and poppy capsule latex. More recently, penicillin and other lifesaving antibiotics have been developed from fungi, anti-cancer drugs paclitaxel and camptothecin have been derived from tree bark, and the powerful painkiller ziconotide has been synthesized from the venom of the sea-dwelling magical cone snail.

To this diverse catalog of natural sources for modern therapeutics we can add the unassuming Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), a poisonous lizard found in New Mexico and Arizona. H. suspectum is long-lived but shy, spending up to 95 percent of its life underground. Encountering a Gila monster above ground can prove unpleasant. When it bites, its venom can cause pain and weakness but is rarely fatal to adult humans. And now, NIA scientists are using part of that same venom to develop promising new treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and other diseases common to older age.

The component of the Gila monster’s venom of greatest scientific interest is a peptide known as exendin-4. With the help of researchers in the NIA Intramural Research Program, investigators developed a synthetic form of the component—exenantide—which is now used to treat type 2 diabetes. Under the trade name Byetta®, exenatide is commonly prescribed to boost the effectiveness of patients’ primary diabetes treatment. (It is not prescribed for the less common type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease.) Today, scientists are testing exenatide as a possible intervention for Alzheimer’s disease.

Looking at lizards​

Exendin-4 was uncovered in 1990 by endocrinologist Dr. John Eng at the Veterans Administration Center in the Bronx, NY. Dr. Eng was using chemical assays to identify new hormones and was intrigued by earlier NIH research showing that venom from certain snakes and lizards, including the Gila monster, caused enlargement of the pancreas, where insulin is synthesized. That research suggested that the compounds were somehow overstimulating the pancreas.

Dr. Eng’s interest was sparked when he learned that the Gila monster, after long periods of not eating, is able to slow down its metabolism and maintain constant blood sugar levels without affecting its health. He assayed the venom and discovered a peptide he called exendin that triggers synthesis and release of insulin from beta cells in the pancreas.

To his surprise, Dr. Eng found that exendin-4 was similar in both structure and function to GLP-1, a hormone found in the human pancreas that stimulates insulin production in the pancreas, but only when glucose production is high—for example, immediately after a meal. GLP-1 remains active in the body for about 2 minutes, but exendin-4 remains active for hours, suggesting that it could be a long-acting, effective diabetes treatment.

Examining a drug for another use​

In the 1990s, NIA researcher Dr. Josephine Egan and colleagues teamed with Amylin Pharmaceuticals to begin preclinical testing of exendin-4. By 1999, they reported that a single daily injection of exendin-4 given to diabetic mice was sufficient to normalize blood glucose concentration, with benefits evident by the end of the first week of treatment. Dr. Egan and her collaborators later found that exendin-4 increased insulin production and protected the insulin-producing cells against damage in humans, and that its effects lasted for hours. After further clinical testing, it was deemed to be safe and effective, and it received FDA approval in 2005.
 
Since this thread has become a satellite obesity discussion, some numbers to consider:

75% of Americans are overweight or obese.
Over 20% of children are obese.

Behavioral modification typically results in losing about 5% of one’s body weight.
90-95% of those who lose weight via diet/exercise regain most or all of it within 2-5 years.

The newest weight loss medications facilitate losing 15-20% body weight.

Gastrointestinal side effects are common, leading to early drug discontinuation in about 10%.
Up to 50-75% discontinue them within a year, due to some combination of affordability and concern for adverse effects.
Serious adverse effects like pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction are rare, impacting <1% patients.

Given all the above, and the fact obesity itself is a hindrance to lifestyle modification (eg. pain from arthritis limits ability to exercise, metabolic adaptations to obesity influence appetite and basal metabolic rate, food addiction, etc.) when should pharmaceuticals be considered as a weight loss adjunct?

Are there risks associated with yo-yoing 5-20 pounds, rather than going “all in” from the get go (lifestyle modification + meds) to target maximal weight loss?

