What is natural? The FDA wants to know

[dismal]

Wikipedia disagrees with you. While it doesn't say if there is any of it in nature it says it's normally produced by via hydrolysis of starch, not simply extracted.

Hydrolysis of starch is a completely natural process. It happens all the time in nature.

Reproducing that process in vitrio doesn't generate a different end-product to the in vivo operation of the exact same process.

That's the whole problem with 'natural' food - even if you can define what it means, it is meaningless as a means to differentiate between two end products. Refusing to eat food that's not 'natural' is as sensible as refusing to drink water that was generated by burning Hydrogen, rather than distilling it from sea water.

The job of the FDA is to ensure that consumers know when two products are materially different, in ways that could affect the people who consume them. Labels such as 'natural', 'organic' or 'non-GMO' do NOT achieve that objective, and should simply not be used at all.

Moreover, combining ingredients and adding heat or pressure to create things that don't occur in nature is called "cooking".

Maltodextrin created, as you term it, in vitrio takes naturally occurring things and by following a recipe cooks up something new.

 

[untermensche]

Isn't the opposite of natural; supernatural?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Isn't the opposite of natural; supernatural?

It's imnatural, like imflammable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Isn't the opposite of natural; supernatural?

It's imnatural, like imflammable.

I guess that's the strangeness of the English language since it's unnatural which is a different meaning than supernatural.

 

[ronburgundy]

Do you have some pictures of naturally occurring cheese?

Maybe some nice smoked gouda.

Jesus man. You are 180 degrees.

He's just using your same ever shifting definition for what is natural and showing its objective vacuousness.

You started by claiming it meant that you can find the product in nature. Then, minutes later changed to claiming it includes products that do no exist in nature but are derived by human controlled manufacturing processes that you arbitrarily deem "natural".

 

[ronburgundy]

I agree that the word "natural" is objectively invalid and only a source of misinformation in food labeling.

However, without using the words natural and unnatural and putting aside the issue of food labeling laws, can chemical compounds be objectively classified into those that exist only due to human efforts to manufacture those compounds versus those that exist outside such efforts?

Whether or not they have a rational basis to care about that distinction, I think this is the distinction that many of those seeking to eat only "natural" products are reacting to.

 

[Jarhyn]

I agree that the word "natural" is objectively invalid and only a source of misinformation in food labeling.

However, without using the words natural and unnatural and putting aside the issue of food labeling laws, can chemical compounds be objectively classified into those that exist only due to human efforts to manufacture those compounds versus those that exist outside such efforts?

Whether or not they have a rational basis to care about that distinction, I think this is the distinction that many of those seeking to eat only "natural" products are reacting to.

Maybe we can just feed them crude oil and pitch (it's undisputedly natural by that measure, after all, and 100% organic!).

 

[dismal]

I agree that the word "natural" is objectively invalid and only a source of misinformation in food labeling.

However, without using the words natural and unnatural and putting aside the issue of food labeling laws, can chemical compounds be objectively classified into those that exist only due to human efforts to manufacture those compounds versus those that exist outside such efforts?

Whether or not they have a rational basis to care about that distinction, I think this is the distinction that many of those seeking to eat only "natural" products are reacting to.

Maybe we can just feed them crude oil and pitch (it's undisputedly natural by that measure, after all, and 100% organic!).

As an aside, the oil that comes bubbling up naturally is full of inorganic trace metals and salts.

There is in fact a "food grade" petroleum, but it's highly processed to remove all that nasty natural stuff.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe we can just feed them crude oil and pitch (it's undisputedly natural by that measure, after all, and 100% organic!).

As an aside, the oil that comes bubbling up naturally is full of inorganic trace metals and salts.

There is in fact a "food grade" petroleum, but it's highly processed to remove all that nasty natural stuff.

Maybe just a steady diet of hemlock sap then.

 

[Malintent]

Could be simple, does the ingredient occur naturally in nature? The benefit may be dubious, but I think that is a reasonable threshold that is reproducible. Of course, this probably gets problematic when dealing with meat.

I say that there IS no coherent concept of what constitutes 'natural' beyond that which isnt 'supernatural'. Where do we draw the line? An hour of human modification with intent? A year? Ten thousand years? Five minutes per batch? How much of history of human mucking about do we grandfather in? Does it then become (modern science) vs (conservative fears)?

Well we saw how the fear of saturated fats led to the creation of even worse trans-fats. There is notable history for caution.

It's essentially the creation of a filter using one of the most powerful and insidious fallacies known to man.

I thought that was the word "organic".

Virtually none of the food we grow occurred "naturally" in nature.

Does corn occur in nature? Yes. Does maltodextrin? No.

Corn as we know it never occured in nature without the intervention of humans over thousands of years.

This is the "natural" version of corn:

What makes human intervention "unnatural"? Are we "supernatural" in some way?
Is a beaver's dam unnatural?
Is a beehive unnatural?
is a stick unnatural? How about a stick that has been sharpened against a stone? what if it wasn't a stone, but a metal file? What if a motor was used to turn the stick against the file?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wikipedia disagrees with you. While it doesn't say if there is any of it in nature it says it's normally produced by via hydrolysis of starch, not simply extracted.

Hydrolysis of starch is a completely natural process. It happens all the time in nature.

Reproducing that process in vitrio doesn't generate a different end-product to the in vivo operation of the exact same process.

