"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...

Swallowed Up by Summer

I realize I have been MIA for quite a while in the blogosphere (I really like that word).  The only explanation I have is that I have been swallowed up by summer.

For children, summer is a time of no commitments, sleeping in, playing all day, and just plain getting bored.  Even for some adults, it is full of vacations, long weekends, short workdays, "working from home".  I really want to know what companies these people work for.  Seriously.  I have seen so many people write on Facebook that they are working "summer hours" (what are those!?), or working from home, or having a 3-day weekend.  Perhaps the Unicorn Wonderland of Fairytale Professions is hiring...

For most people, myself included, summer is where your free time goes to die.  It seems like summer is the time when you could actually use the free time but can never seem to find it.  I guess that's why people do "spring cleaning" and not "summer cleaning."  No time to do it in the summer!

In the summer, the weather is beautiful and the sunshine beckons to you to come out and play.  It's the time for picnics, barbecues, the zoo, al fresco dining, theme parks, trips to the lake, even just sitting outside on your patio.  Anything that takes place outside... summer is the best, and sometimes only, time for it.  If only you could find the time for the things you want to do between all of your other commitments!  Weddings, family reunions, holidays, graduation parties, on and on.  I guess everyone else realizes that summer is the best time for most things, as well.

Back in the spring, I remember that my husband Mr. Social Chair told me his goal for the summer was to "do something with other people every week."  I told him my goal was to "have at least one free weekend."  Last weekend, I finally got my free weekend!  Hooray!  I used it to catch up on all of the things I have been needing to do and haven't had the time to... mostly household chores, sadly.  For about 2 months straight, I swear we had a commitment every single weekend.  Sometimes they were "fun" commitments, but commitments nonetheless.  Maybe I am a fun-hater, but even fun commitments are exhausting and I often begrudge them the loss of my free time just as much as a boring commitment.  Anything that eats into my free time is seen as the enemy.  Is it so much to ask to have two full days of relaxation and being able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no prior commitments?  I don't think so.  That is all I want in the summer, and it is what I can rarely get.  Sigh.

Now that the 4th is over, however, July is a wide-open month of zero commitments.  It is a glorious month, indeed.  My birthday is this weekend, and my wedding anniversary is the next, but I have no plans for either.  And, I am loving it!  I told Steve I wanted to at least do something for my birthday, and I decided I probably want to go pig out on crab legs somewhere.  He said that maybe we can invite another couple, and you know what?  I don't even want to invite anyone to my birthday feast (except maybe Steve, of course).  I just want to sit down and eat ungodly amounts of crab legs, then go home, lazy around the house and go to bed by 11.  And for our anniversary?  I want to see the new Harry Potter movie.  That's it.  I don't even have a desire to make actual plans to see it... I just want to see it at some point.

I think all of the busy-ness of May and June has caused me to avoid making plans of any kind because they are just overwhelming and saddening to me at this point... like I'm in a cage.  I want no plans.  No commitments.  Care-free, spontaneous summer.  Maybe we will actually find time to finish unpacking boxes from when we moved 8 months ago, or maybe I will actually organize my closets, or cook a real meal more than once a week... or, gasp, do some recreational writing.  Who knows?  Anything is possible in The Land of No Commitments.

I may have been swallowed up by summer, but it has now spit me out again.  I hope I left a bitter taste in its mouth, because I would really enjoy if it didn't catch up with me again this year.

My Blog Gets Results!

I've found that having a blog makes me feel a bit like I have a secret link to the universe.  As if when I post an entry, the powers-that-be take notice.  My thoughts are released into cyberspace, and who knows what ripple effect my inane ramblings may cause.

Okay, actually, I realize my blog is not changing lives... and most people probably have zero interest in sampling the byproduct of my boredom.  But, a blog does lend to its creator a certain amount of self-esteem when that little "view count" ticker goes up, or when someone comments on a post.  I admit that my level of self-importance may have crept up a bit thanks to having my online voice back in operation.  No need to worry about me getting a big head - my level of self-importance was pretty low to begin with.

I don't post to get noticed, but I appreciate when people give my blog notice.  For those that do notice, I like to feel that I'm at least filling someone's time with something more enjoyable than staring blankly into space.  I think that's a realistic and respectable goal...

This clever set-up brings me to the title of my post:  My Blog Gets Results!  Yes, it is true, readers.  I have single-handedly effected change in the world.  Perhaps that is not entirely true... but I do know that at least one incident has occurred as a result of my blog, and I am choosing to irrationally believe that the other may also be a result of my blog.