When will enough data accumulate to allay fears about long term harm from medications, versus direct benefits from weight management, and drug-related mortality gains from cardiovascular and kidney disease, among others?

Lastly, I think it’s important to differentiate weight loss from preventing overweight/obesity in the first place. We clearly should work on both, but I don’t think the strategies to accomplish these goals are the same.

I know someone that did a 9 week program of supplements and strict food choices and lost 35 pounds doing that and kept it off. I have no idea what the supplements are so can't really speak to it but it reset their metabolism and taught them how to make better choices with food selection and portions. I think whether one keeps the weight off or puts it back on is probably directly tied to their choices after one of these programs.

I don't know enough about Wegovy, for example, to say if it would work better, the same, or not as good. A quick peak at their website mentions serious side effects like thyroid tumors, including cancer. I think I'd opt for something that would teach me better choices and do the research on those side effects before just taking a quick fix drug. To each his own.

How long is Wegovy typically given? What does one eat while taking it? How does it affect their body to keep the weight off when done with the drug?
That person is an outlier. As are you. As am I. We are not the norm.

Statistically most would fail that program outright. And statistically nearly everyone would put all the weight back on even if successful.
 
My statement was using the USDA and the FDA definitions listed above, I think natural is better.

I understand you disagree.
He was pointing out that by the government definition, the term is meaningless.

In the abstract, natural is better. In practice, a cursory search will show the myriad ways companies pack garbage into a label.

Someone going into a grocery store, and buying what is essentially candy in the cereal or granola aisle, but is labeled 'natural', is being lied to, or fooling themselves.

Items with high fructose corn syrup put 'natural' on the label. That term, in America, is useless.
 
My statement was using the USDA and the FDA definitions listed above, I think natural is better.

I understand you disagree.
He was pointing out that by the government definition, the term is meaningless.

In the abstract, natural is better. In practice, a cursory search will show the myriad ways companies pack garbage into a label.

Someone going into a grocery store, and buying what is essentially candy in the cereal or granola aisle, but is labeled 'natural', is being lied to, or fooling themselves.

Items with high fructose corn syrup put 'natural' on the label. That term, in America, is useless.

Obviously, the term has been watered down and in some cases could even be meaningless. I don't think it makes it meaningless in every situation.

As I said, using the USDA and FDA definitions, I think natural is better.

  • USDA definition- “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").”
  • FDA definition- “Nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
 
OK. How does this thought process extend to medicines derived from nature?

Not sure. I haven't been talking about extending that to pharmaceuticals.

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

I feel the same way about "organic". I know they can game the system and dilute the meaning. But in general, I think "organic" is better. Whehter it's worth the extra cost or not is an entirely different question. But I think it's better.
 
Obviously, the term has been watered down and in some cases could even be meaningless. I don't think it makes it meaningless in every situation.

As I said, using the USDA and FDA definitions, I think natural is better.
It doesn't need to be meaningless in every situation to be dangerous and misleading to millions of Americans.





Yes, I understand, using those definitions, you think natural is better.

You have made that clear.
 
OK. How does this thought process extend to medicines derived from nature?

Not sure. I haven't been talking about extending that to pharmaceuticals.

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

I feel the same way about "organic". I know they can game the system and dilute the meaning. But in general, I think "organic" is better. Whehter it's worth the extra cost or not is an entirely different question. But I think it's better.
I can appreciate how you feel. I’m guessing many people would share the same feeling.

In contrast, when I see “organic” I automatically assume it’s just marketing BS. I attach as close to zero value to that term as possible. It doesn’t have strict standards, it is a term that can be abused, there are countless articles / investigations about it being misapplied — and therefore my assumption is that “organic” is just marketing spin. That doesn’t mean I’m right.