That's the whole problem with 'natural' food - even if you can define what it means, it is meaningless as a means to differentiate between two end products. Refusing to eat food that's not 'natural' is as sensible as refusing to drink water that was generated by burning Hydrogen, rather than distilling it from sea water.

The job of the FDA is to ensure that consumers know when two products are materially different, in ways that could affect the people who consume them. Labels such as 'natural', 'organic' or 'non-GMO' do NOT achieve that objective, and should simply not be used at all.

But "natural" doesn't include reproducing a natural process in the lab.

 

[arkirk]

Hydrolysis of starch is a completely natural process. It happens all the time in nature.

Reproducing that process in vitrio doesn't generate a different end-product to the in vivo operation of the exact same process.

That's the whole problem with 'natural' food - even if you can define what it means, it is meaningless as a means to differentiate between two end products. Refusing to eat food that's not 'natural' is as sensible as refusing to drink water that was generated by burning Hydrogen, rather than distilling it from sea water.

The job of the FDA is to ensure that consumers know when two products are materially different, in ways that could affect the people who consume them. Labels such as 'natural', 'organic' or 'non-GMO' do NOT achieve that objective, and should simply not be used at all.

But "natural" doesn't include reproducing a natural process in the lab.

When they find out what it is, I am sure Monsanto and a number of the really big corporations will try to get a patent for it.

 

[Malintent]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

 

[bilby]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

http://www.amazon.com/Now-Foods-6940-Lactose-Sugar/dp/B0014UEEOS

Because you are what you eat NOW Real Food has been committed to providing delicious healthy natural and organic foods since 1968. We're independent family owned and proud of it. Keep it natural. Keep it real. Pure. Natural. Real.

It seems that the vendors of 'natural' food disagree vehemently with you.

 

[Deepak]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

'Minimally processed' is no less hazy.

Anyone who has tried beer or cheese making knows that it takes knowledge, effort, and care to actually successfully make something that's edible/potable. Making maltodextrin is comparably much easier - add water, heat it up, add some acids, add some enzymes, skim, then let cool. You could teach a child or skilled monkey to do it successfully.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I detest the word 'natural' and the naturalistic fallacy it inevitably entails. Most people, if my Facebook feed is any indicator, appear to bifurcate the world into 'natural' and 'artificial', with everything natural good and morally desirable and everything artificial bad and morally awful.

The fact that this would eliminate all food from the world (all food, whether plant or animal, being the result of artificial selection) doesn't seem to bother them.

The words 'nature' 'natural' 'organic' and similarly meaningless garbage turn me off any product that is marketed with them. I want artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives. Only insufferably classist fucklords want 'organic' food. If all food were 'organic', half the world would starve.

I'm triggered.

SUBWAY sandwiches calls their $5 dollar footlong (TM) sandwiches a foot long, but they've been measured and they're actually 11 inches. They argued that it was a trademark or some similar argument, but they appear to have forgotten that they also call their half foot longs, 6 inch subs.

It turns out that people don't actually need 12" and further, this whole footlong thing stems from the "longer is better" fallacy. That means that not only should SUBWAY get to call their sandwiches whatever they want, but men should also be able to call their penis size whatever they want. I mean, if a man is only 5.5", he should get to call his penis 6 inches, just like SUBWAY does!

 

[Deepak]

I detest the word 'natural' and the naturalistic fallacy it inevitably entails. Most people, if my Facebook feed is any indicator, appear to bifurcate the world into 'natural' and 'artificial', with everything natural good and morally desirable and everything artificial bad and morally awful.

The fact that this would eliminate all food from the world (all food, whether plant or animal, being the result of artificial selection) doesn't seem to bother them.

The words 'nature' 'natural' 'organic' and similarly meaningless garbage turn me off any product that is marketed with them. I want artificial flavours, colours, and preservatives. Only insufferably classist fucklords want 'organic' food. If all food were 'organic', half the world would starve.

I'm triggered.

SUBWAY sandwiches calls their $5 dollar footlong (TM) sandwiches a foot long, but they've been measured and they're actually 11 inches. They argued that it was a trademark or some similar argument, but they appear to have forgotten that they also call their half foot longs, 6 inch subs.

It turns out that people don't actually need 12" and further, this whole footlong thing stems from the "longer is better" fallacy. That means that not only should SUBWAY get to call their sandwiches whatever they want, but mean should also be able to call their penis size whatever they want. I mean, if a man is only 5.5", he should get to call his penis 6 inches, just like SUBWAY does!

I'm a firm believer in truth-in-advertising

 

[dismal]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

There are very elaborate processes to make some cheeses. Does this mean Cheese is a heavily processed food?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

There are very elaborate processes to make some cheeses. Does this mean Cheese is a heavily processed food?

"Real Cheese People (TM) don’t do processed cheese. In their mind the only cheese is 100% real, natural cheese."
-- Sargento

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll repeat my contribution to the definition of natural, since many people are posting responses that echo the sentiment:

"Natural" means, "Minimally processed". That is, with respect to an ingredient.

milk is natural, cheese is natural, but lactose powder is not. why? because the threshold for what is "minimal" for processing has been exceeded.

But this rests on a definition of "minimal" that could be stretched like crazy. That's why my definition had no such limit, just a requirement to spell out the processing.