First incident:  A couple of weeks after writing my "Baby Factory" post, I received a package in the mail... right around Mother's Day, in fact.  I opened it, and encased within was a gift from my mother-in-law.  I unwrapped it, and to my amusement, it held the exact t-shirt that I posted a picture of in that blog:  Baby Factory Closed.  My blog led to me getting an amusing gift related to my post!  The epitome of success!  Obviously, this was the incident that definitely occurred as a result of my blog.  Ahh, the sweet smell of validation...

Second incident:  After writing my "Library of Judgment" post, I went to the library to check out a book.  Judgmental librarian was nowhere to be found.  I not-so-secretly hope his employment has been terminated.  No, that's not the incident, though it was a welcomed bonus.  When I went to the counter to check out my book, the librarian asked if I would like to try self-checkout.  I asked what it was, and she politely led me to a cluster of kiosks to show me.  Self-checkout is exactly what it sounds like - you check out your own books!  (Actually... I did this in college, as well...so not exactly a new concept.)  So, I just swiped my card, scanned my book, and walked out.  I then realized that I never have to interact with the judgmental librarian ever again!  I can check out all the guilty pleasure reading I desire, free of judgmental looks.  You have no idea of the amount of relief that I feel.  Seriously, this is going to make my life much happier and less stressful (is that a little bit sad?...).  I will now look forward to checking out my next Nora Roberts book!  And, I like to think my blog post at least sent out positive vibes to the universe, which led to this magnificent development.  Regardless of the fact that my blog didn't cause this incident per se, it was a fantastic coincidence that the library got self-checkout only a few days after I composed my blog post.

Ask and you shall receive!

King of the Creepy-Crawlies

Last week, I went into the unfinished part of our basement to feed the cat.  When I opened the door, I saw a huge bug dart under the laundry pile.  I, of course, proceeded to scream and frantically look for a sturdy object with which to crush the pesky intruder.  The hubby's sneaker would have to suffice.  Amidst my gagging and screams of "Ewwww!" and "It's in the laundry!", I managed to gather the courage to unveil the creature hiding within the pile of clothes.  I lifted a shirt, and before it could scurry back into the safety of the unkempt mound, I swatted it with the shoe.  It took three hefty swats to topple the giant pest, and the disgusting crunch released with the final blow made my stomach feel a bit like when you go down that first big hill on a roller coaster.

You may ask yourself, "Just what was this resilient beast of a bug?"  Readers, it is the most vile of all indoor creepy-crawlies, and my personal nemesis... the house centipede.  Anyone who has encountered one of these horrible creatures probably just gagged, shuddered, or screamed in terror at the mere mention of its name.  It is undoubtedly the ugliest, creepiest, grossest (etc.) arthropod I have ever encountered.  I say arthropod because I would venture to claim that I hate house centipedes more than any member of the arthropod phylum - and that includes scorpions, millipedes, spiders, and all insects.  Basically, think of any creepy-crawly that may lurk within the confines of your home... and I would rank house centipedes above all of them on my list of "most hated" bugs.  For those of you lucky enough to have never seen one of these things, here is a lovely picture of one, so you can identify them in the future:

Just looking at this picture is giving me anxiety, thinking about all the places in my house one could be lurking. Shudder.


To give you a visual, these demons are usually anywhere from one inch (in body length) to three inches long.  I've never seen one bigger than that, though who knows if they exist.  Their legs splay out and look like feathers from a distance.  They run extremely fast, and are often out of sight before you can grab something to smash them.  I would say they run "creepily" fast.  It doesn't seem possible for something that small to move that quickly.  Those ridiculously long legs must really carry them.  Also, though I found this one on the floor, I often find them on the wall or the ceiling.  Seeing one of these suckers scurry across your wall is not the most enjoyable experience, especially when you bat at it, and it falls on your floor/bed/couch and disappears out of sight.  Who knows where it could be lurking?!

I have also learned that cats are extremely interested in house centipedes.  My cat goes into "hunt" mode when she sees one; she reacts as if it is a bird or other equally interesting subject.  Usually it is my cat's behavior that has alerted me to a house centipede's presence.  She will chase it, stalk it, bat at it, try to climb up the wall to get it, and generally make all kinds of noises when she spots one.  More than once, I have been woken up by paws scraping the walls and crying or chirping noises from my cat, and upon seeing her eyes focused in attention on a spot on the wall/ceiling, I immediately would get a sense of dread, grab the nearest shoe/magazine, and flip on the lights, prepared for attack.  Without fail, a house centipede would be lurking in the spot on which she was so intently focused, and I would swat it (this leaves a BIG brown mark on your wall - be warned).  Knowing that these things were crawling on my floors/walls/ceilings while I slept still gives me major heebie-jeebies.