And despite my concerns, it could still mean eating all organic food would be healthier than eating random non-organic food. I simply don’t know if that would be true.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
 
In contrast, when I see “organic” I automatically assume it’s just marketing BS. I attach as close to zero value to that term as possible. It doesn’t have strict standards, it is a term that can be abused, there are countless articles / investigations about it being misapplied — and therefore my assumption is that “organic” is just marketing spin. That doesn’t mean I’m right.
The big farms, and big meat/poultry providers, have gamed the system so they can put natural, organic, heart healthy, farm fresh, pretty much any term they want on our labels. Chicken providers inject sodium into their birds, don't have to disclose it, and can call it natural. If a normal American wants to eat as healthy as possible, I don't think they should be buying supermarket meat/poultry/fish.

'Natural flavors' on a label can cover all manner of sins. They cannot sell some American breads in Europe, because by EU standards, it's NOT bread. It's pastry.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too.

Using the true definition of natural, of course it's better.

Using the government definition, with all its loopholes, the term is rendered useless.

It's not nitpicking to point out that going by the rules in this country, people cannot blindly trust that term on a food label.

I'll concede whatever useless semantics point someone wants to make that seeing that word is better than not seeing that word, but the fact remains a person can fill their house with items using this term, and have a bunch of garbage in their cupboard.
 
In contrast, when I see “organic” I automatically assume it’s just marketing BS. I attach as close to zero value to that term as possible. It doesn’t have strict standards, it is a term that can be abused, there are countless articles / investigations about it being misapplied — and therefore my assumption is that “organic” is just marketing spin. That doesn’t mean I’m right.
The big farms, and big meat/poultry providers, have gamed the system so they can put natural, organic, heart healthy, farm fresh, pretty much any term they want on our labels. Chicken providers inject sodium into their birds, don't have to disclose it, and can call it natural. If a normal American wants to eat as healthy as possible, I don't think they should be buying supermarket meat/poultry/fish.

'Natural flavors' on a label can cover all manner of sins. They cannot sell some American breads in Europe, because by EU standards, it's NOT bread. It's pastry.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too.

Using the true definition of natural, of course it's better.

Using the government definition, with all its loopholes, the term is rendered useless.

It's not nitpicking to point out that going by the rules in this country, people cannot blindly trust that term on a food label.

I'll concede whatever useless semantics point someone wants to make that seeing that word is better than not seeing that word, but the fact remains a person can fill their house with items using this term, and have a bunch of garbage in their cupboard.
I agree 100%. The consumer is on the hook to truly understand what they're purchasing and consuming. It's very fair to point out that "natural/organic" doesn't always mean what it would be assumed it does.

The options do exist though and if you can find a source that truly is grown naturally (synthetic fertilizer free) and not treated during its growth (herbicides and pesticides), or livestock not pumped full off growth hormones and antibiotics I'll take that option 10 out of 10 times. We have quite a few local small farms that provide this option to grocery stores. I assume this is common most places, but maybe that's not the case.
 
OK. How does this thought process extend to medicines derived from nature?

Not sure. I haven't been talking about extending that to pharmaceuticals.

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

I feel the same way about "organic". I know they can game the system and dilute the meaning. But in general, I think "organic" is better. Whehter it's worth the extra cost or not is an entirely different question. But I think it's better.
I can appreciate how you feel. I’m guessing many people would share the same feeling.

In contrast, when I see “organic” I automatically assume it’s just marketing BS. I attach as close to zero value to that term as possible. It doesn’t have strict standards, it is a term that can be abused, there are countless articles / investigations about it being misapplied — and therefore my assumption is that “organic” is just marketing spin. That doesn’t mean I’m right.

And despite my concerns, it could still mean eating all organic food would be healthier than eating random non-organic food. I simply don’t know if that would be true.
There’s data that organic contains less pesticides* than their inorganic counterparts, but TMK, no correlation between organic consumption and any measure of health/disease.

And that’s for products with a strict definition of organic, not the assortment of weaselly marketing terms used to prey on consumers who fall for the appeal to nature.

