"All Natural" Genetically Enhanced Super-Chickens

An acquaintance of mine, let's call her "Brillo," often mentions that she only buys "all natural" food and only feeds her child "all natural" food.  She would sometimes comment to me about the wonders of "all natural" food and how much better it is for you.  Eventually, I suppose I got sick of hearing about the "artificial" stuff in my frozen foods, and when I saw an "all natural" version of my frozen healthy meals, I decided to give it a whirl.  Even Brillo was impressed when I told her about my "all natural" lunches.  "Oh, those are so much better for you."

After eating my "all natural" lunch, I was not really surprised to find that it tasted exactly like the regular version.  Wondering what possibly made it "all natural", I perused the ingredients list in search of the culprit.  Imagine my surprise when, listed among the ingredients, are things like "mushroom powder," "pasteurized milk," or "chicken meat (contains soy)".  I get that things like milk have to undergo a certain amount of processing just to be sold in stores, like pasteurization.  I understand that "mushroom powder" comes from mushrooms.  "Chicken meat (contains soy)" is a little more of a mystery, but if it's just chicken and soy, I guess it's technically still "all natural" even if it naturally alters the chicken with soy to save money.  

But, what I'm left trying to figure out is what level of processing eliminates the label "all natural."  How much does man have to interfere before something is no longer considered "all natural"?  How much interference can that label tolerate?  Is cheese all natural?  Man has to make it through a special process, after all.  Is pasta all natural?  Man makes that, and the ingredients have to go through multiple levels of "processing" to get to the finished product.  Granted, these things are made from "all natural" ingredients, but isn't everything natural at some level?  Chemical food additives, hormones injected into chickens, pesticides, preservatives... everything technically comes from the earth, no matter how much man manipulates it.  I'm sure the argument is that things like hormones, preservatives, and pesticides are not "naturally" found in the food, and therefore that is the distinction.  By injecting hormones into a chicken, you are making an "all natural" chicken inherently unnatural.  Even though they are naturally-occurring hormones that were simply increased to alter the size of the chicken. Still, the chicken was "manipulated" by man to some magic threshold extent that the chicken can no longer be considered natural.  However, pasteurizing milk doesn't meet the magic threshold, apparently.  And, adding natural "flavoring" seems like an oxymoron to me, but then, I don't make the food labels.  Just where is that magic threshold?

This seriously bugged me enough to actually look into what "all natural" means.  I knew that terms like "organic," "non-fat," "low-fat," etc. had legal meanings, so I was curious as to the requirements for "all natural."  Surprise!  "All natural" doesn't exist!  Well, not legally, anyway.  The FDA actually discourages companies from using the term "all natural" because it is misleading to consumers.  There have been articles written on how vague and random the usage of "all natural" is in the food industry.  And, the fact that the term isn't regulated, means that the actual meaning of the term depends on the company using it.  "All natural" to one company might include foods that another company doesn't consider "all natural."  In short, "all natural" is an arbitrary label with no real meaning that companies use to make you believe their product is better.  You mean, companies are purposely misleading consumers for their own monetary gain?  What a novel concept!  

Now, of course, companies don't want to push the envelope too far, which is why things like artificial sweeteners will never be listed on "all natural" food packages.  They simply have to know what level of "artificial" consumers will tolerate, or at least won't notice.  "Mushroom powder" sounds pretty natural - I mean, it's basically just mushrooms.  Until you think how much technology went into making those mushrooms into powder.  They were probably not naturally-occurring mushrooms plucked from nature... they were probably planted, harvested, cleaned, dried, and sorted by machines, artificially dehydrated and ground in a big factory.  Your grandma wasn't drying these mushrooms on her front porch and grinding them with a mortar and pestle.  I actually just laughed out loud at the idea of some little old grandma grinding away at those mushrooms!

I am in no way saying that "all natural" is a bad thing or trying to discourage those who put stock in the term "all natural" - I admit I will buy "all natural" when available since I figure it at least has to be better for you than the regular kind in some way, even if only marginally.  I am just fascinated by the concept of it all.  The "philosophy" behind it, so to speak.  I will repeat it: just where is that magic threshold that transforms the natural into the unnatural?  What set of criteria do we use to judge our food?  And, among those criteria, are some more important than others?  Are there bright line rules or tolerance thresholds?  If something contains saccharin, is it automatically unnatural?  Preservatives?  What if those preservatives are natural, like salt?  Is using natural means to preserve food beyond its natural shelf life, perhaps, still unnatural?  Is the act of man planting food and tending to it unnatural in itself, as opposed to naturally-occurring foods?   What about fish farms?  Genetically engineered produce?


I guess my point it... I don't think there can be a definition for "all natural" because I think it is almost impossible to create a definition that can be uniformly applied, such as ones for "organic" or "non-fat."  For something to be organic, it has to meet certain farming practice guidelines.  For something to be non-fat, it has to have less than 1 gram of fat per serving.  But, "all natural"?  The guidelines would be so exhaustive that they would be ridiculous.  Technology and scientific advancement have become so intertwined with our food that it becomes increasingly difficult to define what is "natural" anymore.  Some processes have been around for so long and are so common to us, that we don't even think about the fact that we, as man, have created these processes.  If we created a race of genetically enhanced super-chickens that were as big as turkeys and grew at 10x the normal rate, after 100 years or so, these chickens would probably be considered natural to most people.  They would be breeding on their own, and they would be these chickens from birth, with no interference from man whatsoever.  Sure, if you traced back their lineage to their inception... man created them... but at that point, what would that really mean anymore?


To conclude my post, I think I just want to reiterate a sentiment I expressed in a previous post:  "It seems that the more immersed I get in technology and convenience, the more I feel that I need to get away from it to feel like myself."  I think this is becoming increasingly true for the human race in general.  The more we rely on technology and the more it permeates our society, the more we want to reject and escape it.  And I think this is most apparent in the trends we are seeing in our perception of food.  People want "organic", "all natural", "locally grown", "free range", "hormone-free", "farmers markets", "micro-farming".  And, they will pay more for simpler food.  Basically, they are paying to not have the technology.  Kind of an interesting observation, I think.  And, thus, the proliferation of the term "all natural."  People will pay more to see it on the box because of what they believe it means.  So, next time you buy "all natural", make sure you look at the ingredients list before you pay that extra fifty cents...