I have done extensive research on these terrible creatures over the past 6 years since my first encounter, initially to try to figure out what the heck was crawling on my walls, but now more out of curiosity on how to avoid/get rid of them.  Here's what I've learned:  they are "welcomed" pests, as they kill spiders and other things; they are venomous, but not a real danger; they like damp, cool places like the bathroom or basement; they often enter your home through your pipes; they can live up to five (!) years; they have advanced eyes and can see you approaching; they like to come out at night; they are not silverfish; they will not attack you (I am not convinced).

I don't care how "useful" they are - they creep me out, and I want zero in my house.  I understand that they cannot hurt or kill me, but I still hate them the most.  When I rank my most hated list of "bugs", the most dangerous ones are not at the top.  "Scariest" bugs?  Sure, dangerous ones rank up there.  "Most hated"?  The creepiest ones win in that competition.

If I had to rank the top 5 most hated, it would probably be:

1) house centipedes,



2) millipedes,

3) praying mantises, 

4) stick insects, 

5) harvestmen (daddy long legs).

I know, my most hated bugs are all things that children find interesting and want to play with.  But, not this child.  No thank you.  I remember crying once when someone put a stick insect on me.  Yes, my country upbringing remains an enigma...

The Library of Judgment

A few months ago, I decided to join my county library so I could get some books to read on vacation.  My Nook taught me that I love free books (who knew?), so I figured my library would be a great way to get even more free books.  And, good ones, even.  I was a little apprehensive about the library because I had never really utilized a public library frequently in the past.  One of my many irrational fears is doing "new" things, however small, so I had some anxiety about visiting for the first time because I didn't know anything about the library and had never been.

I walked in, and I felt pretty good.  I talked to the lady at the counter, and she was very helpful in getting my library account set up and giving me a little introduction to the different sections of the library.  So, I found the section I wanted, got my books, and went up to the counter.  Up until this point, I was feeling pretty good about my new-found free book paradise.  And, I had my newest Sookie Stackhouse book in hand, ready for my vacation.

When I got up to the counter to check out my book, the man simply looked at me, took my book, and gave me a little slip and told me when it was due.  But, the way he looked at me... bothered me.  I felt like he was judging me for my book selection.  I had chosen a bestseller - a supernatural, "mindless" book.  I felt like he was looking at me like I was some vapid woman who couldn't be bothered with thinking too much and instead chose to live a life of leisure and shallow reading.  I know it's kind of self-indulgent, but I really want to feel like people perceive me as an intelligent, professional person most of the time.  I guess I want all of that schooling and hard work to count for something, even though I realize it's almost impossible to gauge a person's intelligence and achievement simply by their appearance or book choice.

Regardless, I felt judged by the librarian.  This probably goes back to my desire to believe that I like intelligent, high-brow, cultured entertainment.  But, as I've said, I can't help it - I love mindless reading.  In school, I always liked the classic novels.  Some of my favorites were A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, The Great Gatsby, and Sense and Sensibility.  Literary "greats", to be certain.  I still hold a place for books like that, but I find it exhausting to read "good" modern literature.  I want my book to be an escape.  I don't want boring but profound passages, I don't want to look for symbolism, and I don't want to feel like reading the book is a chore.  I know that some people love literary masterpieces, and they will only read "good" literature.  Sure, those are nice every once in a while, but I am just not that refined, I guess!  I like mainly romance and supernatural/action novels, even when I know they are not technically well-written.  I want something that holds my attention so much that I can't put the book down.  Books don't have to be great to be entertaining; it's nice if they're both, but that is rare, indeed.

I would love to be a book snob... I'd love to have great "taste", high standards, and be passionate about the written word (I suppose then I would be a librarian!).  But, I feel like that takes a lot of effort.  Instead, I guess I am a closet book snob.  I can tell the difference between "literature" and "books."  I can tell when an author is truly talented... and when they're not.  I know many of the books that I read are not "good" by critics' standards.  And, there is a big part of me that would love to impress the librarians with my book selections, a part of me that craves their approval when I bring that book up to the counter and feels a bit ashamed when I know my book selection is not exactly Pulitzer material.  I would love to hear a comment about how good a book is, or how they think I will enjoy it, or even a recommendation for "another" great read.  Maybe one day I will check out a critically acclaimed book just to see if I get a different reaction than when I check out my Nora Roberts paperback romance.

I doubt that's happening anytime soon, as the next 3 books in my "hold queue" are: the 2nd book in a young adult series, the book on which a recent chick-flick was based, and the newest Sookie Stackhouse novel.  But, you know what?  I bet I will enjoy every minute of them!

So, judge away, Mr. Librarian!  Your judgmental looks will not deter me from checking out my vapid literary entertainment, though it may make me feel ashamed while doing so...

For a huge collection of these memes, go here.  They are supposed to be about a bookseller, but they are all things I think the judgmental librarian is thinking...