*ETA synthetic pesticides
 
Last edited:
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
On the contrary, I think “local grown” stuff has nothing to do with pesticide use. At least in HI, local farmers may use more “unnatural chemicals” than USDA certified organic. And FTR, organic produce isn’t pesticide/herbicide free; there are only some prohibited synthetic chemicals which cannot be used to meet certification standards.

I’m nitpicking “natural” because the appeal to nature fallacy underlies much of the nutraceutical industry, and the term has dubious value almost everywhere it’s advertised, despite “common sense” suggesting otherwise.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
On the contrary, I think “local grown” stuff has nothing to do with pesticide use. At least in HI, local farmers may use more “unnatural chemicals” than USDA certified organic. And FTR, organic produce isn’t pesticide/herbicide free; there are only some prohibited synthetic chemicals which cannot be used to meet certification standards.

I’m nitpicking “natural” because the appeal to nature fallacy underlies much of the nutraceutical industry, and the term has dubious value almost everywhere it’s advertised, despite “common sense” suggesting otherwise.
Here's where i get the bulk of my "organic" produce and some meat. It passes my definition of natural. If your farms use more unnatural chemicals then disregard, but for people that have better options you truly can get a natural option, atleast as natural as human grown produce can be.


Eta. The bolded was important to my comment.
 
Last edited:
I’m nitpicking “natural” because the appeal to nature fallacy underlies much of the nutraceutical industry, and the term has dubious value almost everywhere it’s advertised, despite “common sense” suggesting otherwise.
The reason i find the nitpicking strange is that people trying to eat "natural" are probably doing a pretty good job of avoiding the ultraprocessed crap that was universally accepted as a problem.

"Natural" may not mean it's completely free of manipulation, but by and large i would assume people making the effort to avoid ultraprocessed food will be a lot more successful even if it isn't perfect.

I understand the point you're making, but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
 
I’m nitpicking “natural” because the appeal to nature fallacy underlies much of the nutraceutical industry, and the term has dubious value almost everywhere it’s advertised, despite “common sense” suggesting otherwise.
The reason i find the nitpicking strange is that people trying to eat "natural" are probably doing a pretty good job of avoiding the ultraprocessed crap that was universally accepted as a problem.

"Natural" may not mean it's completely free of manipulation, but by and large i would assume people making the effort to avoid ultraprocessed food will be a lot more successful even if it isn't perfect.

I understand the point you're making, but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
If people wouldn’t have recognized it as food 200 years ago, it’s in general probably not good for you
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
 
OK. How does this thought process extend to medicines derived from nature?

Not sure. I haven't been talking about extending that to pharmaceuticals.

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

I feel the same way about "organic". I know they can game the system and dilute the meaning. But in general, I think "organic" is better. Whehter it's worth the extra cost or not is an entirely different question. But I think it's better.
I can appreciate how you feel. I’m guessing many people would share the same feeling.

In contrast, when I see “organic” I automatically assume it’s just marketing BS. I attach as close to zero value to that term as possible. It doesn’t have strict standards, it is a term that can be abused, there are countless articles / investigations about it being misapplied — and therefore my assumption is that “organic” is just marketing spin. That doesn’t mean I’m right.

And despite my concerns, it could still mean eating all organic food would be healthier than eating random non-organic food. I simply don’t know if that would be true.
There’s data that organic contains less pesticides than their inorganic counterparts, but TMK, no correlation between organic consumption and any measure of health/disease.

And that’s for products with a strict definition of organic, not the assortment of weaselly marketing terms used to prey on consumers who fall for the appeal to nature.
There are less TYPES of pesticides allowed in organic foods but often times use requires a more aggressive amount to be as effective. There's a list of a dozen or so pesticides that are allowed to be used and still be called "organic". If people think that "organic" foods are chemical free, they are way wrong. Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides are all allowed in "organic". In this country, it's more a marketing term than a health term. I'll also throw out there that there are SOME "GMO" foods (you know, the ones that are vilified over and over again) that have virtually ZERO of any of the various "-cides" because their modifications go specifically to keeping bugs and fungus away making it completely unnecessary to treat with various "-cides".
 
but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
You didn't ask me, but this is simple. If it requires an "ingredient list", you can do better. Obviously the 90/10 rule applies here. Of course there are exceptions (for the benefit of the peanut gallery). "Whole foods" is a good place to start.
 
I’m gonna hand the baton to @Sparky Polastri here, as he seems to understand what I'm struggling to get across.

Again, I implore you guys to read about the appeal to nature fallacy, and think about how it influences not just food consumption, but medical care as well.

And, to use everyone’s favorite word, how might the appeal to nature create bias in “research” about health?
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Glad you're back to argue words instead of grasp the points being made. The same person that couldn't grasp the definition of professional in the college football thread.
 
The reason i find the nitpicking strange is that people trying to eat "natural" are probably doing a pretty good job of avoiding the ultraprocessed crap that was universally accepted as a problem.

"Natural" may not mean it's completely free of manipulation, but by and large i would assume people making the effort to avoid ultraprocessed food will be a lot more successful even if it isn't perfect.

I understand the point you're making, but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
Which leads directly to how I believe most people shop for "natural" foods ---- they do it while food shopping and comparing labels.
Two people are standing next to each other, each holding 2 boxes of cereal.
One is thinking "This one says 'natural' so I'll get it'.
One is thinking "Billy liked the red ones so I'll get them'.
Who got the healthier product? With the US system of allowing labels to say a huge variety of things are 'natural', there is no way to know while standing there. And I think shopping for 'natural' foods is predominantly done by people while looking at labels.

Food healthiness/unhealthiness isn't much taught in schools. Trying to get honest, informative labeling on foods is a seemingly overwhelming task that few want to bother with; it takes time, information is obscured, and there's no money in it. Meanwhile millions of dollars are spent by food manufacturers/sellers to preserve their rights to say whatever they want about their products. Yet if just those 2 things were an ingrained part of our lives --- food health education and honest, meaningful labeling, we'd be having a completely different kind of conversation about food right now. We'd be talking about this particular product, this particular herbicide, this particular dye, etc. instead of an overall "doing your own research about food" topic.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Low and non fat are the same issue. People think they’re getting a healthier product but they are usually LOADED with salt sugar and chemicals to make it taste good to the average American.
 
but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
You didn't ask me, but this is simple. If it requires an "ingredient list", you can do better. Obviously the 90/10 rule applies here. Of course there are exceptions (for the benefit of the peanut gallery). "Whole foods" is a good place to start.
Teh ingredients list in fake meat is incredibly long. People think it’s healthy. It’s usually not.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Glad you're back to argue words instead of grasp the points being made. The same person that couldn't grasp the definition of professional in the college football thread.
It’s not just words. It’s that food is allowed to be marketed as healthy. All natural. non fat/low fat. Organic. Fat free! Unprocessed. Free range! Etc. etc. and a lot of the time it’s not any better for you.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Glad you're back to argue words instead of grasp the points being made. The same person that couldn't grasp the definition of professional in the college football thread.
It’s not just words. It’s that food is allowed to be marketed as healthy. All natural. non fat/low fat. Organic. Fat free! Unprocessed. Free range! Etc. etc. and a lot of the time it’s not any better for you.
Yeah I’ve mentioned multiple times to read ingredients and labels and know what you’re putting into your body. No need to get hung up on some trigger words like organic, natural, or others.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Glad you're back to argue words instead of grasp the points being made. The same person that couldn't grasp the definition of professional in the college football thread.
It’s not just words. It’s that food is allowed to be marketed as healthy. All natural. non fat/low fat. Organic. Fat free! Unprocessed. Free range! Etc. etc. and a lot of the time it’s not any better for you.
Yeah I’ve mentioned multiple times to read ingredients and labels and know what you’re putting into your body. No need to get hung up on some trigger words like organic, natural, or others.
Did you miss my post saying you and I are outliers? Most don’t get it. At all. They think diet soda is good for them.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.
 
Last edited:
but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
You didn't ask me, but this is simple. If it requires an "ingredient list", you can do better. Obviously the 90/10 rule applies here. Of course there are exceptions (for the benefit of the peanut gallery). "Whole foods" is a good place to start.
Yes, it is that simple. My initial post on this particular topic concluded the same.
Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
 
The reason i find the nitpicking strange is that people trying to eat "natural" are probably doing a pretty good job of avoiding the ultraprocessed crap that was universally accepted as a problem.

"Natural" may not mean it's completely free of manipulation, but by and large i would assume people making the effort to avoid ultraprocessed food will be a lot more successful even if it isn't perfect.

I understand the point you're making, but what would you suggest people look for when grocery shopping? Can we substitute "whole foods" in place of "natural"?
Which leads directly to how I believe most people shop for "natural" foods ---- they do it while food shopping and comparing labels.
Two people are standing next to each other, each holding 2 boxes of cereal.
One is thinking "This one says 'natural' so I'll get it'.
One is thinking "Billy liked the red ones so I'll get them'.
Who got the healthier product? With the US system of allowing labels to say a huge variety of things are 'natural', there is no way to know while standing there. And I think shopping for 'natural' foods is predominantly done by people while looking at labels.

Food healthiness/unhealthiness isn't much taught in schools. Trying to get honest, informative labeling on foods is a seemingly overwhelming task that few want to bother with; it takes time, information is obscured, and there's no money in it. Meanwhile millions of dollars are spent by food manufacturers/sellers to preserve their rights to say whatever they want about their products. Yet if just those 2 things were an ingrained part of our lives --- food health education and honest, meaningful labeling, we'd be having a completely different kind of conversation about food right now. We'd be talking about this particular product, this particular herbicide, this particular dye, etc. instead of an overall "doing your own research about food" topic.
I understand your point and it's on the consumer, but why does food need to have a box, bag, or can with a label? Natural doesn't have any of that. Again i know the point some are making is that natural on the label doesn't really mean natural, but that doesn't mean every food in the grocery store is manipulated with unnatural ingredients. My point is you can eat a diet consisting of natural foods. It's on the consumer to understand what that really means, but I don't think its an impossible task to understand what's really natural and what's smoke and mirrors.
 
I’m gonna hand the baton to @Sparky Polastri here, as he seems to understand what I'm struggling to get across.

Again, I implore you guys to read about the appeal to nature fallacy, and think about how it influences not just food consumption, but medical care as well.

And, to use everyone’s favorite word, how might the appeal to nature create bias in “research” about health?
Sorry to see you bow out. Semantics seems to be a disconnect from the original post through this evolution in the conversation. I really do like your posts and they provide excellent food for thought and a good peak behind the medical curtain, but I understand if you feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall.

Your point is taken that "natural" can be deceptive. You've explained why that is, but what I'm trying to press is that the consumer has to be smarter. If the majority of the health conscious population can't understand that that's a shame. It doesn't have to be so hard though. If you can find sustainably (maybe a buzz word?) farmed food that's not in a package and have the ability to confirm said farms practices do that. That's all I'm saying.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
Glad you're back to argue words instead of grasp the points being made. The same person that couldn't grasp the definition of professional in the college football thread.
Always with the personal shots. That's allegedly frowned upon here. Merely pointing out once again that there are legal definitions to words and that those should be used instead of the ways you personally define them.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.
You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.
 
My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.
Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.


Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.
This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?
For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.
You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.
Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.
 
Really good example here of the type of remedies my cousins and younger friends share with me when they’ve “done the research.” Cortisol cocktails. Multiple people have told me about this in the past few weeks.


TLDR: it’s all BS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top